Bush and Blair agreed to start their Iraq war in 2002

[senseamp]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-32...sh-Iraq-war-forged-YEAR-invasion-started.html

A bombshell White House memo has revealed for the first time details of the ‘deal in blood’ forged by Tony Blair and George Bush over the Iraq War.

The sensational leak shows that Blair had given an unqualified pledge to sign up to the conflict a year before the invasion started.

It flies in the face of the Prime Minister’s public claims at the time that he was seeking a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

He told voters: ‘We’re not proposing military action’ – in direct contrast to what the secret email now reveals.

A War based on lies and we are seeing the results.

 

[Subyman]

I read the memo and I don't see the same "damning" thing that the article is talking about. Here is the line I found about the war:

On Iraq, Blair will be with us should military operations be necessary. He is convinced of two points: the threat is real; and success against Suddam will yield more regional success.

He said he would be with us "should" military operations be necessary. I don't see this as a "blood pact," he is stating the obvious. Was there something I missed?

 

[Whiskey16]

Not new at all... the Downing Street memo and the UK Iraq invasion inquiry was quite clear.

It is the US that lacks the integrity and moral maturity to conduct an investigation into impropriety for international criminal aggression..

So senseamp, as the UK has long put forth its ills under an inquiry, take it to your country for hiding away its failures.

An old post of mine:

• FACT: Very few governments support the US and British positions upon Iraq's weapons. To roughly quote the Canadian PM at the time, "A proof is a proof is a proof. And there is no proof."
• No 'standing' US law for regime change
• Not a single UN resolution supporting action against Iraq. In fact, from the UK-USA imposed 'no-fly-zone' to the conflict itself, the parties to the Iraq invasion were in concise violation of international and existing UN Security Council resolutions for all states to recognise and respect the territorial and sovereign integrity of Iraq.

Statements that the war upon Iraq in 2003 being legal are unjustifiable. For those who error in using Security Council Resolutions concerning Iraq as evidence for the legality of unilateral action, you are mistaken. This is a result of public relations fiasco in which sections of text are taken out of context and lie is repeated long enough as to take hold a gospel by those who desire to believe it.

As per US law, US jurisdiction only applies to US territory. Whatever is acted upon internationally must be in legal accordance to relevant international law. US law is bound by international treaties and conventions that have been ratified by the USA. Aggression may not be acceptable without preceding or succeeding internationally ratified mandates (as per the UN) that may justify a response to clear and active threat against another state, domestic genocide, or aggressive action from one state upon another.

In result of the Iraqi action upon Kuwait, as per the ratified UN Resolutions since the end of the Gulf War hostilities and up to (..and beyond...) the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there was NO MANDATE to authorise military aggression against the sovereign authority of Iraq. The fact that there was no existing mandate was evident in an early 2003 Spanish government transcript between US President G.W. Bush, Secretary of State Rice, and former Spanish Prime Minister Aznar.

PM Aznar pushed President Bush to obtain a UN Security Council resolution that would specifically authorise the use of force against Saddam Hussein:

"This is like Chinese water torture. We have to bring an end to this." The Spanish president replied: "I agree, but it would be good to [be able to] count on the maximum number of people possible" - to have the backing of as many other countries as possible, that is. Aznar advised his American counterpart: "Have a little patience," to which Bush responded: "My patience has run out. I don't think we're going to go beyond the middle of March.

Such a Resolution was never obtained and the forlorn certainty to war came about.

In this and further posts I will break down the United Nations Security Council Resolutions concerning Iraq:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This first section deals with the first resolutions passed against Iraq with the conclusions of Gulf War hostilities.

