Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: MitchellC
...who in the CIA has come forth admitting to have funded/trained/whatevered OBL in Afghanistan?

That'll be in the classified operation histories. Understandably, its hard to imagine Langley rushing to take credit for OBL.
Plausible deniability isn't a punchline at the CIA.

According to the unclassified 1998 CIA biography of bin Laden: By 1984 Osama was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar (MAK) --which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.

MAK was funded and supplied by the Pakistan’s state security services (ISI). The CIA didn't trust the native tribal factions in Afghanistan, --quite probably they couldn't understand --or "read" the loyalties of the rivalry-ridden natives.
But for whatever reason, and as a matter of public record, the CIA was willing to deal with the ISI, and let the ISI pick the out the good chaps from the bad.

As Arabs militants flocked to Afghanistan from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia; The ISI gave them money and guns, too.
One of those groups being Osama bin Laden's MAK.

By the end of the Afghan war in 1989, with the Soviets ousted from Afghanistan, bin Laden was welcomed home by the Saudi monarchy. --But like many other Afghan vets, or Afghanis as the Arab mujahedeen called themselves, Osama bin Laden had gone radical.
In fact, while he returned to his family’s construction business, bin Laden had already split from the relatively conventional MAK in 1988 and established a new group, al-Qaida, that included many of the more extreme MAK members he had met in Afghanistan.

In 2001, Al Qaeda's number two leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, confirmed that the Afghanis did not receive any U.S. funding during the war in Afghanistan. Although technically correct, al-Zawahiri failed to note the funding provided by the ISI, or the funding provided by the Saudi royals, matching the CIA dollar-for-dollar, passing thru the same ISI conduit.

Pakistan is not a rich country and little known for waging covert wars, but their ISI is not above a little under the table dealing.
Especially when the big dogs like the United States and the Saudis are playing ... and paying.

So do you think it was tax-dollars from the CIA or petro-dollars from Saudi Arabia? Or was it a little double dealing by the ISI?

Or just a classic case of plausible deniability?

251 posted on 05/17/2007 5:20:58 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies ]

To: dread78645; DAVEY CROCKETT; FARS
My doubts about a direct CIA-OBL dealing come mostly from Richard Miniter's work. It doesn't matter much to me either way - but I do hate to see people use the allegation of a link to try to prove that America "had it coming," in whatever way, without at least trying to prove that the link really existed.

Here's one article written by Miniter that challenges the link. Allegedly OBL's funds came from the Saudis matching US dollars, not actual US dollars.

To say that the ISI may have mixed the funds is a far cry from proving that the US supplied OBL "with the best of the best military equipment we had," as Davey Crockett wrote. I await the weblink from FARS though.

258 posted on 05/17/2007 12:12:53 PM PDT by MitchellC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson