|
Notify me of new HIR
pieces!
|
|||||||||||||||||
After ISIS
claimed responsibility for a massive terror attack in Paris, Margot
Wallstrom, on Swedish television, explained the radicalization of European
Muslims thus: “Palestinians see that there isn’t a future.”[1] A conditioned response,
as old as the West. Something bad happened? Blame a Jew. And don’t you worry
about making sense. Wallstrom
can do better. It is her job to do
better: she is the Swedish foreign minister. If she would only deputize
someone from her staff to do a few hours research she would find—in the
publicly available sources—the real cause of ISIS and its violence. (But
perhaps she’s done that already...) I shall
here briefly summarize what a few hours of research taught me. The American “jihadi university” and
the emergence of ISIS Under
Saddam Hussein, Iraq was not the best place in the world but neither was it
an apocalyptic cauldron of jihadist terror activity. It became the latter in
the wake of the US invasion. As the Iraqi desert boomed and bloomed in red
flames and black plumes, a rather large US-military prison system grew to
provide accommodations for the culprits—and many others. These confused
jihadists had obviously never heard the Western media gospel that Islam is
the religion of peace. In August 2007 Newsweek
reported that Maj. Gen. Douglas Stone, responsible for US ‘Detainee
Operations’ (prisons) in Iraq, had begun trying to ‘re-educate’ his charges
at Camps Cropper and Bucca into this kinder, gentler Islam. Success was
improbable: “Even General Stone admits that the jury is out on how well the
religious [re-education] classes may work on juveniles.” Sheik Jabbar, the
hapless cleric in charge, spoke with more candor: “If they let them out, they
would all become suicide bombers.” He meant his own students! Jabbar’s
program was small and weak. He had noticed only a small improvement in “some” of his students, and “he’s not sure
it’s going to last.” And what did “some” mean? Just three or four kids,
because “the religious education classes target a focus group of 10 young
men.” That was out of “approximately 3,800 detainees at Cropper.” The rival
jihadist education program, running concurrently, was more ambitious:
“detainees are now being brought into Cropper at the rate of roughly 60 a
day. As the detainees come in, the [jihadi] insurgents already in custody fan
out, looking for new recruits.”[2] Poor
Jabbar. His reeducation program seems like nothing more than a bit of
political correctness, displayed just to give the Newsweek reporter something
positive to report. For Jabbar was to empty an Islamist ocean with a
spoon—in the middle of a jihadi hurricane. Was that
hurricane US policy? Nazim
Al-Juburi, a prominent Al Qaeda defector, seemed to be of that opinion. In a
May 2008 interview he said: “We have spoken to the Americans more than once and told them
that they make a big mistake by giving many of our detained people in Camp
Bucca and other prisons a chance to be educated on this [jihadist] ideology.”[3] A month
later, Stone told the New York Times that
he was now separating ‘extremist’ from ‘moderate’ inmates so as to impede
this. But his prison system, he admitted, had been (his words) a “jihadi university.”[4] That is
exactly how another former detainee from Camp Bucca, Adel Jasim Mohammed,
described it: “ ‘Extremists had freedom to educate the young detainees. I
saw them giving courses using classroom boards on how to use explosives,
weapons and how to become suicide bombers,’ Mohammed said. ‘For the Americans we felt it was normal. They did not stop
them [the radicals].’ ”[5] This
“jihadi university” was running from 2003 until the US military initiated the
process to dismantle the prison system in late 2008. Five years—a bachelor’s degree. So even if we believe that Stone
really did begin a half-hearted attempt to fix the problem in mid-2008, the damage was
already—utterly—done. And at shut
down, the prisoners were simply released! As that
process began in late 2008, the New
York Times reported that local Iraqi sheiks, who were universally against
the prisoner releases, were warning US officials that dangerous AQI (Al Qaeda
in Iraq) murderers were among the freed. Those
AQI murderers would soon produce ISIS. Iraqi
government officials, for their part, asked for “access to American
intelligence in cases of potentially dangerous detainees so that they could
issue arrest warrants and then either hold the detainees themselves or ask
the Americans to continue to hold them.” The Americans refused, claiming they
had to protect their sources (in order to protect sources, apparently, you
allow the murderers they informed on to roam free).[5a] The
outcome? A universal consensus in the mainstream mass media now considers the
US “jihadi university” in Iraq as the platform for ISIS. Mother Jones, for example, published a piece with the title: “Was Iraq’s Top
Terrorist Radicalized at a US-Run Prison?”[6] The New York Times ran the headline, “How
America helped ISIS,” charging that “The prisons became virtual terrorist
universities: The hardened radicals were the professors, the other detainees
were the students, and the prison authorities played the role of absent
custodian.”[7] And the Washington Post had an article titled
“How the Islamic State evolved in an American prison,” stating that “nine
members of the Islamic State’s top command did time at Camp Bucca,” including
Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, the group’s top leader. The Post quoted a report by a US soldier that explained how the
extremists ran the inmates according to Sharia law, and anybody guilty of
‘Western’ behavior was “severely punished.” The US prisons in Iraq midwifed an important merger. At Camp Bucca, the fascist but secular Baathists got Islamist religion, and the Islamist but disorganized jihadists acquired Baathist organizational skills. And so, “from the ashes of what former inmates called an ‘al-Qaeda school’ rose the Islamic State.”[8] On all
this, the media imposed the usual ‘mistakes were made’ and ‘impossible
choices’ interpretations. But there is one small problem: after releasing its
“jihadi university” graduates, the Pentagon directly assisted their
offspring, the ‘Syrian rebels.’ But did they know who these ‘Syrian rebels’
were? And where they came from? Yes
they did. The ‘jihadi university’ graduates
produced the ‘Syrian opposition’—and the Pentagon always knew this On August
2012, US military intelligence produced a secret report since obtained and
published by Judicial Watch.[9]
The report, which makes clear what the Pentagon knew, states: “The Salafist[s], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al Qaeda in
Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.” Some
definitions: Salafist = influential jihadist, terrorist
ideology Muslim Brotherhood = Salafist organization Al Qaeda in
Iraq (AQI) = Salafist
organization that, in August 2012, was still making public statements
“through the spokesman of the Islamic State in Iraq” or ISI, later to call
itself Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). According
to this Pentagon report, the main sponsor
of the “Syrian opposition” was AQI—the “jihadi university” graduates! The
report says: “AQI is familiar with Syria. AQI trained in Syria and then
infiltrated into Iraq. AQI supported
the Syrian opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and through
the media. ...AQI conducted a number of operations in several Syrian cities
under the name of Jaish al Nusra (Victorious Army), one of its affiliates.”
(emphasis added) What would
probably happen? According to the Pentagon, “If the situation unravels there is the possibility of
establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria
(Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is
exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want...” (emphasis
added) Who are
these “supporting powers to the opposition”? As the same document explains, “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey
support the opposition” (emphasis added). “The West” here means the US, British, and French power elites
(at least). The
Pentagon perceived “...an ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets
in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the
presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of
the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the
dissenters [= Shias]. ISI could also
declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations
in Iraq and Syria...” (emphasis added) What
happened? It really is uncanny: exactly
what the Pentagon predicted. AQI returned to Mosul and Ramadi and ISI
joined with other terror groups and declared an Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria (ISIS). Is this
what the Pentagon wanted? One
hypothesis—always preferred by the media, and never presented as a hypothesis
but as an axiom of correct thinking—says no:
this was all a mistake. I call it the ‘Establishment hypothesis.’ The
alternative hypothesis, never considered, says yes: this was all quite intentional. Let us
consider the evidence, and then decide. The CIA was
reported to be running a program to arm the ‘Syrian opposition’ as early as June 2012. “The arms themselves,”
it was said, “are coming from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.” Since Turkey
is run by an Islamist party, and the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Qatar are
both ‘Wahhabi’—a virtual synonym of ‘Salafi’—it follows that all parties sponsoring this CIA
weapons program for the ‘Syrian opposition’—except for the US sponsors—were
openly Islamist. And as the August 2012 report makes clear, the Pentagon knew
that the weapons were going mainly to its “jihadi university” graduates. Of course,
officially, it was claimed that the weapons were for “opposition groups seen
as most friendly to the U.S.”, which is code for democratic, secular moderates.[10] To be fair, we must consider this
claim. Every time
someone in the US power elite made a public call for assistance to the
‘Syrian opposition,’ Ausama (or Osama) Monajed—or some substitute spokesman
for something calling itself the Syrian National Council (SNC)—was trotted
out to echo agreement and give legitimacy. For good measure, Monajed or some
other SNC stalwart would complain about “ ‘the militiamen of Assad,’ ” who
allegedly do nothing but visit terror on Syrian civilians: “ ‘who come and
rape their women, slaughter their children, and kill their elderly.’ ” This
supported the US official line because the SNC was “generally recognized” by
the Western media as “ ‘the main opposition coalition’ ” and portrayed as a
group of pristine, freedom-fighting, liberal democrats. So the
hypothesis that the US really was supporting moderate democrats in Syria
would appear to be as good as the democratic purity of the SNC. Two problems.
First, accusations against the Assad regime always came from the same doubtful source, and were never
verified. Second: “the SNC... includes the Muslim Brotherhood.”[11] An additional problem is that the CIA
weapons for the ‘Syrian opposition’ were “funneled mostly across the Turkish
border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim
Brotherhood.”[11a] From its
inception, the SNC and its powerful US ‘handlers’ acted as a lobbying front
in the West for the Free Syrian Army (FSA),[12]
which claimed to be a group of former Syrian Army officers fighting the Assad
regime in order to stop what they alleged were Assad’s attacks against
civilians. And this, I will allow, sounds good, and supports the US official
line.[12a] However, in
November 2012, “under Western pressure” (underline
those words), the ‘Syrian
opposition’ was “reorganized..., into
a new National Alliance,” or National Coalition, in meetings held in Doha,
Qatar.[13]
One third of the seats went to the SNC; the other two-thirds to committed and
proud Islamists.[14]
In December, with “security officials from the United States, Britain,
France, the Gulf and Jordan” watching over, the FSA was also reorganized. “The unified command [of the new FSA] includes many with ties
to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Salafists… It excludes the most senior
officers who had defected from Assad’s military. Its composition, estimated to be two-thirds from the Muslim
Brotherhood and its allies, reflects the growing strength of Islamist
fighters on the ground and resembles that of the civilian opposition
leadership coalition created under Western and Arab auspices in Qatar last
month.”[15] A pithy summary
goes like this: just three months
after the Pentagon recognized in its August 2012 report that the ‘Syrian
opposition’ movement was basically an Islamist jihad, US powerbrokers purged non-Islamists from those
‘Syrian opposition’ groups they had pledged themselves to support, pushing to
one side the founders of the FSA. This was no
mistake. There was
more money, weapons, and training for the new FSA. And just a few months
later, much of the FSA, now chock-full of Islamists, did the natural thing
and joined ISIS, taking their US-supplied weaponry and training with them.[16] “For a long time, Western and Arab states supported the Free
Syrian Army not only with training but also with weapons and other materiel.
The Islamic State commander, Abu Yusaf, added that members of the Free Syrian
Army who had received training—from the United States, Turkey and Arab
military officers at an American base in Southern Turkey—have now joined the
Islamic State. ‘Now many of the FSA people who the West has trained are
actually joining us,’ he said, smiling.”[17] A good many
other ISIS jihadists also received
US training during the ‘Arab Spring,’ when US powerbrokers claimed—as they
always do—that they were training democratic ‘freedom fighters.’[18]
In light of
this evidence, I would not know how to begin defending the Establishment
hypothesis. So perhaps the alternative hypothesis, which has the US power
elite favoring the growth of violent Muslim radicalism—deserves a fair
hearing. Especially since that hypothesis, which HIR has defended for some
time, led to predictions, made
back in May 2011, now confirmed by the US-sponsored rise of ISIS. But why did
the US power elite create ISIS? That is an interesting question, to be
addressed in a future piece.
Related readings Here Comes the Muslim Brotherhood The religion of peace? Dhimmitude and slavery Footnotes and further reading [1] “Israel
condemns ‘hostile’ Swedish comments linking Paris attacks to
Israeli-Palestinian conflict”; Jerusalem
Post; 16 November 2015; by Tovah Lazaroff [2] “Iraqi
Prison Tries to Un-Brainwash Radical Youth”; Newsweek; 8 August 2007; By Babak Dehghanpisheh [3] BBC Monitoring Middle East – Political; Supplied by
BBC Worldwide Monitoring; May 2, 2008 Friday; “Iraq: TV carries second part
of interview with former Al-Qa’idah member”; LENGTH: 2860 words; ["Death
Industry" programme, presented by Rima Salihah recorded] [4]
“U.S. Remakes Jails in Iraq, but Gains Are at Risk”; The New York Times; June 2, 2008; SECTION: Section A; Column 0;
Foreign Desk; Pg. 1; LENGTH: 2798 words; DATELINE: BAGHDAD; By ALISSA J.
