A must read op-ed in the LA Times, by Raymond Ibrahim:

[..] when Muslims beat infidels, it’s just too bad for the latter; they must submit to their new overlords’ rules with all the attendant discrimination and humiliation mandated for non-Muslims. Yet when Islam is beaten, demands for apologies and concessions are expected from the infidel world at large.

[..] If some Muslims wish to wage eternal jihad until Islam dominates the globe, they are only being true to Islam and its doctrines as they understand it. However, in that case, where the world is divided into two warring camps, Islam and Infidelity — or, in Islamic terms, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War — how can these Muslims expect any concessions from the international community? The natural conclusion of the view that “might makes right” is “to the victor go the spoils.”

[..] But perhaps Muslims cannot be blamed for expecting special treatment, as well as believing that jihad is righteous and decreed by the Almighty. The West constantly goes out of its way to confirm such convictions. By criticizing itself, apologizing and offering concessions — all things the Islamic world has yet to do — the West reaffirms that Islam has a privileged status in the world.

[..] Muslims’ zeal for their holy places and lands is not intrinsically blameworthy. Indeed, there’s something to be said about being passionate and protective of one’s own. Here the secular West — Christendom’s prodigal son and true usurper — can learn something from Islam. For whenever and wherever the West concedes ideologically, politically and especially spiritually, Islam will be sure to conquer. If might does not make right, zeal apparently does.

So anyone going demand an apology for court ordered Bible burning in Uzbekistan? Can we get a little outrage at Christians, including priests, beaten and their Bibles burned in Kyrzystan? Christian priests brutally tortured and murdered in Pakistan and Kurdistan? Christians not being allowed to repair their churches in Egypt or churches demolished in Pakistan and Malaysia or burned in Nigeria? Christian schoolgirls beheaded in Indonesia (their parents said they forgave the killers)? Any imams, muftis, sheikhs out there apologised for any of this yet?

Raymond Ibrahim, an assistant in the African and Middle Eastern Division of the Library of Congress, has a book coming out called “The Al Qaeda Reader” which will be published April 17th 2007. The book contains “translations of religious texts and propaganda”, tracing “the origins and evolution of Al Qaeda” and “revealing an ideology that calls for a relentless jihad against non-Muslim “infidels,” repudiates democracy in favor of Islamic law, stresses the importance of martyrdom, and mocks the notion of “moderate” Islam.”

You can find more great op-eds from him on Victor Davis Hanson’s site.

(h/t Snapshots)

The Caucasus is a region where the memory of war is all too recent and its horrors all too familiar, yet despite that its return is seemingly all but inevitable again. For centuries located at the meeting point of three empires – the Russian/Soviet, the Iranian/Persian and the Turkish/Ottoman, the Caucasus been a battle ground where these empires fought each other and fought to subdue the ethnic Caucasian nations and tribes, while the Caucasians fought each other. The temporary stability enforced by the Soviet Union evaporated with it and the 90s saw a number of conflicts ignite or reignite in the region. As recently as a year or two ago it seemed that the Caucasus was again heading for a lasting stability, besides the ongoing, although hushed up, Chechen insurgency that is, as Westerm influence grew in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan and Russia itself was still keeping up some appearance of embracing Western style democracy.

How much things have changed in a year.

Another war in the Caucasus is on the way. And not necessarily in the shape that a scan of current news headlines may bring to mind.

Russia reloads.

By default the suspicion for any destabilisation of the region first falls on Russia, the “re-emerging empire”, as the Georgian President Sakashvilli recently referred to it. So far its “re-emergence” has mostly been by non-military means, ie via its all but official foreign policy of energy blackmail. Re-enabling it’s military options however is evidently on the minds of Moscow’s policy makers too. Russia has increased its national defence budget from 140 billion rubles ($5.2 billion) in 2001, to 870 billion rubles ($32.4 billion) in 2007. Thats an increase of more than 6 times. What these numbers translate to in terms of strategic capabilities is of course another matter – how this money is spent is shrouded in secrecy, as tends to be the case in authoritarian regimes, and budget secrecy has the downside of massive built in inefficiency. (In light of which perhaps Putin should rethink his personal motto of “Get rich and keep quiet”. What is that about?) The Russian military consists of between 1.3 and 4 million people, depending on how you define “military” – an area where the Russians like to get creative, depending on the impression they seek to project – which suggests an expensive luxury.

