At eleven o’clock, on the morning of
September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that
Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade
Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to
the conduct of an in-depth police investigation.
That same evening at 9:30 pm, a “War Cabinet” was formed
integrated by a select number of top intelligence and military
advisors. And at 11:00 pm, at the end of that historic meeting
at the White House, the “War on Terrorism” was officially
launched.
The decision was announced to wage war against the Taliban and
Al Qaeda in retribution for the 9/11 attacks. The following
morning on September 12th, the news headlines indelibly pointed
to “state sponsorship” of the 9/11 attacks. In chorus, the US
media was calling for a military intervention against
Afghanistan.
Barely four weeks later, on the 7th of October, Afghanistan was
bombed and invaded by US troops. Americans were led to believe
that the decision to go to war had been taken on the spur of the
moment, on the evening of September 11, in response to the
attacks and their tragic consequences.
Little did the public realize that a large scale theater war is
never planned and executed in a matter of weeks. The decision to
launch a war and send troops to Afghanistan had been taken well
in advance of 9/11. The “terrorist, massive, casualty-producing
event” as it was later described by CentCom Commander General
Tommy Franks, served to galvanize public opinion in support of a
war agenda which was already in its final planning stage.
The tragic events of 9/11 provided the required justification to
wage a war on “humanitarian grounds”, with the full support of
World public opinion and the endorsement of the “international
community”.
Several prominent “progressive” intellectuals made a case for
“retaliation against terrorism”, on moral and ethical grounds.
The “just cause” military doctrine (jus ad bellum) was accepted
and upheld at face value as a legitimate response to 9/11,
without examining the fact that Washington had not only
supported the “Islamic terror network”, it was also instrumental
in the installation of the Taliban government in 1996.
In the wake of 9/11, the antiwar movement was completely
isolated. The trade unions and civil society organizations had
swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had
accepted a war of retribution against Afghanistan, an
impoverished country of 30 million people.
I started writing on the evening of September 11, late into the
night, going through piles of research notes, which I had
previously collected on the history of Al Qaeda. My first text
entitled “Who is Osama bin Laden?”, which was completed and
first published on September the 12th. (See Chapter II.)
From the very outset, I questioned the official story, which
described nineteen Al Qaeda sponsored hijackers involved in a
highly sophisticated and organized operation. My first objective
was to reveal the true nature of this illusive “enemy of
America”, who was “threatening the Homeland”.
The myth of the “outside enemy” and the threat of “Islamic
terrorists” was the cornerstone of the Bush administration's
military doctrine, used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and
Iraq, not to mention the repeal of civil liberties and
constitutional government in America. Without an “outside
enemy”, there could be no “war on terrorism”. The entire
national security agenda would collapse “like a deck of cards”.
The war criminals in high office would have no leg to stand on.
It was consequently crucial for the development of a coherent
antiwar and civil rights movement, to reveal the nature of Al
Qaeda and its evolving relationship to successive US
administrations.
Amply documented but rarely mentioned by the mainstream media,
Al Qaeda was a creation of the CIA going back to the
Soviet-Afghan war. This was a known fact, corroborated by
numerous sources including official documents of the US
Congress. The intelligence community had time and again
acknowledged that they had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but
that in the wake of the Cold War: “he turned against us”.
After 9/11, the campaign of media disinformation served not only
to drown the truth but also to kill much of the historical
evidence on how this illusive “outside enemy” had been
fabricated and transformed into “Enemy Number One”.
The Balkans Connection
My research on the Balkans conducted since the mid-1990s enabled
me to document numerous ties and connections between Al Qaeda
and the US Administration. The US military, the CIA and NATO had
supported Al Qaeda in the Balkans. Washington’s objective was to
trigger ethnic conflict and destabilize the Yugoslav federation,
first in Bosnia, then in Kosovo.
In 1997, the Republican Party Committee (RPC) of the US Senate
released a detailed report which accused President Clinton of
collaborating with the “Islamic Militant Network” in Bosnia and
working hand in glove with an organization linked to Osama bin
Laden. (See Chapter III.) The report, however, was not widely
publicized. Instead, the Republicans chose to discredit Clinton
for his liaison with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
The Clinton Administration had also been providing covert
support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a paramilitary
group supported by Al Qaeda, which was involved in numerous
terrorist attacks. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and
Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, more commonly known as
MI6, together with former members of Britain’s 22nd Special Air
Services Regiment (SAS) were providing training to the KLA,
despite its extensive links to organized crime and the drug
trade. Meanwhile, known and documented, several Al Qaeda
operatives had integrated the ranks of the KLA. (See Chapter
III).
In the months leading up to 9/11, I was actively involved in
research on the terror attacks in Macedonia, waged by the
self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA) of Macedonia, a
paramilitary army integrated by KLA commanders. Al Qaeda
Mujahideen had integrated the NLA. Meanwhile, senior US military
officers from a private mercenary company on contract to the
Pentagon were advising the terrorists.
Barely a couple of months prior to 9/11, US military advisers
were seen mingling with Al Qaeda operatives within the same
paramilitary army. In late June 2001, seventeen US “instructors”
were identified among the withdrawing rebels. To avoid the
diplomatic humiliation and media embarrassment of senior US
military personnel captured together with “Islamic terrorists”
by the Macedonian Armed Forces, the US and NATO pressured the
Macedonian government to allow the NLA terrorists and their US
military advisers to be evacuated.
The evidence, including statements by the Macedonian Prime
Minister and press reports out of Macedonia, pointed
unequivocally to continued US covert support to the “Islamic
brigades” in the former Yugoslavia. This was not happening in
the bygone era of the Cold War, but in June 2001, barely a
couple of months prior to 9/11. These developments, which I was
following on a daily basis, immediately cast doubt in my mind on
the official 9/11 narrative which presented Al Qaeda as the
mastermind behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon. (Chapter IV.)
The Mysterious Pakistani General
On the 12th of September, a mysterious Lieutenant General, head
of Pakistan’s Military Intelligence (ISI), who according to the
US press reports “happened to be in Washington at the time of
the attacks”, was called into the office of Deputy Secretary of
State Richard Armitage.
The “War on Terrorism” had been officially launched late in the
night of September 11, and Dick Armitage was asking General
Mahmoud Ahmad to help America “in going after the terrorists”.
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was on the phone with
Secretary of State Colin Powell and the following morning, on
the 13th of September, a comprehensive agreement, was reached
between the two governments.
While the press reports confirmed that Pakistan would support
the Bush administration in the “war on terror”, what they failed
to mention was the fact that Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI)
headed by General Ahmad had a longstanding relationship to the
Islamic terror network. Documented by numerous sources, the ISI
was known to have supported a number of Islamic organizations
including Al Qaeda and the Taliban. (See Chapter IV.)
My first reaction in reading news headlines on the 13th of
September was to ask: if the Bush administration were really
committed to weeding out the terrorists, why would it call upon
Pakistan's ISI, which is known to have supported and financed
these terrorist organizations?
Two weeks later, an FBI report, which was briefly mentioned on
ABC News, pointed to a “Pakistani connection” in the financing
of the alleged 9/11 terrorists. The ABC report referred to a
Pakistani “moneyman” and “mastermind” behind the 9/11 hijackers.
Subsequent reports indeed suggested that the head of Pakistan’s
military intelligence, General Mahmoud Ahmad, who had met Colin
Powell on the 13th of September 2001, had allegedly ordered the
transfer of 100,000 dollars to the 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta.
What these reports suggested was that the head of Pakistan’s
military intelligence was not only in close contact with senior
officials of the US Government, he was also in liaison with the
alleged hijackers.
My writings on the Balkans and Pakistani connections, published
in early October 2001 were later incorporated into the first
edition of this book. In subsequent research, I turned my
attention to the broader US strategic and economic agenda in
Central Asia and the Middle East.
There is an intricate relationship between War and
Globalization. The “War on Terror” has been used as a pretext to
conquer new economic frontiers and ultimately establish
corporate control over Iraq’s extensive oil reserves.
The Disinformation Campaign
In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003,
the disinformation campaign went into full gear.
Known and documented prior to the invasion, Britain and the US
made extensive use of fake intelligence to justify the invasion
and occupation of Iraq. Al Qaeda was presented as an ally of the
Baghad regime. “Osama bin Laden” and “Weapons of Mass
Destruction” statements circulated profusely in the news chain.
(Chapter XI.)
Meanwhile, a new terrorist mastermind had emerged: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.
In Colin Powell’s historic address to the United Nations
Security Council, detailed “documentation” on a sinister
relationship between Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was
presented, focusing on his ability to produce deadly chemical,
biological and radiological weapons, with the full support and
endorsement of the secular Baathist regime.
A Code Orange terror alert followed within two days of Powell’s
speech at the United Nations Security Council, where he had been
politely rebuffed by UN Weapons Inspector Dr. Hans Blix.
Realty was thus turned upside down. The US was no longer viewed
as preparing to wage war on Iraq. Iraq was preparing to attack
America with the support of “Islamic terrorists”. Terrorist
mastermind Al-Zarqawi was identified as the number one suspect.
Official statements pointed to the dangers of a dirty
radioactive bomb attack in the US.
The main thrust of the disinformation campaign continued in the
wake of the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. It consisted in
presenting the Iraqi resistance movement as “terrorists”. The
image of “terrorists opposed to democracy” fighting US
“peacekeepers” appeared on television screens and news tabloids
across the globe.
Meanwhile, the Code Orange terror alerts were being used by the
Bush administration to create an atmosphere of fear and
intimidation across America. (See Chapter XX.) The terror alerts
also served to distract public opinion from the countless
atrocities committed by US forces in the Afghan and Iraqi war
theaters, not to mention the routine torture of so-called “enemy
combatants”.
Following the invasion of Afghanistan, the torture of prisoners
of war and the setting up of concentration camps became an
integral part of the Bush administration's post 9/11 agenda.
The entire legal framework had been turned upside down.
According to the US Department of Justice, torture was now
permitted under certain circumstances. Torture directed against
“terrorists” was upheld as a justifiable means to preserving
human rights and democracy. (See chapters XIV and XV.) In an
utterly twisted logic, the Commander in Chief can now quite
legitimately authorize the use of torture, because the victims
of torture in this case are so-called “terrorists”, who are said
to routinely apply the same methods against Americans.
The orders to torture prisoners of war at the Guantanamo
concentration camp and in Iraq in the wake of the 2003 invasion
emanated from the highest levels of the US Government. Prison
guards, interrogators in the US military and the CIA were
responding to precise guidelines.
An inquisitorial system had been installed. In the US and
Britain the “war on the terrorism” is upheld as being in the
public interest. Anybody who questions its practices—which now
include arbitrary arrest and detention, torture of men, women
and children, political assassinations and concentration
camps—is liable to be arrested under the antiterrorist
legislation.
The London 7/7 Bomb Attack
A new threshold in the “war on terrorism” was reached in July
2005, with the bomb attacks on London’s underground, which
resulted tragically in 56 deaths and several hundred wounded.
On both sides of the Atlantic, the London 7//7 attacks were used
to usher in far-reaching police state measures. The US House of
Representatives renewed the USA PATRIOT Act “to make permanent
the government’s unprecedented powers to investigate suspected
terrorists”. Republicans claimed that the London attacks showed
“how urgent and important it was to renew the law.”
Barely a week prior to the London attacks, Washington had
announced the formation of a “domestic spy service” under the
auspices of the FBI. The new department—meaning essentially a
Big Brother “Secret State Police”—was given a mandate to “spy on
people in America suspected of terrorism or having critical
intelligence information, even if they are not suspected of
committing a crime.” Significantly, this new FBI service is not
accountable to the Department of Justice. It is controlled by
the Directorate of National Intelligence headed by John
Negroponte, who has the authority of ordering the arrest of
“terror suspects”.
Meanwhile, in the wake of the 7/7
London attacks, Britain’s Home Office, was calling for a system
of ID cards, as an “answer to terrorism”. Each and every British
citizen and resident will be obliged to register personal
information, which will go into a giant national database, along
with their personal biometrics: “iris pattern of the eye”,
fingerprints and “digitally recognizable facial features”.
Similar procedures were being carried out in the European Union.
War Criminals in High Office
The anti-terrorist legislation and the establishment of a Police
State largely serve the interests of those who have committed
extensive war crimes and who would otherwise have been indicted
under national and international law.
In the wake of the London 7/7 attacks, war criminals continue to
legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to
redefine the contours of the judicial system and the process of
law enforcement. This process has provided them with a mandate
to decide “who are the criminals”, when in fact they are the
criminals. (Chapter XVI).
From New York and Washington on September 11 to Madrid in March
2004 and to London in July 2005, the terror attacks have been
used as a pretext to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. People
can be arbitrarily arrested under the antiterrorist legislation
and detained for an indefinite period. More generally,
throughout the Western World, citizens are being tagged and
labeled, their emails, telephone conversations and faxes are
monitored and archived. Thousands of closed circuit TV cameras,
deployed in urban areas, are overseeing their movements.
Detailed personal data is entered into giant Big Brother data
banks. Once this cataloging has been completed, people will be
locked into watertight compartments.
The witch-hunt is not only directed against presumed
“terrorists” through ethnic profiling, the various human rights,
affirmative action and antiwar cohorts are also the object of
the antiterrorist legislation.
The National Security Doctrine
In 2005, the Pentagon released a major document entitled The
National Defense Strategy of the United States of America (NDS),
which broadly sketches Washington’s agenda for global military
domination. While the NDS follows in the footsteps of the
Administration’s “preemptive” war doctrine as outlined in the
Project for a New American Century (PNAC), it goes much further
in setting the contours of Washington’s global military agenda.
(See Chapter XIX.)
Whereas the preemptive war doctrine envisages military action as
a means of “self defense” against countries categorized as
“hostile” to the US, the 2005 NDS goes one step further. It
envisages the possibility of military intervention against
“unstable countries” or “failed nations”, which do not visibly
constitute a threat to the security of the US.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon had unleashed a major propaganda and
public relations campaign with a view to upholding the use of
nuclear weapons for the “Defense of the American Homeland”
against terrorists and rogue enemies. The fact that the nuclear
bomb is categorized by the Pentagon as “safe for civilians” to
be used in major counter-terrorist activities borders on the
absurd.
In 2005, US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) drew up “a contingency
plan to be used in response to another 9/11-type terrorist
attack”. The plan includes air raids on Iran using both
conventional as well as tactical nuclear weapons.
America’s “War on Terrorism”
The first ten chapters, with some changes and updates,
correspond to the first edition of the book published in 2002
under the title War and Globalization: The Truth behind
September 11. The present expanded edition contains twelve new
chapters, which are the result of research undertaken both prior
as well as in the wake of the invasion of Iraq. (Parts III and
IV.) The sequencing of the material in Parts III and IV
corresponds to the historical evolution of the post 9/11 US
military and national security agendas.
My main objective has
been to refute the official narrative and reveal—using detailed
evidence and documentation—the true nature of America’s “war on
terrorism”.
-
Part I includes four chapters on
September 11, focusing on the history of Al Qaeda and its
ties to the US intelligence apparatus. These chapters
document how successive administrations have supported and
sustained terrorist organizations with a view to
destabilizing national societies and creating political
instability.
-
Part II entitled War and
Globalization centers on the strategic and economic
interests underlying the “war on terrorism”.
-
Part III contains a detailed
analysis of War Propaganda and the Disinformation Campaign,
both prior and in the wake of the invasion of Iraq.
-
Part IV entitled The New World
Order includes a review of the Bush administration’s
preemptive war doctrine (Chapter XIX), a detailed analysis
of the post-Taliban narcotics trade protected by US
intelligence, and a review of the 9/11 Commission Report
focusing specifically on “What Happened on the Planes on the
Morning of 9/11”.
Chapter XX focuses on the system
of terror alerts and their implications. Chapter XXI follows
with an examination of the emergency procedures that could
be used to usher in Martial Law leading to the suspension of
Constitutional government. In this regard, the US Congress
has already adopted procedures, which allow the Military to
intervene directly in civilian police and judicial
functions. In the case of a national emergency—e.g., in
response to an alleged terror attack—there are clearly
defined provisions, which could lead to the formation of a
military government in America.
Finally, Chapter XXII focuses on the broad implications of
the 7/7 London Bombs Attacks, which were followed by the
adoption of sweeping Police State measures in Britain, the
European Union and North America.
Writing this book has not been an
easy undertaking. The material is highly sensitive. The results
of this analysis, which digs beneath the gilded surface of US
foreign policy, are both troublesome and disturbing. The
conclusions are difficult to accept because they point to the
criminalization of the upper echelons of the State. They also
confirm the complicity of the corporate media in upholding the
legitimacy of the Administration’s war agenda and camouflaging
US sponsored war crimes.
The World is at an important historical crossroads. The US has
embarked on a military adventure which threatens the future of
humanity. As we go to press, the Bush Administration has hinted
in no uncertain terms that Iran is the next target of the “war
on terrorism”.
Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel’s
participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war
throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the
Palestinian occupied territories.
I have attempted to the best of my abilities to provide evidence
and detailed documentation of an extremely complex political
process.
The livelihood of millions of people throughout the World is at
stake. It is my sincere hope that the truth will prevail and
that the understanding provided in this detailed study will
serve the cause of World peace. This objective, however, can
only be reached by revealing the falsehoods behind America’s
“War on Terrorism” and September 11 questioning the legitimacy
of the main political and military actors responsible for
extensive war crimes.
I am indebted to many people, who in the course of my work have
supported my endeavors and have provided useful research
insights. The readers of the
Global Research website have
been a source of continuous inspiration and encouragement.
I am indebted to Nicolas Calvé for the creative front cover
graphics, which vividly portray the New World Order, as well as
his support in the typesetting and production of this book. I
owe a debt of gratitude to my daughter Natacha, who assisted me
in the editing of the final manuscript.
I also wish to thank Dr. Leuren Moret and Professor
Glen Rangwala whose carefully
researched texts are included as appendices.
Michel Chossudovsky
Terrasse-Vaudreuil, Québec
August 2005