How we trained al-Qa’eda

The Spectator UK ^ | 6 september 2003 | Brendan O’Neill

[konijn]

How we trained al-Qa’eda

Brendan O’Neill says the Bosnian war taught Islamic terrorists to operate abroad For all the millions of words written about al-Qa’eda since the 9/11 attacks two years ago, one phenomenon is consistently overlooked — the role of the Bosnian war in transforming the mujahedin of the 1980s into the roving Islamic terrorists of today.

Many writers and reporters have traced al-Qa’eda and other terror groups’ origins back to the Afghan war of 1979–1992, that last gasp of the Cold War when US-backed mujahedin forces fought against the invading Soviet army. It is well documented that America played a major role in creating and sustaining the mujahedin, which included Osama bin Laden’s Office of Services set up to recruit volunteers from overseas. Between 1985 and 1992, US officials estimate that 12,500 foreign fighters were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and guerrilla warfare tactics in Afghan camps that the CIA helped to set up.

Yet America’s role in backing the mujahedin a second time in the early and mid-1990s is seldom mentioned — largely because very few people know about it, and those who do find it prudent to pretend that it never happened. Following the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 and the collapse of their puppet regime in 1992, the Afghan mujahedin became less important to the United States; many Arabs, in the words of the journalist James Buchan, were left stranded in Afghanistan ‘with a taste for fighting but no cause’. It was not long before some were provided with a new cause. From 1992 to 1995, the Pentagon assisted with the movement of thousands of mujahedin and other Islamic elements from Central Asia into Europe, to fight alongside Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs.

The Bosnia venture appears to have been very important to the rise of mujahedin forces, to the emergence of today’s cross-border Islamic terrorists who think nothing of moving from state to state in the search of outlets for their jihadist mission. In moving to Bosnia, Islamic fighters were transported from the ghettos of Afghanistan and the Middle East into Europe; from an outdated battleground of the Cold War to the major world conflict of the day; from being yesterday’s men to fighting alongside the West’s favoured side in the clash of the Balkans. If Western intervention in Afghanistan created the mujahedin, Western intervention in Bosnia appears to have globalised it.

As part of the Dutch government’s inquiry into the Srebrenica massacre of July 1995, Professor Cees Wiebes of Amsterdam University compiled a report entitled ‘Intelligence and the War in Bosnia’, published in April 2002. In it he details the secret alliance between the Pentagon and radical Islamic groups from the Middle East, and their efforts to assist Bosnia’s Muslims. By 1993, there was a vast amount of weapons- smuggling through Croatia to the Muslims, organised by ‘clandestine agencies’ of the USA, Turkey and Iran, in association with a range of Islamic groups that included Afghan mujahedin and the pro-Iranian Hezbollah. Arms bought by Iran and Turkey with the financial backing of Saudi Arabia were airlifted from the Middle East to Bosnia — airlifts with which, Wiebes points out, the USA was ‘very closely involved’.

The Pentagon’s secret alliance with Islamic elements allowed mujahedin fighters to be ‘flown in’, though they were initially reserved as shock troops for particularly hazardous operations against Serb forces. According to a report in the Los Angeles Times in October 2001, from 1992 as many as 4,000 volunteers from the Middle East, North Africa and Europe, ‘known as the mujahedin’, arrived in Bosnia to fight with the Muslims. Richard Holbrooke, America’s former chief Balkans peace negotiator, has said that the Bosnian Muslims ‘wouldn’t have survived’ without the help of the mujahedin, though he later admitted that the arrival of the mujahedin was a ‘pact with the devil’ from which Bosnia is still recovering.

By the end of the 1990s State Department officials were increasingly worried about the consequences of this pact. Under the terms of the 1995 Dayton peace accord, the foreign mujahedin units were required to disband and leave the Balkans. Yet in 2000, the State Department raised concerns about the ‘hundreds of foreign Islamic extremists’ who became Bosnian citizens after fighting against the Serbs, and who pose a potential terror threat to Europe and the United States. US officials claimed that one of bin Laden’s top lieutenants had sent operatives to Bosnia, and that during the 1990s Bosnia had served as a ‘staging area and safe haven’ for al-Qa’eda and others. The Clinton administration had discovered that it is one thing to permit the movement of Islamic groups across territories; it is quite another to rein them back in again.

Indeed, for all the Clinton officials’ concern about Islamic extremists in the Balkans, they continued to allow the growth and movement of mujahedin forces in Europe through the 1990s. In the late 1990s, in the run-up to Clinton’s and Blair’s Kosovo war of 1999, the USA backed the Kosovo Liberation Army against Serbia. According to a report in the Jerusalem Post in 1998, KLA members, like the Bosnian Muslims before them, had been ‘provided with financial and military support from Islamic countries’, and had been ‘bolstered by hundreds of Iranian fighters or mujahedin ...[some of whom] were trained in Osama bin Laden’s terrorist camps in Afghanistan’. It seems that, for all its handwringing, the USA just couldn’t break the pact with the devil.

Why is this aspect of the mujahedin’s development so often overlooked? Some sensible stuff has been written about al-Qa’eda and its connections in recent months, but the Bosnia connection has been left largely unexplored. In Jason Burke’s excellent Al-Qa’eda: Casting a Shadow of Terror, Bosnia is mentioned only in passing. Kimberley McCloud and Adam Dolnik of the Monterey Institute of International Studies have written some incisive commentary calling for rational thinking when assessing al-Qa’eda’s origins and threat — but again, investigation of the Bosnia link is notable by its absence.

It would appear that when it comes to Bosnia, many in the West have a moral blind spot. For some commentators, particularly liberal ones, Western intervention in Bosnia was a Good Thing — except that, apparently, there was too little of it, offered too late in the conflict. Many journalists and writers demanded intervention in Bosnia and Western support for the Muslims. In many ways, this was their war, where they played an active role in encouraging further intervention to enforce ‘peace’ among the former Yugoslavia’s warring factions. Consequently, they often overlook the downside to this intervention and its divisive impact on the Balkans. Western intervention in Bosnia, it would appear, has become an unquestionably positive thing, something that is beyond interrogation and debate.

Yet a cool analysis of today’s disparate Islamic terror groups, created in Afghanistan and emboldened by the Bosnian experience, would do much to shed some light on precisely the dangers of such intervention.

Brendan O’Neill is assistant editor of spiked-online.

[Peach]

Perhaps this author from the UK would find it instructive to remember that after WWII, we rebuilt Europe and our troops stayed to protect them from Stalin!

We had joined with Stalin in that great war, as we needed his military's help to fight the Nazi's in Europe.

One finds allies where one must at the time, only to often fight them on another day.

For a UK author to forget that is to show a nearly tragic lack of knowledge.

[konijn]

balkans ping

[konijn]

Didnt these "allies" bomb the WTC for the first time in 1993?
Perhaps you should't forget that yesterday was 9/11.

[Peach]

Huh? My comment is that we do often work with groups we would prefer not to work with but at the time make strategic decisions on which is the more evil.

From the article: Yet America’s role in backing the mujahedin a second time in the early and mid-1990s is seldom mentioned — largely because very few people know about it, and those who do find it prudent to pretend that it never happened.

The author's comments that we worked with terrorist groups is technically correct. What he fails to point out is that we worked with Stalin too to defeat Nazism during WWII. BUT, we did not consider Stalin an ally after the war.

That was MY ONLY point. I do not know why you think I forgot yesterday was 9/11.

You have mis-interpreted my comments.

[Hoplite]

It's a Balkans thread.

Don't walk away, run.

[Peach]

I gather there are agendas here that I am unaware of! I'll look in later.

[Doctor13]

This is an excellent article exposing the hypocrasy of the West. Remember, that at the beginning of the civil war (and that's exactly what it was, a civil war in which we had no business in intervening), Europeans were very reluctant to the breakup of Yugoslavia. It was through Germany's efforts that they bullied the other 11 EC members to recognize their fascist Croatian and Bosnian allies at Maastrich in 1992 knowing it would provoke a civil war. After all, it was the Serbs who prevented Germany from gaining access to the Adriatic in two world wars. It was now payback time.

While European newspapers headlined "Muslims 'slaughter their own people'," (The [London] Independent, 22 Aug. 1992,) "Serbs 'not gilty' of massacre," (The Sunday [London] Times, 1 Oct. 1995,} and "U.S. Framed Serbs for Market Bombing," (The Stoneyhill Centre, Gloucester, UK, 18 Oct. 1995,) no such headlines were read by Americans. Furthermore, Yossef Bodansky, author of "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War On America," wrote in his 1995 book, "Offensive in the Balkans," that the mortar used in the bombing of the Markale market place in Sarajevo, the excuse Clinton used to bomb the Bosnian Serbs, was DESIGNED with the help of HezbAllah, and was self-inflicted to further demonize the Serbs and to gain sympathy for the Bosnian Muslims. Mujahedin from all over the Islamic world converged into Bosnia while the Clinton and the Blair administrations not only looked the other way but encouraged Iran to ship arms and weapons into Bosnia.

Bosnia, today, is Islam's corridor into Europe along with it's prostitution and drugs. Kosovo is a basket case with Osama bin Laden's KLA terrorists murdering remaining Serbs and I'm sure anyone who defends Islamic actions in the Balkans are in pure "hog heaven."

Western journalists call this a success.

As for the World Trade Center 1993, the Serbs were accused of the bombing. For three days, well-known American radio commentator Paul Harvey said that the Serbs were guilty of bombing the WTC, according to his CIA contacts. Even after he learned that the Serbs had not committed this atrocity, he never apologized to Americans of Serbian descent. Such reports caused American Serbs to be subjected to harassment; desecration of their churches; loss of jobs. I'm sure many Serb-haters writing their comments here were delighted with the outcome.

"Yet a cool analysis of today’s disparate Islamic terror groups, created in Afghanistan and emboldened by the Bosnian experience, would do much to shed some light on precisely the dangers of such intervention." Scarey.

Thanks for posting this

[konijn]

It still remains a redidculoius comparison.
Here America was supporting mujahedeen in Bosnia while these were placing bombs in American cities. And what was the american strategic interest in bashing the serbs for 10 years, what did it gain. That Milosevics is gone now and replaced by other mafiosis? A camp bondsteel in the hellhole of Europe. Great. Or the consequences in the above article?
And were do you get the idea that the USA 'supported' Stalin in WOII. You could as well turn that sentence around. Without an eastern front there would be no vulnerable western flank.

[konijn]

Your time to run has indeed long past.

[Peach]

Okay, konijn. With your lack of knowledge about the Stalin/US alliance in WWII you have demonstrated I can easily not pay attention to your posts.

[Peach]

And, just to be technical, I did not say we ever "supported" Stalin.

Get over yourself.

[Publius6961]

Your time to run has indeed long past.

Without having to state who was the morally superior president at the time, we should recognize our role in the biggest political blunder of the 20th century in Serbia/Bosnia.

Wait.
Chamberlain.
Maybe the second biggest.

[Publius6961]

And, just to be technical, I did not say we ever "supported" Stalin.

Well you should have. Because we did.
How old are you, anyway?

[Peach]

Are you kidding - asking a woman her age?

And I was just being technical with someone who doesn't seem to understand my point - quite deliberately, I might add.

[konijn]

And i still dont understand it, or you dont get mine.
How can a state align itself with a group of jihadis while the same zealots are waging a terrorist war against you? If this is the american foreign policy and you feel fine with it, so be it.

[DTA]

If I understood you correctly, United States sidded with Al Qaeda to fight against a common enemy in Bosnia,the Serbs? Can you elaborate it, especially strategic angle of such alliance?

1. Was the benefit of an alliance with Al Qaeda greater than the cost of the consequences (Al Qaeda infiltation into U.S. intel community)?

2. Why the Serbs are the enemy of the United States to justify U.S. becoming an ally of Al Qaeda? Or they were only a decoy in a ploy to import the cancer of radical islamism into the heart of Europe?

Thanks for pulling WWII analogy,it seems you understand WWII well. Perhaps you could elaborate the strategic angle of U.S. influence into financing Hitler's rise to power in the 1930's and keeeping Hitler's war and economic machine powered and lubed before and during WWII (well documented how U.S. companies helped Hitler with knowhow and suply of strategic materials). Hitler became U.S. Enemy #1 only after December 6 1941. Europe was 2 years in war with Nazi Germany by then. Serbs were fighting Nazis for 6 months by then.

When U.S. entered WWII, Serbs helped U.S. war effort by running the largest rescue mission behind the enemy lines and saving 500 U.S. flyboys. As a thank you note, USAAF bombed Belgrade on Easter Sunday 1944 and killed thousands of Serbs. In subsequent bombings tens of thousands were killed. For some reason, Serbs were designated as U.S.enemies, even when directly helping U.S. war effort.

In final analysis, in the 20th Century, Serbs fought against two enemies previously aided and abetted by the United States, Hitler and Al Qaeda.

Serbs waged the war against islamic terror since 1992. Was that the reason why Serbs as a people were singled out as U.S. enemy?

ALWAYS REMEMBER AND NEVER FORGET - CLINTON'S SUPPORT TO AL QAEDA IN BOSNIA MADE 9-11 POSSIBLE!

[Doctor13]

Answers to your questions.

1. We have literally turned over the Balkans to Osama bin Laden's KLA terrorists, and that is the final result of our intervention.

2. The Serbs lost the PR war. The bottom line is that Saudi Arabia, the real culprit in this civil war, wanted the first Islamic state in the belly of Europe and the U.S. wanted Saudi oil and money. The Saudis' had signed a letter of intent to buy $6 billion worth of Boeing aircraft. The day AFTER we bombed the Bosnian Serbs, based on a staged self-inflicted massacre by Bosnian Muslim forces in Sarajevo at the Markale market place. A coincidence? I don't think so. The Bosnians and Croats were able to hire the best PR companies in the U.S., among them Ruder & Finn. It is my guess that since they didn't have the money to hire such an expensive PR, it was the Saudis who financed them. As for the Serbs, because of sanctions, they were not permitted to hire any PR firm in the United States.

The reports about Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo were and continue to be completely controlled by the anti-Serb media. News like the machine-gunning of three Serb youths while they were swimming, would have been on the news throughout the country. The recent atrocities in Kosovo of Serbs barely makes the news, especially in any of the major media that couldn't wait to put out their propaganda against the Serbs.

Surely, Goebbels would be envious today of the role the media played in the outcome in the Balkans.

Today's map of the Balkans is almost identical to that envisioned by Hitler.

[Doctor13]

I forgot to mention that while we were supporting the Bosnian Muslims, the government of Alija Izetbegovic had issued a passport to Osama bin Laden at their embassy in Vienna. OSB had made several trips to Bosnia and to Kosovo. Al Qaeda has been active in the Balkans for over a decade.

President Bush said that "we will do whatever it takes to fight the terrorists." Notice, "Islamic terrorists," is no longer used. Politically incorrect.

Why, then, were the Serbs denied the right to defend themselves against the same terrorists that President Bush and our allies are fighting today?

[Doctor13]

In my haste, I should have reported the following:

"The reports about Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo were and continue to be completely controlled by the anti-Serb media. News like the machine-gunning of three Serb youths while they were swimming, would have been on the news throughout the country had they been ALBANIAN OR BOSNIAN youths. The recent atrocities in Kosovo of Serbs barely makes the news, especially in any of the major media that couldn't wait to put out their propaganda against the Serbs."