Home
Response to Ian Slater
I am a decorated U.S. war veteran, who, after volunteering for the army in 1942, fought in Europe as a member of the 12 63'd U.S. Engineer Combat Battalion. I wish to respond to Ian Slater's "Get a Grip" [Winter BCBW] in Lookout.
Ian Slater places people in pigeonholes based on their attitudes to the so-called war on terrorism." He describes glowingly the "generation who fought and died or our freedom" and he castigates the "intellectually lazy crowd" who "blame everything on the U.S." I have squirmed into both holes and I am not alone in performing such a feat.
Those of us whom he regards as "intellectually lazy" do not blame everything on America: What we are saying is that the U.S., as the world's sole superpower, must bear most-but not all-of the responsibility for the world's problems.
The U.S. government believes, and I agree, that Osama bin Laden is the one who is ultimately responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11th. The real question is whether these attacks are sufficient reason to justify the U.S. bombing and killing of thousands of innocent Afghan civilians. Could not the United States lave found ways to capture bin Laden, without going to war? How is it that the CIA, despite its vast resources, has been unable to do what Israel did in apprehending Eichmann in Argentina and France did in arresting Carlos the Jackal in the Sudan?
Dr. Slater attributes the failure of the CIA to neglect of "human intelligence" under the stewardship of Stansfield Turner. This explanation is far too simplistic. Does not Dr. Slater know that the CIA had a close relationship for many years with Mr. bin Laden, whom he describes as "vermin"? Certainly any intellectually alert person would ask why would the CIA deal with such "vermin" in the first place? And does he know that the CIA had contact with bin Laden as late as July 2001?
In an article in The Guardian (London, November 1, 2001) Anthony Sampson, a respected author of several books on the oil and arms trade, reports that "two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent." Sampson's source of information was the conservative French newspaper, Le Figaro, which has close contact with French intelligence. According to Sampson:
Bin Laden is reported to have arrived in Dubai on July 4 from Quetta in Pakistan with his own personal doctor, nurse and four bodyguards, to be treated in the urology department. While there, he was visited by several members of his family and Saudi personalities, and
the CIA. The CIA chief [in Dubai] was seen in the lift, on his way to see bin Laden, and later, it is alleged, boasted to friends about his contact. Sampson's story, if true, raises questions about the willingness of the U.S. to capture bin Laden. So does a recent book, Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth, coauthored by Jean Charles Brisard, a French security expert and Guillaume Dasquie, a journalist. The book claims that John P. O'Neill, former director of anti-terrorism for the FBI's New York office, "complained bitterly last summer that the United States was unwilling to confront Saudi Arabia over Osama bin Laden and that oil ruled American foreign policy." He had been leading the FBI's investigation into the bombing of the destroyer Cole in Yemen in October 2000, but he had been barred in July from returning to Yemen by the U.S. ambassador there who accused him of harming relations between the U.S. and Yemen. Frustrated by this lack of cooperation, he left the FBI in August last year to become chief of security of the World Trade Center. He was killed in the Sept. 11 attack.
Another indication of the unwillingness to go after bin Laden was the decision by the United States to agree to the request of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Washington, to evacuate 24 members of Osama bin Laden's family, who were living in the U.S. They were driven or flown under FBI supervision to a secret assembly point in Texas and then to Washington from where they left the country on a private charter plane when airports reopened three days after the attacks. Why were not these people, some of whom may have had direct connections with Osama, detained and questioned, while at the same time the government was rounding up and detaining without any charge several thousand people from the Middle East, whose connections to bin Laden are unproven.
James Woosley, former director of the CIA, told the BBC late last year that the United States is not interested in finding bin Laden. He added that all the U.S. is interested in is "changing governments" in Afghanistan and other countries. And on Feb. 4, this year, the New York Times reported that in "a recent televised interview the president [Bush] said: 'Osama bin Laden is not my focus. My focus is terror at large.' If the U.S. captures bin Laden, they will have to put him on trial. Such a trial could arouse passions in the Muslim world. In addition, bin Laden may bring to light some interesting revelations about relationships between his family and that of former president Bush. The elder Bush is one of the chief representatives of the Carlyle Group, a $12 billion (US) equity fund, which invests heavily in military industries. Until very recently, the Carlyle Group had links to the bin Laden family. The Carlyle group has reaped large profits from the military procurement orders given by the U.S. government to companies in which it had investments. As an heir to his father's fortune, the president himself may have also benefited and may be subject to conflict of interest charges. It would not be in his interest to air this dirty linen. The alternative to putting bin Laden on trial is, using the mobster language of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Dr. Slater, to "kill him." But that would make him a martyr, something the U.S. would not want to happen.
Finally, bin Laden's capture would put strong international pressure on the U.S. to end the war. But the U.S. wants a permanent state of war in order to impose a Pax Americana on an unwilling world. Such a policy may ultimately bring about a nuclear disaster. This is what concerns "lazy intellectuals" like me.
Edward H. Shaffer, Vancouver
[BCBW Spring 2002]
Ian Slater places people in pigeonholes based on their attitudes to the so-called war on terrorism." He describes glowingly the "generation who fought and died or our freedom" and he castigates the "intellectually lazy crowd" who "blame everything on the U.S." I have squirmed into both holes and I am not alone in performing such a feat.
Those of us whom he regards as "intellectually lazy" do not blame everything on America: What we are saying is that the U.S., as the world's sole superpower, must bear most-but not all-of the responsibility for the world's problems.
The U.S. government believes, and I agree, that Osama bin Laden is the one who is ultimately responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11th. The real question is whether these attacks are sufficient reason to justify the U.S. bombing and killing of thousands of innocent Afghan civilians. Could not the United States lave found ways to capture bin Laden, without going to war? How is it that the CIA, despite its vast resources, has been unable to do what Israel did in apprehending Eichmann in Argentina and France did in arresting Carlos the Jackal in the Sudan?
Dr. Slater attributes the failure of the CIA to neglect of "human intelligence" under the stewardship of Stansfield Turner. This explanation is far too simplistic. Does not Dr. Slater know that the CIA had a close relationship for many years with Mr. bin Laden, whom he describes as "vermin"? Certainly any intellectually alert person would ask why would the CIA deal with such "vermin" in the first place? And does he know that the CIA had contact with bin Laden as late as July 2001?
In an article in The Guardian (London, November 1, 2001) Anthony Sampson, a respected author of several books on the oil and arms trade, reports that "two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent." Sampson's source of information was the conservative French newspaper, Le Figaro, which has close contact with French intelligence. According to Sampson:
Bin Laden is reported to have arrived in Dubai on July 4 from Quetta in Pakistan with his own personal doctor, nurse and four bodyguards, to be treated in the urology department. While there, he was visited by several members of his family and Saudi personalities, and
the CIA. The CIA chief [in Dubai] was seen in the lift, on his way to see bin Laden, and later, it is alleged, boasted to friends about his contact. Sampson's story, if true, raises questions about the willingness of the U.S. to capture bin Laden. So does a recent book, Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth, coauthored by Jean Charles Brisard, a French security expert and Guillaume Dasquie, a journalist. The book claims that John P. O'Neill, former director of anti-terrorism for the FBI's New York office, "complained bitterly last summer that the United States was unwilling to confront Saudi Arabia over Osama bin Laden and that oil ruled American foreign policy." He had been leading the FBI's investigation into the bombing of the destroyer Cole in Yemen in October 2000, but he had been barred in July from returning to Yemen by the U.S. ambassador there who accused him of harming relations between the U.S. and Yemen. Frustrated by this lack of cooperation, he left the FBI in August last year to become chief of security of the World Trade Center. He was killed in the Sept. 11 attack.
Another indication of the unwillingness to go after bin Laden was the decision by the United States to agree to the request of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Washington, to evacuate 24 members of Osama bin Laden's family, who were living in the U.S. They were driven or flown under FBI supervision to a secret assembly point in Texas and then to Washington from where they left the country on a private charter plane when airports reopened three days after the attacks. Why were not these people, some of whom may have had direct connections with Osama, detained and questioned, while at the same time the government was rounding up and detaining without any charge several thousand people from the Middle East, whose connections to bin Laden are unproven.
James Woosley, former director of the CIA, told the BBC late last year that the United States is not interested in finding bin Laden. He added that all the U.S. is interested in is "changing governments" in Afghanistan and other countries. And on Feb. 4, this year, the New York Times reported that in "a recent televised interview the president [Bush] said: 'Osama bin Laden is not my focus. My focus is terror at large.' If the U.S. captures bin Laden, they will have to put him on trial. Such a trial could arouse passions in the Muslim world. In addition, bin Laden may bring to light some interesting revelations about relationships between his family and that of former president Bush. The elder Bush is one of the chief representatives of the Carlyle Group, a $12 billion (US) equity fund, which invests heavily in military industries. Until very recently, the Carlyle Group had links to the bin Laden family. The Carlyle group has reaped large profits from the military procurement orders given by the U.S. government to companies in which it had investments. As an heir to his father's fortune, the president himself may have also benefited and may be subject to conflict of interest charges. It would not be in his interest to air this dirty linen. The alternative to putting bin Laden on trial is, using the mobster language of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Dr. Slater, to "kill him." But that would make him a martyr, something the U.S. would not want to happen.
Finally, bin Laden's capture would put strong international pressure on the U.S. to end the war. But the U.S. wants a permanent state of war in order to impose a Pax Americana on an unwilling world. Such a policy may ultimately bring about a nuclear disaster. This is what concerns "lazy intellectuals" like me.
Edward H. Shaffer, Vancouver
[BCBW Spring 2002]
Submitted on June 15, 2004 in By David.