RUBIN; Thom Shanker contributed reporting from Washington. [5]
“US Iraq jail an ‘al-Qaeda school’ ”; 12 December 2009; Aljazeera.net [5a] “A
Puzzle Over Prisoners as Iraqis Take Control”; The New York Times; 25 October 2008; SECTION: Section A; Column
0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 1; LENGTH: 1665 words; DATELINE: CAMP BUCCA, Iraq; By
ALISSA J. RUBIN [6]
“Was Iraq’s Top Terrorist Radicalized at a US-Run Prison?: A former US
military compound commander at Camp Bucca suspects ISIS chief Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi's extremism was fostered (or bolstered) at the facility”; Mother Jones; 11 July 2014; by Jenna
McLaughlin [7] “How America Helped ISIS”; New
York Times; 1 October 2014; by ANDREW THOMPSON and JEREMI SURIOCT [8] “How the Islamic State evolved in an American prison”; Washington Post; 4 November 2014; by
Terrence McCoy [9] https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf [10] “Report:
US Helping Syrian Rebels Arm, Fight”; VOA
News; June 21, 2012. [11] “The
Syrian opposition: who’s doing the talking?”; The Guardian; 12 July 2012; by Charlie Skelton Question: Were the accusations against
Assad true? The media never bothered to check these allegations, reporting
behind the convenient formula of “we cannot confirm,” and basically letting
the accusations stand. They didn’t seem to care, either, that such
accusations almost always came from one—and only one—source: the august-sounding
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), which turns out to be (mostly)
one man, Rami Abdulrahman (who runs a clothes shop in Coventry, UK). [See the above referenced Guardian article.] [11a] “C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms
to Syrian Opposition”; New York Times;
21 June 2012; Page A1; by Eric Schmitt [12] “Syria opposition groups agree to
coordinate efforts: The Free Syrian Army agrees to scale back its campaign of
attacks on Syrian forces after talks with the Syrian National Council, which
advocates nonviolence”; Los Angeles
Times; 1 December 2011; By Alexandra Zavis and Rima Marrouch [12a] Monajed and other senior SNC
‘spokespeople’ look every bit the part of US power-elite puppies, often seen
at the White House, and shuttling back and forth between the Council on
Foreign Relations, the Ford Foundation, the Bilderberg meetings, the Henry
Jackson Society, and other powerful think tanks in the US and Britain
chock-full of intelligence, military, and diplomatic honchos such as Brent
Scowcroft (former National Security Advisor), Zbigniew Brzezinski (same), and
James Woolsey (former CIA Director). See: “The Syrian opposition:
who’s doing the talking?”; The Guardian;
12 July 2012; by Charlie Skelton [13] “Syria Rebels Create New Unified Military Command”; The World Post; 8 December 2012; BYLINE: Bassem Mroue and Ben Hubbard, Associated Press [14] “Syrian
opposition groups reach unity deal”; Los
Angeles Times; 12 November 2012; BYLINE: Abdullah Rebhy, Associated Press [15] “Syrian
rebels elect head of new military command”; 8 December 2012; Reuters [16] “FREE
SYRIAN ARMY REBELS DEFECT TO ISLAMIST GROUP JABHAT AL-NUSRA: The
well-resourced organisation, which is linked to al-Qaida, is luring many
anti-Assad fighters away, say brigade commanders”; The Guardian; 8 May 2013; by
Mona Mahmood and Ian Black [17] “THE
TERRORISTS FIGHTING US NOW? WE JUST FINISHED TRAINING THEM: No, the enemy of
our enemy is not our friend”; Washington
Post; 18 August 2014; By Souad Mekhennet [18]
“...Some European and Arab intelligence
officials also voiced their worries and frustration about what they call the
mistakes the United States has made in handling the uprisings in Arab states.
“We had, in the early stages, information that radical groups had used the
vacuum of the Arab Spring, and that some of the people the U.S. and their
allies had trained to fight for ‘democracy’ in Libya and Syria had a jihadist
agenda — already or later, [when they] joined al Nusra or the Islamic State,”
a senior Arab intelligence official said in a recent interview. He said that
often his U.S. counterparts would say things like, “We know you are right,
but our president in Washington and his advisers don’t believe that.” Those
groups, say Western security officials, are threats not only in the Middle
East, but also in the United States and Europe, where they have members and
sympathizers. The official’s account has been corroborated by members of the
Islamic State in and outside the Middle East, including Abu Yusaf, the
military commander. In several interviews conducted in the last two months,
they described how the collapse of security during Arab Spring uprisings
helped them recruit, regroup and use the Western strategy — to support and
train groups that fight dictators — for their own benefits. “There had [also]
been … some British and Americans who had trained us during the Arab Spring
times in Libya,” said a man who calls himself Abu Saleh and who only agreed
to be interviewed if his real identity remained secret.” SOURCE: “THE
TERRORISTS FIGHTING US NOW? WE JUST FINISHED TRAINING THEM: No, the enemy of
our enemy is not our friend”; Washington
Post; 18 August 2014; By Souad Mekhennet |
Notify me of new HIR
pieces!
|
