Are Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and Saddam Hussein CIA’s protégés or agents?
Der Voron, author of book Starcraft

Are Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and Saddam Hussein CIA’s protégés or agents? Here is what I would like to suggest, regarding this:





Mullah Omar:



1) It is known that he was arranged to be the head of Taleban, back in 1994, by ISI (Pakistani intelligence service), and that ISI has close ties with CIA and MI-5/MI-6 (Britain’s intelligence services).



2) In 2001, when the war on Taleban began, Mullah Omar could have ordered Taleban troops and agents to invade Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. There, oppressed people would be ready to revolt against their regimes, and to support the Taleban liberators in their actions. They would also support the Taleban, in their fight against the North Alliance, and US militaries. Thus, the Taleban would have more people and resources to fight against its enemies.



Why didn't he take this evident step?



Imagine yourself in Mullah Omar’s position. The United States wants to destroy your regime, and your regime fights against them. You know that Uzbeks, Turkmens, and Tajiks are ready to revolt. What would you do? If you would de facto be against the US, then you would immediately do something similar to that described above (OK, in Tajikistan there is, and was, one of the best Russian military divisions, but we still have Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan). And if you would only de jure be against the US, and would de facto be their (and ISI) operative?





Osama bin Laden:



1) He fought against the Soviet troops back in 1980s, during the Soviet-Afghan war (in which the US supported Afghanistan);



2) US attempted to kill him in 1998, firing a bunch of rockets at the building where he was supposedly present. They killed a lot of people, except for bin Laden himself;



3) They have tried to find him in Afghanistan, over the past 15 months. But it seems they can never find him. Indeed, why would they want to imprison, or even kill, such a good agent?



4) He was and is an advisor to Mullah Omar. Imagine that you are Omar’s advisor. The US wants to destroy the Taleban regime, and you fight against them. You know that Uzbeks, Turkmens, and Tajiks are ready to revolt. Mullah Omar and, by some strange coincidence, all his advisors evidently don’t see this possibility (please see above). What would you do?



It seems Osama makes periodical claims against the US (including, for example, his pre-war recommendations to Saddam’ troops about how to fight against the US) just to “keep image”, i.e. to show the world that he with Al-Qaeda actively ”struggles” against the “world policeman”.





Saddam Hussein (this is the most doubtful case, below it will be explained why). Questions:



1) In 1980, he attacked Iran -- whilst Iran contained about 3 times the population of Iraq -- right after a fundamentalist ayatollah regime came to power there. This fundamentalist regime represented danger for the United States. The United States almost openly supported Iraq in this war. Was it just a coincidence that Iraq attacked Iran, right after an anti-US regime came to power in it? Was it a coincidence that Iraq should attack Iran: a nation with 3 times its population, and an army to match? Was it a case of the US saying: “any enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine”? Was this the underlying reason for the US support of Iraq in this war?



2) In 1990, he decided to take Kuwait, basing his attack on a mere written consent -- not even an original document, but a telex – from none other than George W. Bush Sr. If you were the ruler of Iraq, would you proceed to annex Kuwait, just on the strength of this piece of paper?



3) After he captured Kuwait in 1990, why didn’t he then offer the Soviet Union, which still existed at that time, the opportunity to engage its troops in Iraq, in order to prevent the coalition’s military operation? An offer, in which the Soviet Union would also receive 50% of Kuwait’s oil at a cheap rate (thus becoming able to save its economy, which was collapsing at that time; oil extraction in Kuwait is much less expensive than in the Soviet Union/CIS because of climate differences)?



Perhaps such an idea came to his head, and he offered a similar plan to the Soviet Union (i.e., let us assume he is not a CIA operative). But, maybe Soviet leaders were just too heavily bribed by the West to risk placing any obstacles in the way of the coalition’s plans. We cannot know that for sure; that is why I wrote above that Saddam’s case as being a CIA agent is the most doubtful. But, in this case, a question remains: why didn’t the Soviet leaders realize that Kuwaiti oil was worth far more than all the monitory bribes they could ever hope to receive?



4) In 2003, he could have used his aviation against US troops (North Korea, on the other hand, is reportedly planning to use its aviation. Numbering about 650 warplanes, North Korea could use its substantial air force against South Korea, and against US troops; they could use this force in the normal sense, or even like kamikaze pilots). Why didn’t he?


5) And, finally, Baghdad was captured by the coalition troops, almost without any form of organised resistance. Why?





Now, if we assume that Saddam is the CIA protégé, then he has accomplished his task (and, for example, didn’t take the step similar to the one described above). The United States have almost taken control over Iraq, and is ready for next phase of military operations. At the same time, almost all people think that the United States has vanquished Iraq, in a tough, though short, struggle. If Saddam is genuinely not a CIA agent then here is what scenario may await us in the future...

Perhaps the surrender of Baghdad was just a manoeuver by Saddam's troops. Perhaps Saddam ordered them to hide themselves and to wait for the hour X: when the coalition troops feel they are almost entirely safe in Baghdad and Iraq, and when they loose their caution against possible attacks. And, maybe he arranged for some Iraqis to loot, "dethrone" Saddam's statues etc, to show the coalition the Iraqi people's complete disobedience towards Saddam's regime (i.e. the looting is being done by certain Iraqis, who appear to "represent" the Iraqi people. Just like the Bolsheviks, who arranged for their party's members to play the role of people welcoming Bolsheviks, during the October revolution of 1917 in the Russian Empire)? And, finally, doesn't it seem strange that the victory in the war on Iraq was, "in general", reached in about 3 weeks, while Serbia, a country much weaker in military aspect, was only vanquished after a much longer struggle? Serbian President doesn’t seem to be a protégé or agent of the CIA...


Also, building an oil refinery doesn’t mean to begin getting oil. If a guerrilla unit fires it just after it is built (or, after an already existing oil refinery begins producing oil) it means that the money used to build it was spent in vain, with no oil received.



There are the Russian Federation and China factors. They have vetoed in the OUN's Council of Security the military operation against North Korea. Russia almost openly supported Iraq in the war, and, for example, supplied specialists to help install the systems that "deceived" Tomahawks into missing their targets. Russia has sent its Pacific Ocean Fleet's ships to the Indian Ocean, and is planning to send its Black Sea fleet. If Saddam Hussein has fallen, then what does Russia count on in Iraq? Or, do they just organize a next demonstration of non-existent muscles, like they have sometimes? In military aspect, Russia does seem a weak enemy. For example, Russian military budget is, in dollar equivalent, about $10bn, while American is about $300bn. At the first sight, it seems they are incomparable. But if we take in account that Russian prices are, on average, about 4 times lower then we will have to multiply $10bn by 4 to get the real purchasing power of dollar in Russia. With regards to China, its military budget is reportedly 15bn dollars. But some CIA sources say that the Chinese real military budget may be up to 4 times bigger. Prices in China are also low, thus closer to those in Russia...