Said Russian Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov last month:

“When I came to the Defense Ministry, its budget was some 140 billion rubles. This was in 2001. The figure that has almost been agreed upon for 2007 is about 870 billion rubles. As they say, compare and feel the difference”

Georgian overconfidence.

One Caucasian nation that could really be “feeling the difference” is of course Georgia, incidentally the fastest-arming country in the world, which has two regions attempting to secede and join Russia – Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Georgia is making a nice profit from the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline that went online in June, and is expected to produce about 1.5% of its national income. Much like increased oil revenue has allowed the Russians its military spending indulgences, Georgia has been using its newly acquired funds (recently offset by the Russian blockade) for a massive beefing up of its military, Jane’s reports:

Under Minister of Defence Irakli Okruashvili, Georgian militarisation is proceeding apace. Spending has risen from less than USD25 million in 2002 to an exceptional USD337 million in 2006; from 0.7 to 5 per cent of GDP. Maximum force strength has been increased and an army reserve of 100,000 trained civilians is being created. Significant stocks of armoured vehicles, artillery and attack helicopters have been procured. A major ‘NATO-standard’ base has been constructed close to Abkhazia and another is underway near South Ossetia.

It now seems that it is Georgia that has overplayed its hand with its recent posturing over the Russian spy scandal, while attempting to draw international attention to Russian encouragement of its separatist regions. Not only have the Russians come down hard on Georgia, international condemnation has also been falling on the Georgians for initially escalating the affair. Counting on Western support President Mikhail Saakashvili may be preparing for an attempt to regain control of the break away regions by force. The Russians on the other hand are drawing attention to the various new nations whose separatist movements the West has encouraged – most recently Montenegro, and most importantly in the near future, Kosovo – as examples of Western self-serving hypocrisy.

Burning for vengeance in the Land of Eternal Fire.

But of course the possibility of confict between Georgia and Russia is a surprise to noone right now. In fact there is another conflict in the Caucasus which seems far more certain.

Also benefitting nicely from the BTC pipeline, but lacking the media attention, is Georgia’s neighbour, Azerbaijan, the economy of which is expected to grow 18% as a result of the pipeline. Like Georgia it is spending much of its profits on arming itself. On October 18th Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev announced that Azerbaijan’s defense expenditures will rise to $1 billion in 2007. Thats compared to $300 million in 2005. The Azeris fought a war with Armenia after the parliament of its Nagorno-Karabakh region, which has an Armenian majority, voted to join Armenia back in 1988. The first Nagorno-Karabakh War ended in 1994, claiming about 35,000 lives. In that conflict Armenia’s military proved superior. Now Azerbaijan is getting busy attempting to correct its disatvantage. Armenia on the other hand, which has no oil to sell, had a defence budget of $160 million this year and their entire national budget in 2005 was $930.7 million, which is less than next year’s defence budget alone for the Azeris. The status of the Nagorno-Karabakh region remains disputed, with no country officially recognising its independence. Armenia and Azerbaijan remain at a stand off, technically still at war, however the regions outskirts are currently a site of daily skirmishes and sniper attacks which, together with landmines claim about a 100 lives a year. 2006 was seen as a window of opportunity for resolving the conflict with diplomacy, as neither nation had an election this year. The window is fast closing. Some progress has been made in negotiating the return of areas that Armenia occupied during the last war that were strategically important for the defence of Nagorno-Karabakh. But the real source of their disagreements – the status of Nagorno-Karabakh itself – is no closer to resolution than it was a decade ago.

An incident that reflects the depths of the animosity between the two nations occured in Budapest, Hungary, in 2004 at a training seminar which was part of the Partnership for Peace NATO-sponsored program. One early morning an Azerbaijani officer, Ramil Safarov, came into the bedroom where the Armenian Lieutenant Gurgen Markaryan was sleeping and hacked him to death with an axe. In response to the incident the human rights commissioner of Azerbaijan, Elmira Suleymanova, stated that “Safarov must become an example of patriotism for the Azerbaijani youth.” An Azeri political scientist, Zardusht Alizade, is also quoted as saying that Safarov “will be raised to the status of a national hero”. And Farida Askerova, Chairwoman of the Organization for the Liberation of Karabakh women’s board: “The young people ought to be ready for the holy war; every mother must raise a son to fight for the Motherland”.

And in February of this year, the following from Iskander Gamidov of the opposition National Democratic Party of Azerbaijan:

“Maybe in a month, maybe in a year or two, but sooner or later war will be inevitable. We should prepare for it and prepare society,” This was said a roundtable meeting titled ‘Prospects for the Karabakh settlement by military means’.

In a recent development Arkady Gukasian, the President of Nagorno-Karabakh signed a decree on November 3rd to hold a referendum Dec. 10 regarding the draft of the Nagorno-Karabakh Constitution.

The big question is who the major regional and world powers will back in the conflict. The US is likely to do everything in its power to prevent a war. Firstly there are more Armenians in the US than in Armenia, making for a powerful lobby. Secondly the US has growing economic interests in Azerbaijan, due to energy investments. Azerbaijan has been growing into a regional energy hub, both as a source of oil and a post of transit from Caspian oil and gas from Central Asia. In addition Azerbijian is a potential, although reluctant ally against Iran. Also there are more Azeris in Iran than in Azerbijian, 17 million or 24% of Iran’s population in fact, something Iran is uneasy about. In any case Iran has been developing its ties with Armenia, in part to counter Turkish influence in Azerbaijan and in part to keep a lever against Baku. There is little scope for the US to take sides in any confict here – it wants the region stable. As does the EU, which is looking to diversify its energy sources away from Russia. If absolutely forced however the US would have to side with the Azeris. But Azeribaijan’s closest ally and firmest backer is Turkey, with many Azeri officers currently studying there. A Turkish trained and advised army fighting against Armenia adds another grim dimension to the developments (the official position of the Azeri government on the Armenian genocide, by the way, is one of outright denial). Moscow, although not hostile to Azerbaijan per se, is closely allied, through the CSTO, with Armenia, where it is has been aggressively buying up infrastructure and has as its ultimate goal control of the whole Caucasus.

An overcrowded chessboard.

And this is far from the end of the the smoldering problems in the Caucasus. The trouble for the Russians is far from over in Chechnya and is perhaps only starting in surrounding regions like Dagestan, North Ossetia and Ingushetia, no matter how hard Moscow likes to pretend it has the situation there under control. And the trouble hasn’t even started yet for the various foreign companies that have been investing in Caspian oil and gas and building pipelines across the Caucasus going through to the Black Sea and Turkey. The Caspian Pipeline Consortium’s (CPC) pipeline is the only pipeline on Russian soil that is not owned and controlled by the Russians – something Moscow is intent on remedying. They are also far from happy about any pipes taking energy resources out of Central Asia via any other route they don’t control, ie across Russian territory. As American influence has weakened in the region the Russians are growing bolder in enforcing their desires on their neighbours – and energy has been been their favored lever to push. The BTC pipeline, which passes through Azerbaijan and Georgia (avoiding CSTO member Armenia) into Turkey, drags a host of Western interests directly into the line of Russian ire, although that was part of the reason it was installed in the first place – Western economic involvement, and thus influence, in the region was one of the objectives, not a side effect. In reality should war break out the de facto over-involvement may morph into a liability. Kazakhstan also has a significant stake on oil sent through the BTC and another pipeline in a similar direction is likely in a couple of years for their massive Kashagan field in the north of the Caspian Sea. And lets not forget the Iranians. It was only in the 19th century that parts of the Caucasus, particularly in what is now Azerbaijan, were part of their empire, before the Czarist Russia made it a part of theirs. Iranian influence amongst the Shia of Azerbaijan has been increasing, as it has among all the Shia populations in the Middle East. Azeri President Ilham Aliyev has recently spoken out in support of the Iranians’ right to nuclear power development. At the same time Armenia’s relationship with Iran has also been warming. Armenia is reliant on Russia and Iran for its energy and has Russian military bases on its territory. As already mentioned, it is a member of the Russian led Collective Security Treaty Organization.

Implications and opportunities for the West.

Should another war over Nagorno-Karabagh prove imminent a number of opportunities may present themselves to the West in dealing its current problem numero uno, Iran:

1. Challenging the perception in the Muslim world that Iran is the new champion of Islam by hammering the fact that it is supporting (Christian) Armenia against (mostly Shia) Muslim Azerbaijan, thus shattering the image Tehran is trying to create as the global champion of Islam against the Zionist and Christian Crusaders. Actually Azerbaijan was briefly the world’s first Muslim republic between 1918 and 1920, before the Soviets took control, seeking access to Baku’s oil. Ironically Armenia claims to be the world’s first Christian state. Azerbaijan is a perfect candidate for a Western ally in the Muslim world. It remains largely secular, unafflicted by extremism (except a small but growing Salafist movement amongst Sunnis near the Dagestan border) and is even a prime example of religious tolerance. Baku has the largest Jewish synagogue in Europe, built there in 2003 and unlike Iran, Azerbaijan is proud of its Zoroastrian roots – the name Azerbaijan means Land of The Eternal Fire, a place where Zoroastrian fire temples flourished for thousands of years. In fact their main holiday is Novruz, from the Zoroastrian tradition.

2. Fermenting unrest in Northern Iran by turning the focus of Azeri nationalism towards South Azerbaijan – otherwise known is northwestern Iran. As much as the US wants the Caucasus stable (and Caspian oil flowing westward) if that is not achievable than the it is in its interest to have Iran destabilised and the Iranians know it. A possibility to explore is the brokering of a deal which would allow Nagorno-Karabagh independence in return for full US support for Azeri interests in Iran, perhaps even floating the idea of the formation of a Greater Azerbaijan. Iran should be as worried about the Azeri state as Turkey is about an independent Kurdistan. If the answer to Iraq is Tehran, could this be an opportunity to give them a riddle of their own?
The situation in Georgia is another reason for the Azebaijan to seek closer ties with the US – Russia is ultimately seeking regime change in Tbilisi. Should Georgia turn into a Russian outpost, like Armenia, it will next turn its focus on Azerbaijan, which would then be effectively cut off from the West. And Nagorno Karabakh would give it the perfect pretext to do so aggresively. Baku has been careful not to appear to be too close to any of the three courting powers. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has stated for example that Azerbaijan would never become a staging ground for a US attack on Iran, despite rumours to the contrary and current negotiations with the US about renovating an Azeri air base as a refueling station for NATO planes traveling to Afghanistan. He also declined a invitation from Moscow to join a Russian led “counterterrorism” navy group on the Caspian, CASFOR, but did stop by Moscow last week for a chat with Putin ahead of Azerbaijan’s upcoming negotiations with Gazprom, straight after visitting Brussels and signing an energy agreement with the European Union. And the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met Aliyev in Baku on May 4th with the Iranians even announcing they are studying the possibility of transporting Iranian oil via the BTC pipeline. But Baku’s oil wealth is pegged to Western interests. Although fear of Iranian wrath from the south is a strong motivator in Baku, the Azeris know most of their prospects for growth lie eastward, with their friends in Turkey, in the EU, which is keen for Azeri gas, even in Israel, which gets 20% of its oil from Azerbaijan. This understanding should be further reinforced should Moscow’s stance towards Baku grow pushy or threatening.

3. Driving a wedge between Russia and Iran. Both are none too happy about Caspian oil flowing westward to Turkey, via Azerbaijan and Georgia, rather than north through Russia or south through Iran. Their clash of both economic and political interests here can be exploited. There is also a conflict of interest in Armenia. For example when the Iranians built a gas pipeline through Armenia Moscow demanded its diameter be limited to 700 millimeters, instead of the 1,420 millimeters in the original design, precluding the possibility of Iranian gas transitting to Georgia (or further to the Ukraine) via that line. Armenia promptly agreed. Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom pretty much owns Armenia’s gas distribution system. Another possible point of contention is Iran’s recent agreement with Georgia to supply it with energy. The EU is considering Iran as an option towards diversification away from overdependence on Russian gas. Yet another sign of possible tensions between Russia and Iran is the postponement last week of the Iranian Foreign Minister’s visit to Moscow, reportedly because of Iranian annoyance that the Russians said they may postpone the construction of Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor. Yet despite all these conflicts of interest Moscow and Tehran appear tentatively in the process of becoming energy partners – a partnership in which Russia will no doubt come out dominant. Russia partners with Iran to counterbalance Western influence in their respective peripheries and because Iran keeps the US busy while Russia pursues its own political goals unhindered.

Currently there is talk in the US of making deals with Iran over Iraq. But Iran no longer backed by Russia would lose much of its clout so the saner option of negotiating with Russia should be explored. Besides support for Nagorno Karabkh and assurance of keeping Tehran’s influence out of the Caucasus and Central Asia perhaps Russian involvement in the development of the Kashagan oil field, estimated to be the world’s fourth largest, in the north of the Caspian Sea could be placed on the table.

Also see update, 11/16/06.

Everyone loves a good spy story, a daring conspiracy, a glimpse of the invisible hands that shape the world, the steadfast men of ideas that direct history from the shadows, manipulating events on the world stage from behind a curtain of intrigue.

One such “man of ideas”, a ruthless wheeler and dealer and a man who certainly left his mark on history, in ways both overt and covert, was the French spychief Count Alexandre de Marenches. The Count was the longest serving head of the Service de Documentation Extérieure et de Contre-Espionnage (SDECE, France’s version of the CIA), serving as its director from 1970 through to 1981. Below are a couple of tales from Count de Marenches’ large arsenal. But first a little more about the man and his ideas.

In 1992 the Count co-authored with NY Times’ Paris correspondent David A. Andelman, “The Fourth World War: Diplomacy and Espionage in the Age of Terrorism”, a book that has since revealed itself to be ahead of its time, but back in 1992 was snubbed by reviewers for making unfounded claims from an “extremist” viewpoint. The book is perhaps the first instance of the suggestion that the next World War would be against international terrorism and rogue states. In it the Count called for the establishment of a “Decent People’s Club” of countries that would band together to crush the new slippery bad guys. Count de Marenches’ name for this new conflict was the politically incorrect “South-North War”.

Allister Heath wrote of Count de Marenches and his book last week:

When it came to fighting terrorists, Count Alexandre de Marenches, the legendary former head of France’s intelligence services, knew what he was talking about. In a prescient book published just after the end of the Cold War, he was the first to warn that a fourth world war had already begun — a war waged by ‘small, highly deadly units of terrorists’ with ‘the very real prospect of ending civilisation, at least Western civilisation, as we know it’. A lone voice, Marenches was ignored in Britain and America; it was far easier to believe in reassuring theories about the ‘end of history’ and the supposedly inevitable victory of liberal democracy in the great ideological conflicts of the 20th century.

Well, not completely ignored. Eliot A. Cohen wrote the following in Foreign Affairs back in 1992:

“[the author] goes off track … when he looks to the future. He sees the opening skirmishes of a new world war — between South and North — the new enemies being terrorists, drug lords and dictators. ‘Mutual Assured Destruction’ must now be replaced by a doctrine of `Certain Destruction’ of terrorist groups; a ‘Decent People’s Club’ of nations that believe in individual liberty must be created. These extreme views inadvertently cast some doubt on his judgment while running French intelligence.”

It has now become much clearer whose judgement doubt should perhaps be cast on.

Now to the stories. The first one is short, sweet and unfulfilled. The year before his death in 1995 the Count told Time magazine’s Thomas Sancton the following tale over lunch:

“Shortly after your hostages were taken in Tehran in 1979,” he recalls, “the Americans asked my advice. I told them, ‘When dealing with rug merchants, you need something to trade.’ ” The count’s modest proposal: kidnap the Ayatullah Khomeini and exchange him for the 53 Americans. “After weeks of reconnaissance, my people came up with a detailed plan to land a helicopter near Khomeini’s residence, neutralize his guards and whisk him away. The CIA loved the idea, but Jimmy Carter nixed it. He said, ‘We just can’t do this to an old bishop.’ ”

Naive sentimentality driving Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy decisions?! Shock and horror all round. Perhaps he was using the more colourful meaning of the term “old bishop”? Alas, we’ll never know. I do know that had the Israelis gone and kidnapped that other “old bishop” Hassan Nasrallah to exchange for their soldiers the Middle East would be a whole other ball game just about now. Although Ayatollah Khomenei would have been even better.

Possibly de Marenches’ favourite spy story is the one about “Operation Mosquito”.

Here’s one version of it (questionable source, but you can read the condensed version from Count himself in the same Time magazine article):

Both the colonial French and the theoretically anti-colonial Americans used, and were in turn afflicted by, drugs, during the wars in Indo-China from the 1950s until the 1970s. Memories of this must have been uppermost in the mind of a certain big, burly mustachioed Frenchman. He appeared by appointment at the Los Angeles mansion of President-elect Ronald Reagan’s advisor and friend, Alfred Bloomingdale, one day in December 1990. This was to be the Frenchman’s first meeting with Reagan, whose anti-Communist and anti-Soviet views he fully shared.

The big Frenchman was Count Alexandre de Marenches, head of France’s secret foreign intelligence service, the SDECE (later the DGSE). [..] He had accurately predicted the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Despite some serious problems between the French agency’s men and American drug-enforcement officials, de Marenches had good access to the Washington of the Reagan era. General Vernon Walters, just promoted from his old post as US defense attaché in Paris to become deputy director of the CIA, was one of de Marenches’ oldest friends. He put in a good word for the robust French spy chief. This assured him of a good reception by President-elect Reagan in Los Angeles. The two men sat down to study maps of Afghanistan. Before he left, de Marenches warned Reagan that the rank-and-file staff of the CIA, where a mutual friend, William Casey, would soon take over as chief, was not to be trusted.

“These are not serious people,” de Marenches said. They couldn’t keep secrets, he added. It was too easy to spot their officers and agents. Usually they were under highly transparent cover as diplomats in American missions abroad.

Soon after his inauguration in January 1981, Reagan saw the Frenchman again. This time it was in the Oval Office of the White House. De Marenches had a concrete suggestion for a Franco-American venture to revive the old alliance and counter the Soviet threat in Afghanistan. He called it Operation Moustique or Mosquito. “You know,” he told the President, “how much trouble a mosquito can cause a bear. If you’re not in a position to shoot the bear yourself, you should consider this method.”

De Marenches continued that he was in contact with a bunch of bright young journalists. They could produce a perfect specimen of a convincing but false Red Army newspaper. Other friends could print Bibles in the Cyrillic alphabet, and in languages of the Central Asian Muslim Soviet republics. They could be put around in Red Army barracks and do a lot of damage to spirit and morale. There was another thing: “What,” he asked Reagan, do you do with all the drugs seized by the DEA [the US Drug Enforcement Administration], the Coast Guard, the FBI, the Customs?” Reagan responded that he didn’t know. He supposed they burned them. “That’s a mistake,” the Frenchman said.” Take all those confiscated drugs and do as the Vietcong did with the US Army in Vietnam. Supply them on the sly, to the Russian soldiers.” In a few months, he explained, they would be demoralized and their fighting ability would be gone. De Marenches added, according to his published memoirs, that a few trusted people could do all this at a cost of only about one million dollars, truly a bargain in subversive warfare.

After very short reflection, Reagan, according to his French visitor, replied that this was a great idea. No one had suggested anything like it to him before. He picked up the phone and told William Casey. The two should meet and discuss Operation Mosquito. When de Marenches met Casey two days later and explained the plan, the Frenchman recorded in his memoirs that Casey “… loved it. He leaped from his chair and sliced at the air with his fists.” Although Casey knew there would be problems with Congress, he was eager to go ahead. Would, could, France carry it out if the CIA put up the cash? Yes, de Marenches agreed, but only on condition that no Americans were directly involved. “Your compatriots,” he told Casey, “don’t know how to do this type of work. They’re likely to get a pile-driver to crush a fly, rather than turn a mosquito loose to make life impossible for a bear.”

By the French spymaster’s account, planning then began. Pakistani operatives and Afghans would handle the distribution of the black propaganda material — phoney Russian newspapers with demoralizing articles and exhortations to desert the Red Army; Christian Bibles — and hard and soft drugs for the “Russkies.”

Casey had an afterthought. Wouldn’t Pakistan’s ISI be involved? “We need the Pakis,” he mumbled, with the habitual intelligibility which made him hard to understand. “I’ll take care of that,” said de Marenches. “But I have another condition. This kind of operation is very delicate. I want to be sure that France won’t be mentioned in published articles. I want to be sure that I’ll never see my photo in the New York Times or the Washington Post, along with a little item about what I’m doing.” Sorry, Casey retorted. Washington leaked like a sieve. Casey couldn’t promise anything of the kind.

According to de Marenches, the joint Franco-American project was dropped: in other words, France withdrew, after having provided the idea. However, the fake issues of Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star), the Soviet army newspaper, did appear later in Kabul. [5] So did large quantities of hashish, opium straw (a dried poppy product used in the area to make mildly narcotic “tea”) and packets of heroin, all made easy for the Soviet personnel to buy for nominal prices or “find” as free gifts. There were even small quantities of cocaine, not produced at this early time in the South Asian war boom in drugs, in laboratories in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Hashshashin warriors the Russkis obviously weren’t.

Of course it took a lot more than hard drugs and some depressing tabloids to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Helping out with the gathering and funding of the mujahideen was the House of Saud. The head of Saudi intelligence all through the 80s and 90s, and in fact right up until mid-2001, for a total of 24 years was a close colleague and protege of Count de Marenches, Prince Turki bin Feisal. Here’s a story all about him:

One of Turki’s assets was Osama bin Laden, one of the 56 children of a Yemeni-born construction tycoon who had a monopoly on the building of all royal palaces in the kingdom.

Osama collected tens of millions from wealthy Saudis for the Afghan campaign. He also took under his wing Arab and other Muslim volunteers funded to fight in Afghanistan by Turki and wealthy princes and private sector entrepreneurs.

By the time the defeated Soviets left Afghanistan in February 1989, bin Laden had been elevated to hero status in Saudi Arabia. So when bin Laden asked to see Turki Aug. 2, 1990, the day Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq, he was not kept waiting.

What followed was described by Turki as one of history’s most expensive laughs. Bin Laden told Turki the royals must not invite the U.S. Army to the kingdom to push the Iraqis out of Kuwait. His “Afghan Arab” fighters could do the job. Turki laughed and a furious bin Laden stormed out.

That was a crucial turning point in history. Bin Laden became convinced the royal family was conspiring with Washington to facilitate the occupation of Saudi Arabia and control of its oil production facilities and that Saddam had been entrapped into invading Kuwait to provide a pretext for U.S. occupation. That was when he decided to take on the royal family – a career path that led him to become the world’s most wanted terrorist.

Prince Turki is the current Saudi Arabian ambassador to Washington. It seems that since his “expensive laugh” the Prince has acquired a real penchant for missing the mark with his communiques, even if at times it has been somewhat deliberate.

Do read Hugh Fitzgerald’s empassioned and brilliant essay, inspired by Richard Cohen’s column on Tuesday, obscenely titled “Hunker Down With History”.
Hugh starts off taking modern journalism to task, but achieves so much more. I am not going to quote any of it here. Read the whole thing. It is a history lesson the West urgently needs.

Another fantastic history lesson for Cohen was written by Israel Matzav here. Here’s a part of it, but again, it is well worth reading in full.

The term “Palestina” was invented by the Roman emperor Hadrian. The Romans wanted to rename Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) after the Philistines, the longtime enemy of the Jews. Hadrian believed that by renaming the Jewish homeland after the Jews’ archenemy, he would be able to forever break the bond between the Land of Israel and the Jewish people.

But even the name of the Philistines, from which the term “Palestine” was adopted, is completely alien to the Land of Israel.

The name Philistines in Hebrew is plishtim, which comes from the Hebrew verb polshim (foreign invaders).
Arabs only came to the Land of Israel in large numbers after the Jews returned in the 20th century and started to rebuild the nation, thereby creating economic and employment opportunities for Arab immigrants.

Prior to 1870, when Jews started to return to the Holy Land in large numbers, there were fewer than 100,000 Arabs living in what is today the State of Israel – including Yesha (the Hebrew acronym for Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District).

This small number of nomadic, tribal Arabs who lived in the Holy Land before the modern Jewish return never considered themselves to be a separate people or nation.

The Arabs who lived in the Land of Israel were not “Palestinians” but Arabs – part of a huge Arab people with 22 very large independent nations that control one-ninth of the land mass on the planet Earth.

In an interview given by Zuhair Mohsen to the Dutch newspaper Trouw in March 1977, Mr. Mohsen explains the origin of the ‘Palestinians’:

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

..

Israel is anything but a mistake, and history shows the justice of Israel’s cause. With the exception of the period between the two Jewish Temples between roughly 586 and 516 BCE, Jews ruled this land continuously from approximately 1300 BCE until 68 CE. Since that time, no other government has been based in Israel, no other country has called Jerusalem its capitol, and no other people has called this land its home. It is not history that is Israel’s enemy but the false narrative of history presented to the World by the Arab Muslims. It is not history that is Israel’s enemy, but Arab attempts to wipe out the vestiges of that history, as if destroying all of the Temple artifacts on the Temple Mount will confirm that it was ‘always’ Haram al-Sharif, that two Jewish Temples never stood there and that Jesus never argued with money changers there.

This country was deserted swampland for much of the period between 68 CE and the beginning of the return of larger numbers of Jews started in 1870. Israel’s interior areas were mainly a desert-like wasteland while her coast was a malaria-ridden swamp. But Jews always prayed three times a day that God should gather them in from their diaspora and bring them back to this country. Many Jews attempted to come here on their own. Jews were a majority of the population of Jerusalem in the 19th century, and settled many of the cities of the Galilee as well. In 1844 – when the Land of Israel was controlled by the Turkish Muslims – the Turkish census counted 7,120 Jews and 5,000 Muslims living in Jerusalem. Thus, Jerusalem was already a Jewish city 160 years ago. Until an Arab massacre wiped them out in 1929, there was even a large Jewish community in Hebron, which included a major Talmudical academy, which was transplanted from the village of Slobodka in Lithuania.

..

Don’t forget to read Hugh Fitzgerald’s piece now.