1. Cease-Fire from the First Gulf War
For starters let’s put away Iraq breaking the Cease-Fire Justification theory.

No member state had the authority to authorise its own forces to take aggressive action against Iraq. Of course this would have also involved illegal actions by Britain and the USA in the so called no-fly-zones. November Resolution 678 (1990) gave participating UN member states the military mandate to intervene against Iraq for its aggression against Kuwait. April Resolution 687 (containing the Cease-Fire) was drafted to nullify 678’s specific mandate upon the use of military force against Iraq. April Resolution 687 (1991) (containing the Cease-Fire) was specific upon the further use of military against Iraq:

April Resolution 687 (1991) [Paragraph 4]: [The Security Council] … decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.

Only the Security Council may authorise a military mandate as contained in paragraph 2 of Resolution 687:

November Resolution 678 (1990) [Paragraph 2]: [The Security Council … acting under Chapter VII of the Charter] … authorizes Member States cooperating with the Government of Kuwait unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements as set forth in paragraph 1 above the foregoing resolutions to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.

As per paragraph 4, the Security Council may re-convene to authorise and revive paragraph 2 – “all necessary means”, as in military force. The SC is the authority as the UN is party to the agreement. The US and Britain cannot unilaterally choose action against Iraq as they are not unique parties to these resolutions.

Nothing contained in Resolution 687 specified that the Cease-Fire is conditional upon non-compliance with the inspection requirements.
There was no mandate for an automatic renewal of military actions against Iraq by forces who partook in the 1991 Gulf War. Only following Resolutions may consider it by referencing 687 paragraph 2.

2. “No-Fly Zones”

No UN Resolution supported the existence of “No-Fly Zones” in Iraq. No such aircraft were subjects to any UN Chapter VI Observer mission, and there was NO chapter VII mission enacted by the UN Security council to authorise air strikes in Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War. The "sovereignty" & "integrity" of Iraq (as re-defined in resolution 687) were consistently violated by aggressive foreign powers who had no UN authority for their actions:

April Resolution 687 (1991), Introduction, Paragraph 3:
Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq, and noting the intention expressed by the Member States cooperating with Kuwait under paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with paragraph 8 of resolution 686 (1991),

The violations of Iraqi integrity and sovereignty by US and British bombings raids and even patrols (not affiliated with the UNSCOM weapon inspections) were in violation of UN resolutions often held up to defend the non-exist “No-Fly Zones”.

Though, there were zones in Iraq that were specified for certain non-Iraqi military forces to enter:

April Resolution 687 (1991), Paragraph 5:
... a plan for the immediate deployment of a United Nations observer unit to monitor the Khawr 'AM AUah and a demilitarized zone, which is hereby established, extending ten kilometres into Iraq and five kilometres into Kuwait from the boundary referred to in the "Agreed Minutes between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq...

• US & British fighter and attack planes were not under the command nor part of the sanctioned UN observer unit
• there was zero reference in 687 to support any area the size of the no-fly zone, only the enactment of a small demilitarised zone.

Here, at the time, is the opinion of the Secretary-General of the United Nations:

The US and also British governments justify it by claiming they have a UN Security Council resolution. To be sure about this, I asked Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who was Secretary General of the United Nations in 1992 when the Resolution 688 was passed. "The issue of no fly zones was not raised and therefore not debated: not a word," he said. "They offer no legitimacy to countries sending their aircraft to attack Iraq."

April Resolution 687 (1991), Paragraph 5:...to deter violations of the boundary through its presence in and surveillance of the demilitarized zone and to observe any hostile or potentially hostile action mounted from the territory of one State against the other;

Resolution 687 considered Iraq's conventional forces against another state and not domestic situations within Iraq...

The April Resolution 687 reaffirmed Iraq's sovereign integrity to external forces......

April Resolution 687 (1991), Paragraph 5:
and also requests the Secretary-General to report regularly to the Council on the operations of the unit and to do so immediately if there are serious violations of the zone or potential threats to peace;

Again, no authorisation for a lone member state to judge and take action. The resolution only left it to the Secretary-General to present to the Security Council for ASSESSMENT.

For Iraq targeting or even firing upon invading military aircraft, a 10km demilitarised zone into Southern Iraq hardly encompassed the vast and unauthorised “no-fly zones”.

Further 'The Safwan Accords' were nullified with the passing of UN Resolutions and there is no record of nor even a presentation to the Security Council of any UN Observer Force being engaged by Iraqi forces.

April Resolution 687 (1991), Paragraph 34:
Decides (Secretary-General and to the Security Council) to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the region.

If anyone still feels that April Resolution 687 alone give military action upon Iraq, the former is an unequivocal statement within one of the pertinent resolutions where an "ASSESSMENT" and a new draft must be made by the UN Security Council before further action may be taken.

USA and Britain (et all...) could not make an independent judgement and course of action. To conduct their own aggressive actions against Iraq were in violation of its "sovereignty" and "integrity" and a flagrant violation of international law of which they are parties to.

3. Resolution 1441

In early May 2005 news concerned PM Tony Blair's potential legal troubles over the Iraqi invasion. That news was too new, as a month before a former aid to the British AG came forth and stated he had informed his government that aggression against Iraq would be illegal.

As I referred to earlier, no nation (member UN state) is justified in using military force to assist a Security Council request without a direct request for assistance from the Security Council. The only two parties involved in all Resolutions upon Iraq were the Security Council and Iraq.

A key argument that was proposed in the fall of 2002 was that Resolution 1441 provided the only necessary mechanism for resumed state aggression against Iraq. That argument is false.

The adopted Resolution 1441 made no reference to a new Chapter VII action nor to re-enact Paragraph 2 of Resolution 678 (1990). That is the mechanism for the SC to authorise force (Chapter VII under the UN Charter) against Iraq. In Resolution 1441 no resumption of hostilities against Iraq are stated. Past resolutions are cited (including 678). There is no direct dismissal of Resolution 687 (1991 ceasefire agreement). That's the legal writing. Case closed there.

This is the portion of 1441 that brought a mechanism to re-evaluate Iraq's "final opportunity" (Paragraph 2, 1441) to comply with UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections:

Paragraph 4, Resolution 1441 (2002) : (Iraq) .... cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below"

In 2003 the USA and UK failed in their pressure to have the SC pass a further resolution to authorise force. Some perpetuate the false spin that 1441 offered all of necessary SC authorisation for renewed hostilities against Iraq. A common theme in marketing can be to repeat a lie long enough and then enough of the market will faithfully accept it. Now, what were the intentions of the authors in Resolution 1441?

There is a telling quotation from a primary source for the draft of 1441. An adopted draft for 1441 came from the UK and the USA. In November of 2002 an article from the LA Times concerning the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John D. Negroponte’s, view upon the adoption of 1441:

LA Times, November 8, 2002: "There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution," U.S. Ambassador John D. Negroponte said. "Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.

From the horse’s mouth…. An author of Resolution 1441 – the prime US participant to drafting it.

Despite this unambiguous spoken record and clear statements within Resolution 1441, the months that followed had White House and Whitehall spokespeople spreading a falsehood that authorisation existed and an invasion being legal.

Since the end of hostilities (as outlined in April 1991 Resolution 687) between Iraq and 'Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait' there has never again been "authorization" for "all necessary means" by member states to uphold a single resolution against the sovereign government of Iraq.

Any unauthorised member state military entry into Iraq was in violation of April Resolution 687. Reaffirmed in 1441 (as per 687), all member states were to retain recognition and respect of the "sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq". The cessation of hostilities and affirmation of Iraqi sovereignty and integrity as per 687 WAS recalled within 1441, and was NOT repealed. That ALONE is cemented grounds for the 2003 Iraq war to be illegal.

Beyond that, never was there the passing of a UN Resolution that called for the invasion and the disbandment of the Iraq government.

In 2007, the Spanish press published a transcript of a meeting between former Spanish President Aznar and President Bush. What was recorded support that a campaign of deception was instigated for the USA to lie to the public upon any existing mandate for military aggression upon Iraq. This was recently solidified after Bush's quotations from a meeting with the former Spanish President:

President Bush: We're in favor of obtaining a second resolution in the Security Council and we'd like to do it quickly. We'd like to announce it on Monday or Tuesday [February 24, 2003].
...
President Bush: It could be Monday afternoon, taking the time zone differences into account. In any case, next week. We're looking at a resolution drafted in such a way that it doesn't contain mandatory elements, that doesn't mention the use of force, and that states that Saddam Hussein has been incapable of fulfilling his obligations. That kind of resolution can be voted for by lots of people. It would be similar to the one passed during Kosovo [on June 10, 1999].
...
Condoleezza Rice: In fact there won't be a parallel declaration. We're thinking about a resolution that would be as simple as possible, without too many details on compliance that Saddam could use as [an excuse to stall via] phases and consequently fail to meet. We're talking with Blix [the UN chief inspector] and others on his team, to get ideas that can help introduce the resolution.

President Bush: Saddam Hussein won't change and he'll continue playing games. The time has come to get rid of him. That's it. As for me, I'll try from now on to use a rhetoric that's as subtle as can be while we're seeking approval of the resolution. If anyone vetoes [Russia, China, and France together with the US and the UK have veto power in the Security Council, being permanent members], we'll go. Saddam Hussein isn't disarming. We have to catch him right now.
...
We'd like to act with the mandate of the United Nations. If we act militarily, we'll do it with great precision and focus very closely on our objectives.
...
Prime Minister Aznar: It's very important to [be able to] count on a resolution. It isn't the same to act with it as without it. It would be very convenient to count on a majority in the Security Council that would support that resolution. In fact, having a majority is more important than anyone casting a veto. We think the content of the resolution should state, among other things, that Saddam Hussein has lost his opportunity.

President Bush: Yes, of course. That would be better than to make a reference to "all means necessary" [he refers to the standard UN resolution that authorizes the use of "all means necessary"].

Bush is on the record for recognising that he did not have a UN 'mandate' to take military action against Iraq. He is on record that he intended to act with or without such a legal mandate.

In Britain, there was also the position that warfare would be illegal. Yet through political pressure to appease the absolute warfare policy of the USA, Downing Street was quite adamant in coercing the Attorney General's office into changing their view (into a falsified opinion) to match the political policy or face consequences:

The Guardian, 'Revealed: the rush to war' Wednesday February 23, 2005

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned less than two weeks before the invasion of Iraq that military action could be ruled illegal.

The government was so concerned that it might be prosecuted it set up a team of lawyers to prepare for legal action in an international court.

And a parliamentary answer issued days before the war in the name of Lord Goldsmith - but presented by ministers as his official opinion before the crucial Commons vote - was drawn up in Downing Street, not in the attorney general's chambers.

The full picture of how the government manipulated the legal justification for war, and political pressure placed on its most senior law officer, is revealed in the Guardian today.

It appears that Lord Goldsmith never wrote an unequivocal formal legal opinion that the invasion was lawful, as demanded by Lord Boyce, chief of defence staff at the time.

The Guardian can also disclose that in her letter of resignation in protest against the war, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser at the Foreign Office, described the planned invasion of Iraq as a "crime of aggression".
She said she could not agree to military action in circumstances she described as "so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law".

That was corroborated in the infamous Downing Street memo:

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult.
...
Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action..... It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

War was the policy. War was not to be averted, regardless of the true lack of justification and legal positions. It remains illegal. Despite what was stated in public, by all state parties involved, behind closed doors, it was known that the venture had no legal mandate. Lies and manipulation were applied to defraud government and public opinion into motivation to provide complicit support of an illegal act of aggressive warfare.

That, unlike the UK, the USA continues to fail in attempts at any accountability and inquiry is a damning state upon the society and political culture in the USA. A preference for impunity and ignorance is profoundly evident and will again permit that state to commit to such atrocities again. No source of pride but damning shame upon the USA, its military, and public.

 

[Greenman]

Bomb shell not found, click bait headline in evidence.

 

[Greenman]

Not new at all... the Downing Street memo and the UK Iraq invasion inquiry was quite clear.

The remainder of the quoted massive post removed for the convenience of the rest of the readers who don't need to see it all again.
admin allisolm

Wall of text not read. US congress voted for war, get over it.

 

[Whiskey16]

Wall of text not read.

Says it all. The USA for the fail.

 

[sportage]

The Brits are our friends.
Their leaders loved Reagan, and they love republicans.
It's a "scratch your back" thing.
Or, "We've got you covered" thing.
Ever since WWII, actually.
With a democrat in the whitehouse, we would see a lot more hesitation from the brits. But with any republican in the whitehouse, they have us covered.
Like I said, it's a WWII thing. A Bond.

 

[Greenman]

Says it all. The USA for the fail.

You're certainly welcome to think that. But the answer is actually that I'm not interested in a lesson in revised history from some random fellow on the internet.
I hope that doesn't offend you, it's not personal in any way, it's simply life in the digital world.

 

[senseamp]

It's state department documents. That is the historical record.

 

[nickqt]

In other news, sky still blue, water still wet.

 

[Jaskalas]

Blair was with us... we knew this.
I'm just wondering what the news is.

Next you'll be shocked that the Pentagon had Iraq war plans... before the war.

 

[senseamp]

The news is that Bush has decided on his disastrous Iraq war while he was still pretending to look for a peaceful solution.

 

[Art&Science]

I read the memo and I don't see the same "damning" thing that the article is talking about. Here is the line I found about the war:



He said he would be with us "should" military operations be necessary. I don't see this as a "blood pact," he is stating the obvious. Was there something I missed?

Nope, you didn't miss anything. Will the OP be forced to change his thread title for being dishonest and partisan? No way!

 

[Brian Stirling]

The Brits are our friends.
Their leaders loved Reagan, and they love republicans.
It's a "scratch your back" thing.
Or, "We've got you covered" thing.
Ever since WWII, actually.
With a democrat in the whitehouse, we would see a lot more hesitation from the brits. But with any republican in the whitehouse, they have us covered.
Like I said, it's a WWII thing. A Bond.

Blair was leader of the Labor Party, the rough UK equivalent of the US Democratic Party, so claiming that Blair had a hardon for Republicans is a bit of a stretch. I've always felt that the Bush admin played upon the desire the Brits had to "have our back" in the wake of 9/11 and Blair was tricked into believing, through our selective and intentional distortion of the intelligence, into signing up to go with us wherever we asked.

There's also the possibility bordering on certainty that Blair figured a good war could boost war production and thus the economy as well as boost the labor party as far as elections are concerned.

I won't rule out more nefarious intentions on Blair's part but I suspect a combination of there wish to support us with a longstanding appreciation of the political benefit a party gains when heading off to a righteous war had on his decision.

Ultimately, the buck stops with us, as in the USA. We cooked the books on the intelligence and we led the world into folly.

Towards the end of 2001, at the point where we had entered Afghanistan and were assisting the Northern Alliance to great effect in defeating the Taliban, Admiral Wolsey was on one of the talk shows and the topic was obviously about the situation in Afghanistan, but Wolsey didn't want to talk about Afghanistan, he wanted to talk about Iraq and how we were going to have to go back and finish the job there. He was asked numerous times to comment on the actions in Afghanistan, but he kept bringing the conversation back to Iraq.

It wasn't until a couple years later that we learned, from a Scottish newspaper, that Admiral Wolsey was one of a number of neocons that had been part of a group, the Plan for the New American Century, that had been lobbying for years to go back into Iraq to take out Saddam and finish the job Bush Sr. had not. In that article we learned that in addition to Wolsey the PNAC had pretty much filled the cabinet of Bush Jr. We later learned that many of the PNAC members that were part of the Bush admin were tasked to drum up support for a war in Iraq beginning just days after 9/11. These guys seized on 9/11 as and opportunity to get the war they always wanted and sent out there members, just days after 9/11, to push for war.

So, ultimately, we (Bush admin) needed to have the books cooked and the books were cooked. Blair was susceptible and we fed him the line he couldn't refuse. Blair had reasons to want to go to war for his own internal political reasons but that wouldn't have happened if we didn't provide the bullshit to justify going to war.


Brian

 

[Whiskey16]

I'm not interested in a lesson in revised history...

I presented supported facts. No revisionism found.

Greenman, over a decade later, your still drunk on neo-con Kool-Aid.

Your position is to have the world, US public, and US military to bend over backwards to have it rammed up their ass, all because your damned blind and unwavering statist duty. War...COOL! Rah-rah!

Greenman, your argument is of lunatic US exceptionalism. What was done is therefore correct and beyond investigative approach. Might is right, noW fuck off. No.

You exemplify the ills of the US in its immature practice of never learning from history and its damnation to repeat the ills.

Too much of a public that has its head so far up its pompous ass that inquiries and learning (Greenman, you refuse to learn as your dismissed my post) can't dare happen for the fear of the USA losing its deluded standing in the world.

 

[Jaskalas]

The news is that Bush has decided on his disastrous Iraq war while he was still pretending to look for a peaceful solution.

This country decided on that back in 2006 when there was a massive backlash against Republicans.
We were convinced then... and we remain convinced.

 

[Newell Steamer]

We are at the point where the people who think any sort of punishment / retribution will occur is laughable.

Yes, it was all lies. Yes, many died. Yes, much money was wasted.

Yes, a few got quite a big pay off from these lies.

Sorry - there will be no punishment.

Good does not always get rewarded. Evil does not get always get punished.

 

[Jaskalas]

Yes, many died.

Many continue to die.

It should be argued that the Middle East is on fire due to Bush and the Iraq war.
From that chaos ISIS was born. The blood they spill is on our hands.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Many continue to die.

It should be argued that the Middle East is on fire due to Bush and the Iraq war.
From that chaos ISIS was born. The blood they spill is on our hands.

Understood and agreed - but, no one is going to do anything about it, nor make it stick.

 

[blankslate]

nm

 

[chucky2]

Ahhh, I see the sheeple are being energized for the coming election...

 

[Art&Science]

I see the moderators still won't change the thread title. Honesty, integrity, impartiality - all of the things our moderation staff lacks.

 

[cliftonite]

I see the moderators still won't change the thread title. Honesty, integrity, impartiality - all of the things our moderation staff lacks.

How should the title be changed?

 

[K1052]

I see the moderators still won't change the thread title. Honesty, integrity, impartiality - all of the things our moderation staff lacks.

The title appears to accurately sum up the gist of the article. Feel free to dispute the veracity/interpretation of the claims though which is fair grounds for discussion. I don't really see a need to change it.

Also, I suggest you keep calling out the mods at every opportunity. It's bound to get results.

 

[shady28]

Many continue to die.

It should be argued that the Middle East is on fire due to Bush and the Iraq war.
From that chaos ISIS was born. The blood they spill is on our hands.

Could also argue that it's Jimmy Carter's fault for funding the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan in an attempt to overthrow the USSR friendly Kabul government... 6 months before the USSR intervened.

That was also illegal. That group eventually became the Taliban, then Al-Qaeda, and set the precedent for the US continuously arming and training Islamic terrorist factions across the middle east. There's plenty of evidence that ISIS is a US-created monster as well.

US bombing in Syria is also illegal, there is no UN resolution authorizing it.

The list of illegal foreign military ventures, coups, and various acts of war the US has engaged in from 1979 to 2015 is very long.

"The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire."