Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #872 Interview with Elizabeth Gould and Paul Fitzgerald about Zbigniew Brzezinski, Afghanistan’s Untold Story and the Ukraine Crisis

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained here. The new dri­ve is a 32-giga­byte dri­ve that is cur­rent as of the pro­grams and arti­cles post­ed by late spring of 2015. The new dri­ve (avail­able for a tax-deductible con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more) con­tains FTR #850.  

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself HERE.

This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

Chechens in Ukraine (pho­to cred­it Reuters)

Intro­duc­tion: We begin by revis­it­ing our guests’ first book Invis­i­ble His­to­ry; Afghanistan’s Untold Sto­ry (See FTR #‘s 678, 680, 683, 685.) Zbig­niew Brzezinski–Jimmy Carter’s Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Adviser–concocted a scheme to draw the Sovi­et Union into a war in Afghanistan–the goal being to draw the USSR into their own “Afghanistan.” See­ing Afghanistan as a key to con­trol­ling the Earth Island or the World Island (see below), Brzezin­s­ki saw using Islamists as proxy war­riors to defeat the Sovi­ets.

Next, we exam­ine an arti­cle writ­ten by our guests. Dis­cussing Zbig­niew Brzezin­ski’s doc­trine of con­trol­ling Eura­sia by con­trol­ling the “piv­ot point” of Ukraine. Fun­da­men­tal to this analy­sis is the con­cept of the Earth Island or World Island as it is some­times known.

Stretch­ing from the Straits of Gibral­tar, all across Europe, most of the Mid­dle East, Eura­sia, Rus­sia, Chi­na and India, that stretch of land: com­pris­es most of the world’s land mass; con­tains most of the world’s pop­u­la­tion and most of the world’s nat­ur­al resources (includ­ing oil and nat­ur­al gas.) Geopoliti­cians have long seen con­trol­ling that land mass as the key to world dom­i­na­tion.  The pop­u­la­tion that occu­pies the mid­dle of that stretch of geog­ra­phy is large­ly Mus­lim.

Uti­liz­ing that Mus­lim pop­u­la­tion to con­trol the resources of the Earth Island is a strat­a­gem that has been in effect in the West for a cen­tu­ry.

Brzezin­s­ki uti­lized that gam­bit to lure the Sovi­et Union into Afghanistan and the pres­ence of Chechen fight­ers oper­at­ing under Pravy Sek­tor admin­is­tra­tive com­mand may very well derive from the same con­cept.

We note that Brzezin­s­ki has spawned like-mind­ed prog­e­ny: his daugh­ter Mika holds forth on MSNBC and Ian is advo­cat­ing for a change in the chain of com­mand which would per­mit the use of nuclear weapons much eas­i­er.

Salute by the leader of Svo­bo­da, one of the par­ties enjoy­ing pow­er in Ukraine

In addi­tion to the use of Islamists as proxy war­riors, the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood’s cor­po­ratist eco­nom­ic phi­los­o­phy has endeared the Chechens, al-Qae­da et al to the transna­tion­al cor­po­rate elite and asso­ci­at­ed polit­i­cal and nation­al secu­ri­ty ele­ments.

Pro­gram High­lights Include:

  • Brzezin­ski’s involve­ment with the Rock­e­feller milieu, the Tri­lat­er­al Com­mis­sion in par­tic­u­lar.
  • The effect of the Amer­i­can loss in Viet­nam on the for­ma­tion of Brzezin­ski’s Afghanistan gam­bit.
  • Review of both Brzezin­ski’s and Rock­e­feller pro­tege Hen­ry Kissinger’s his­tor­i­cal involve­ment with the Nazi intel­li­gence milieu import­ed into the U.S.
  • The sleep-walk­ing of the U.S. toward nuclear war.
  • Russ­ian mil­i­tary entry into Syr­ia, pos­si­bly to neu­tral­ize the Islamists now turn­ing up in Ukraine, the Cau­ca­sus and else­where.
  • Amer­i­ca’s vio­la­tion of a promise to Gor­bachev not to walk NATO up to the Russ­ian bor­der.
  • The inept, eco­nom­i­cal­ly bank­rupt nature of the U.S.-installed gov­ern­ment of Ukraine.
  • Review of Gra­ham Fuller’s role in pre­cip­i­tat­ing the first Afghan war.
  • Review of the Boston Marathon Bomb­ing, which appears to have been “blow­back” from an appar­ent covert oper­a­tion in the Cau­ca­sus.

1. We begin by revis­it­ing our guests’ first book Invis­i­ble His­to­ry; Afghanistan’s Untold Sto­ry (See FTR #‘s 678, 680, 683, 685.) Zbig­niew Brzezinski–Jimmy Carter’s Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Adviser–concocted a scheme to draw the Sovi­et Union into a war in Afghanistan–the goal being to draw the USSR into their own “Afghanistan.” See­ing Afghanistan as a key to con­trol­ling the Earth Island or the World Island (see below), Brzezin­s­ki saw using Islamists as proxy war­riors to defeat the Sovi­ets. (The gam­bit of using Mus­lim com­bat­ants as proxy war­riors is a long­stand­ing nation­al secu­ri­ty tac­tic, orig­i­nal­ly craft­ed by Impe­r­i­al Ger­many dur­ing World War I.)

2. Next, we exam­ine an arti­cle writ­ten by our guests. Dis­cussing Zbig­niew Brzezin­ski’s doc­trine of con­trol­ling Eura­sia by con­trol­ling the “piv­ot point” of Ukraine. Fun­da­men­tal to this analy­sis is the con­cept of the Earth Island or World Island as it is some­times known.

Stretch­ing from the Straits of Gibral­tar, all across Europe, most of the Mid­dle East, Eura­sia, Rus­sia, Chi­na and India, that stretch of land: com­pris­es most of the world’s land mass; con­tains most of the world’s pop­u­la­tion and most of the world’s nat­ur­al resources (includ­ing oil and nat­ur­al gas.) Geopoliti­cians have long seen con­trol­ling that land mass as the key to world dom­i­na­tion.  The pop­u­la­tion that occu­pies the mid­dle of that stretch of geog­ra­phy is large­ly Mus­lim.

Uti­liz­ing that Mus­lim pop­u­la­tion to con­trol the resources of the Earth Island is a strat­a­gem that has been in effect in the West for a cen­tu­ry.

Brzezin­s­ki uti­lized that gam­bit to lure the Sovi­et Union into Afghanistan and the pres­ence of Chechen fight­ers oper­at­ing under Pravy Sek­tor admin­is­tra­tive com­mand may very well derive from the same con­cept.

“Amer­i­ca Piv­ots to Brzezinski’s Delu­sion of Eurasian Con­quest” by Paul Fitzger­ald and Eliz­a­beth Gould; OpE­d­News; 6/4/2015.

Rus­sia his­to­ri­an Stephen Cohen points to the neo­con­ser­v­a­tive estab­lish­ment for Amer­i­ca’s lat­est out­break of what can only be referred to as late-stage impe­r­i­al demen­tia. Neo­cons Robert Kagan and wife Vic­to­ria Nuland have cer­tain­ly done the heavy lift­ing to make Ukraine the stag­ing ground for what appears to be a NATO blitzkrieg on Moscow. But what­ev­er the deter­mi­na­tion of the neo­con plot, they are only the bark­ing dogs of mas­ter impe­ri­al­ist Zbig­niew Brzezin­s­ki, whose grand design has been creep­ing over the globe since he stepped into the Oval office as Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Advi­sor to Pres­i­dent Jim­my Carter in 1977.

Brzezin­s­ki stands apart as the inspi­ra­tion for the Ukraine cri­sis. His 1997 book The Grand Chess­board: Amer­i­can Pri­ma­cy and its Geostrate­gic Imper­a­tives lays out the blue­print for how Amer­i­can pri­macists should feel towards draw­ing Ukraine away from Rus­sia because, “With­out Ukraine, Rus­sia ceas­es to be a Eurasian empire.”

Brzezin­ski’s obses­sion derives from British geo­g­ra­ph­er Sir Hal­ford Mackinder’s 1904 def­i­n­i­tion of the Cen­tral-East­ern nations of Europe as the “Piv­ot Area”, whose geo­graph­ic posi­tion made them “the vital spring­boards for the attain­ment of con­ti­nen­tal dom­i­na­tion.” Whether any­one real­izes it, the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion’s cur­rent cam­paign against Rus­sia in Ukraine is of Mackinder’s design brought for­ward by Brzezin­s­ki.

To an expert like Stephen Cohen, the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion’s indict­ment of Rus­sia over Ukraine “does­n’t cor­re­spond to the facts and above all it has no log­ic.” But a look back forty years reveals that a lot of Cold War think­ing was­n’t fact-based either and it may now be instruc­tive to look for answers to Wash­ing­ton’s cur­rent dose of illog­ic in the covert ori­gins of the U.S. sup­port­ed 1970s war for Afghanistan.

As the first Amer­i­cans to gain access to Kab­ul after the Sovi­et inva­sion for an Amer­i­can TV crew in 1981 we got a close-up look at the nar­ra­tive sup­port­ing Pres­i­dent Carter’s “great­est threat to peace since the Sec­ond World War” and it did­n’t hold up. What had been pre­sent­ed as an open and shut case of Sovi­et expan­sion by Har­vard Pro­fes­sor Richard Pipes on the Mac­Neil-Lehrer News Hour could just as eas­i­ly have been defined as a defen­sive action with­in the Sovi­ets’ legit­i­mate sphere of influ­ence. Three years ear­li­er, Pipes’Team B Strate­gic Objec­tives Pan­el had been accused of sub­vert­ing the process of mak­ing nation­al secu­ri­ty esti­mates by invent­ing threats where they did­n’t exist and inten­tion­al­ly skew­ing its find­ings along ide­o­log­i­cal lines. Now that ide­ol­o­gy was being pre­sent­ed as fact by Amer­i­ca’s Pub­lic Broad­cast­ing Sys­tem.

In 1983 we returned to Kab­ul with Har­vard Nego­ti­a­tion Project Direc­tor Roger Fish­er for ABC’s Night­line. Our aim was to estab­lish the cred­i­bil­i­ty of the Amer­i­can claims. We dis­cov­ered from high lev­el Sovi­et offi­cials that the Krem­lin want­ed des­per­ate­ly to aban­don the war but the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion was drag­ging its feet. From the moment they entered office, the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion demand­ed that the Sovi­ets with­draw their forces, while at the same time keep­ing them pinned down through covert action so they could­n’t leave. Though lack­ing in facts and drip­ping in right wing ide­ol­o­gy, this hyp­o­crit­i­cal cam­paign was embraced by the entire Amer­i­can polit­i­cal spec­trum and left will­ful­ly-unex­am­ined by Amer­i­ca’s main­stream media.

At a con­fer­ence con­duct­ed by the Nobel Insti­tute in 1995, a high lev­el group of for­mer US and Sovi­et offi­cials faced off over the ques­tion: Why did the Sovi­ets invade Afghanistan? For­mer Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil staff mem­ber Dr. Gary Sick estab­lished that the U.S. had assigned Afghanistan to the Sovi­et sphere of influ­ence years before the inva­sion. So why did the US choose an ide­o­log­i­cal­ly biased posi­tion when there were any num­ber of ver­i­fi­able fact-based expla­na­tions for why the Sovi­ets had invad­ed?

To for­mer CIA Direc­tor Stans­field Turn­er, respon­si­bil­i­ty could only be locat­ed in the per­son­al­i­ty of one spe­cif­ic indi­vid­ual. “Brzezin­ski’s name comes up here every five min­utes; but nobody has as yet men­tioned that he is a Pole.” Turn­er said. “[T]he fact that Brzezin­s­ki is a Pole, it seems to me was ter­ri­bly impor­tant.”

What Stans­field Turn­er was say­ing in 1995 was that Brzezin­ski’s well-known hatred of Rus­sia led him to take advan­tage of the Sovi­et’s mis­cal­cu­la­tion. But it was­n’t until the 1998 Nou­v­el Obser­va­teur inter­view that Brzezin­s­ki boast­ed that he had pro­voked the inva­sion by get­ting Carter to autho­rize a Pres­i­den­tial find­ing to inten­tion­al­ly suck the Sovi­ets in six months before they even con­sid­ered invad­ing.

Yet, despite Brzezin­ski’s admis­sion, Wash­ing­ton’s entire polit­i­cal spec­trum con­tin­ued to embrace his orig­i­nal false nar­ra­tive that the Sovi­ets had embarked on a world con­quest.

For Brzezin­s­ki, get­ting the Sovi­ets to invade Afghanistan was an oppor­tu­ni­ty to shift Wash­ing­ton toward an unre­lent­ing hard line against the Sovi­et Union. By using covert action, he cre­at­ed the con­di­tions need­ed to pro­voke a Sovi­et defen­sive response which he’d then used as evi­dence of unre­lent­ing Sovi­et expan­sion. How­ev­er, once his exag­ger­a­tions and lies about Sovi­et inten­tions became accept­ed, they found a home in Amer­i­ca’s imag­i­na­tion and nev­er left.

The Brzezin­s­ki-draft­ed Carter Doc­trine put the U.S. into the Mid­dle East with the Rapid Deploy­ment Force, Chi­na became engaged as a US mil­i­tary ally and detente with the Sovi­et Union was dead. The Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion would soon advance on this agen­da with a mas­sive mil­i­tary buildup as well as expand­ed covert actions inside the Sovi­et Union by the Nation­al­i­ties Work­ing Group.

The Pol­ish born Brzezin­s­ki rep­re­sent­ed the ascen­den­cy of a rad­i­cal new breed of xeno­pho­bic East­ern and Cen­tral Euro­pean intel­lec­tu­al bent on hold­ing Soviet/American pol­i­cy hostage to their pre-World War II world view. His ear­ly sup­port for expand­ing NATO into East­ern Europe and Ukraine was opposed by 46 senior for­eign pol­i­cy advi­sors who referred to it in a let­ter to Pres­i­dent Clin­ton as “a pol­i­cy error of his­toric pro­por­tions.” Yet in 1999, the Clin­ton admin­is­tra­tion, urged on by what Time Mag­a­zine described as “Eth­nic lob­by­ing groups such as the Pol­ish Amer­i­can Con­gress,” began imple­ment­ing the plan.

US pol­i­cy since that time has oper­at­ed in a delu­sion of tri­umphal­ism that both pro­vokes inter­na­tion­al inci­dents and then cap­i­tal­izes on the chaos. A desta­bi­liz­ing strat­e­gy of sanc­tions against Rus­sia, the Amer­i­can mil­i­tary’s train­ing of the Ukrain­ian Nation­al Guard, US troops parad­ing armored vehi­cles with­in 300 yards of Rus­si­a’s bor­der and war­like state­ments by NATO lead­ers can only mean the US is com­mit­ted to Brzezin­ski’s strat­e­gy of seiz­ing the “Piv­ot Area” and hold­ing it.

Today it’s Brzezin­ski’s son Ian who finds Moscow at the root of Amer­i­ca’s prob­lems regard­less of the facts. He recent­ly rec­om­mend­ed to the Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee that the author­i­ty to make war on Rus­sia should be tak­en out of Pres­i­dent Oba­ma’s hands and giv­en to NATO’s top com­man­der, Gen­er­al Phillip Breedlove; a man accused by the Ger­man gov­ern­ment of exag­ger­at­ing the Russ­ian threat in east­ern Ukraine by spread­ing “dan­ger­ous pro­pa­gan­da”.

The time has come for the Amer­i­can pub­lic to be let in on what US for­eign pol­i­cy has become and to decide whether the Brzezin­s­ki fam­i­ly’s per­son­al obses­sion with ful­fill­ing Mackinder’s direc­tive for con­quer­ing the piv­ot of Eura­sia at any cost, should be Amer­i­ca’s goal as well.

3. We note that Brzezin­s­ki has spawned like-mind­ed prog­e­ny: his daugh­ter Mika holds forth on MSNBC and Ian is advo­cat­ing for a change in the chain of com­mand which would per­mit the use of nuclear weapons much eas­i­er.

4. In addi­tion to their util­i­ty as proxy war­riors in the World Island, our guests note that Islamists of the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood also favor “cor­po­ratist’ eco­nom­ics. For con­ve­nience, we review infor­ma­tion about this dynam­ic from pre­vi­ous pro­grams:

High­light­ing the com­par­isons between the Brotherhood’s pro­gram and those of Mus­soli­ni and Hitler, we note:

Dol­lars for Ter­ror: The Unit­ed States and Islam; by Richard Labeviere; Copy­right 2000 [SC]; Algo­ra Pub­lish­ing; ISBN 1–892941-06–6; p. 127.

. . . . Tak­ing Italy’s choic­es under Mus­soli­ni for inspi­ra­tion, the eco­nom­ic pro­gram set three pri­or­i­ties . . . The social pol­i­cy fore­saw a new law on labor, found­ed on cor­po­ra­tions. This eco­nom­ic pro­gram would more direct­ly reveal its rela­tion­ship to total­i­tar­i­an ide­olo­gies a few years lat­er, with the works of Mohamed Ghaz­a­li . . . . Mohamed Ghaz­a­li rec­om­mend­ed ‘an eco­nom­ic reg­i­men sim­i­lar to that which exist­ed in Nazi Ger­many and fas­cist Italy.’ . . . The moral code is also an impor­tant com­po­nent in this pro­gram, which is intend­ed to cre­ate the ‘new Mus­lim man.’ . . . The notion of the equal­i­ty of the sex­es is inher­ent­ly negat­ed by the con­cept of the suprema­cy of male social respon­si­bil­i­ties. . .the ‘nat­ur­al’ place of the woman is in the home. . . .

  5. About the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood’s eco­nom­ic doc­trine:

“Islam in Office” by Stephen Glain; Newsweek; 7/3–10/2006.

Judeo-Chris­t­ian scrip­ture offers lit­tle eco­nomic instruc­tion. The Book of Deuteron­omy, for exam­ple, is loaded with edicts on how the faith­ful should pray, eat, bequeath, keep the holy fes­ti­vals and treat slaves and spous­es, but it is silent on trade and com­merce. In Matthew, when Christ admon­ishes his fol­low­ers to ‘give to the emper­or the things that are the emperor’s,’ he is effec­tively con­ced­ing fis­cal and mon­e­tary author­ity to pagan Rome. Islam is dif­fer­ent. The prophet Muhammad—himself a trader—preached mer­chant hon­or, the only reg­u­la­tion that the bor­der­less Lev­an­tine mar­ket knew. . . .

. . . In Mus­lim litur­gy, the deals cut in the souk become a metaphor for the con­tract between God and the faith­ful. And the busi­ness mod­el Muham­mad pre­scribed, accord­ing to Mus­lim schol­ars and econ­o­mists, is very much in the lais­sez-faire tra­di­tion lat­er embraced by the West. Prices were to be set by God alone—anticipating by more than a mil­len­nium Adam Smith’s ref­er­ence to the ‘invis­i­ble hand’ of mar­ket-based pric­ing. Mer­chants were not to cut deals out­side the souk, an ear­ly attempt to thwart insid­er trad­ing. . . . In the days of the caliphate, Islam devel­oped the most sophis­ti­cated mon­e­tary sys­tem the world had yet known. Today, some econ­o­mists cite Islam­ic bank­ing as fur­ther evi­dence of an intrin­sic Islam­ic prag­ma­tism. Though still guid­ed by a Qur’anic ban on riba, or inter­est, Islam­ic bank­ing has adapt­ed to the needs of a boom­ing oil region for liq­uid­ity. In recent years, some 500 Islam­ic banks and invest­ment firms hold­ing $2 tril­lion in assets have emerged in the Gulf States, with more in Islam­ic com­mu­ni­ties of the West.

British Chan­cel­lor of the Exche­quer Gor­don Brown wants to make Lon­don a glob­al cen­ter for Islam­ic finance—and elic­its no howl of protest from fun­da­men­tal­ists. How Islamists might run a cen­tral bank is more prob­lem­atic: schol­ars say they would manip­u­late cur­rency reserves, not inter­est rates.

The Mus­lim Broth­er­hood hails 14th cen­tury philoso­pher Ibn Khal­dun as its eco­nomic guide. Antic­i­pat­ing sup­ply-side eco­nom­ics, Khal­dun argued that cut­ting tax­es rais­es pro­duc­tion and tax rev­enues, and that state con­trol should be lim­ited to pro­vid­ing water, fire and free graz­ing land, the util­i­ties of the ancient world. The World Bank has called Ibn Khal­dun the first advo­cate of pri­va­ti­za­tion. [Empha­sis added.] His found­ing influ­ence is a sign of mod­er­a­tion. If Islamists in pow­er ever do clash with the West, it won’t be over com­merce. . . .

6. In addi­tion to the appar­ent use of Mus­lim Brotherhood/Islamist ele­ments as proxy war­riors against Rus­sia and Chi­na, the Broth­er­hood’s cor­po­ratist eco­nom­ics are beloved to Gra­ham Fuller, as well as cor­po­rate ele­ments cham­pi­oned by Grover Norquist. Evi­dence sug­gests that the Boston Marathon Bomb­ing was blow­back from a covert oper­a­tion in the Cau­ca­sus, not unlike the 9/11 attacks. Fuller’s name crops up promi­nent­ly in the back­ground of the attacks.

“Chech­nyan Pow­er” by Mark Ames; nsfwcorp.com; 6/5/2013.

. . . Fuller comes from that fac­tion of CIA Cold War­riors who believed (and still appar­ently believe) that fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam, even in its rad­i­cal jiha­di form, does not pose a threat to the West, for the sim­ple rea­son that fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam is con­ser­v­a­tive, against social jus­tice, against social­ism and redis­tri­b­u­tion of wealth, and in favor of hier­ar­chi­cal socio-eco­nom­ic struc­tures. Social­ism is the com­mon ene­my to both cap­i­tal­ist Amer­ica and to Wah­habi Islam, accord­ing to Fuller.

Accord­ing to jour­nal­ist Robert Drey­fuss’ book “Devil’s Game,” Fuller explained his attrac­tion to rad­i­cal Islam in neoliberal/libertarian terms:

“There is no main­stream Islam­ic organization...with rad­i­cal social views,” he wrote. “Clas­si­cal Islam­ic the­ory envis­ages the role of the state as lim­ited to facil­i­tat­ing the well-being of mar­kets and mer­chants rather than con­trol­ling them. Islamists have always pow­er­fully object­ed to social­ism and communism....Islam has nev­er had prob­lems with the idea that wealth is uneven­ly dis­trib­uted.” . . . .

7. Fuller has long been an advo­cate of a “turn to the Broth­er­hood.”

“In Search of Friends Among the Foes: U.S. Hopes to Work with Diverse Group” by John Mintz and Dou­glas Farah; The Wash­ing­ton Post; 9/11/2004; p. A01.

. . . Some fed­er­al agents wor­ry that the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood has dan­ger­ous links to ter­ror­ism. But some U.S. diplo­mats and intel­li­gence offi­cials believe its influ­ence offers an oppor­tu­ni­ty for polit­i­cal engage­ment that could help iso­late vio­lent jihadists. ‘It is the pre­em­i­nent move­ment in the Mus­lim world,’ said Gra­ham E. Fuller, a for­mer CIA offi­cial spe­cial­iz­ing in the Mid­dle East. ‘It’s some­thing we can work with.’ Demo­niz­ing the Broth­er­hood ‘would be fool­hardy in the extreme’ he warned.” . . .

8. More about the cor­po­ratist eco­nom­ic phi­los­o­phy of the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood fol­lows. Note that Khairat el-Shater was alleged by Egypt­ian intel­li­gence to have been run­ning Mohamed Mor­si. (We cov­ered this in FTR #787.) In turn, he was report­ed to be serv­ing as a liai­son between Mor­si and Mohamed Zawahiri, the broth­er of Al-Qae­da leader Ayman Zawahiri. Shater was also net­worked with: Anne Pat­ter­son, U.S. ambas­sador to Egypt, GOP Sen­a­tor John McCain and GOP Sen­a­tor Lid­say Gra­ham. In turn, Shater was alleged to have trans­ferred $50 mil­lion from the Egypt­ian Mus­lim Broth­er­hood to Al-Qae­da at the time that he was net­work­ing with the Amer­i­cans and Mor­si. Hey, what’s $50 mil­lion between friends?

“The GOP Broth­er­hood of Egypt” by Avi Ash­er-Schapiro; Salon.com; 1/25/2012.

While West­ern alarmists often depict Egypt’s Mus­lim Broth­er­hood as a shad­owy orga­ni­za­tion with ter­ror­ist ties, the Brotherhood’s ide­ol­o­gy actu­al­ly has more in com­mon with America’s Repub­li­can Par­ty than with al-Qai­da. Few Amer­i­cans know it but the Broth­er­hood is a free-mar­ket par­ty led by wealthy busi­ness­men whose eco­nom­ic agen­da embraces pri­va­ti­za­tion and for­eign invest­ment while spurn­ing labor unions and the redis­tri­b­u­tion of wealth. Like the Repub­li­cans in the U.S., the finan­cial inter­ests of the party’s lead­er­ship of busi­ness­men and pro­fes­sion­als diverge sharply from those of its poor, social­ly con­ser­v­a­tive fol­low­ers.

The Broth­er­hood, which did not ini­tial­ly sup­port the rev­o­lu­tion that began a year ago, reaped its ben­e­fits, cap­tur­ing near­ly half the seats in the new par­lia­ment, which was seat­ed this week, and vault­ing its top lead­ers into posi­tions of pow­er.

Arguably the most pow­er­ful man in the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood is Khairat Al-Shater, a mul­ti­mil­lion­aire tycoon whose finan­cial inter­ests extend into elec­tron­ics, man­u­fac­tur­ing and retail. A strong advo­cate of pri­va­ti­za­tion, Al-Shater is one of a cadre of Mus­lim Broth­er­hood busi­ness­men who helped finance the Brotherhood’s Free­dom and Jus­tice Party’s impres­sive elec­toral vic­to­ry this win­ter and is now craft­ing the FJP’s eco­nom­ic agen­da.

At Al-Shater’s lux­u­ry fur­ni­ture out­let Istak­bal, a new couch costs about 6,000 Egypt­ian pounds, about $1,000 in U.S. cur­ren­cy. In a coun­try where 40 per­cent of the pop­u­la­tion lives on less than $2 a day, Istakbal’s clien­tele is large­ly lim­it­ed to Egypt’s upper class­es.

Although the Broth­ers do draw sig­nif­i­cant sup­port from Egypt’s poor and work­ing class, “the Broth­er­hood is a firm­ly upper-mid­dle-class orga­ni­za­tion in its lead­er­ship,” says Sha­di Hamid, a lead­ing Mus­lim Broth­er­hood expert at the Brook­ings Insti­tu­tion in Wash­ing­ton.

Not sur­pris­ing­ly, these well-to-do Egyp­tians are eager to safe­guard their eco­nom­ic posi­tion in the post-Mubarak Egypt. Despite ris­ing eco­nom­ic inequal­i­ty and pover­ty, the Broth­er­hood does not back rad­i­cal changes in Egypt’s econ­o­my.

The FJP’s eco­nom­ic plat­form is a tame doc­u­ment, rife with promis­es to root out cor­rup­tion and tweak Egypt’s tax and sub­si­dies sys­tems, with occa­sion­al allu­sions to an unspe­cif­ic com­mit­ment to “social jus­tice.” The plat­form prais­es the mech­a­nisms of the free mar­ket and promis­es that the par­ty will work for “bal­anced, sus­tain­able and com­pre­hen­sive eco­nom­ic devel­op­ment.” It is a pro­gram that any Euro­pean con­ser­v­a­tive par­ty could get behind. . . .

9. We also review the pres­ence of ISIS-linked Chechen fight­ers in Ukraine, serv­ing under Pravy Sek­tor admin­is­tra­tive com­mand, appar­ent­ly con­tin­u­ing what we have termed “The Earth Island Boo­gie”:

Two dif­fer­ent types of fas­cist cadres are oper­at­ing in tan­dem in Ukraine–in addi­tion to the OUN/B heirs such as the Pravy Sek­tor for­ma­tions, Chechen fight­ers (almost cer­tain­ly allied with some ele­ment of Mus­lim Broth­er­hood) are now fight­ing along­side them and under the Pravy Sek­tor admin­is­tra­tive com­mand.

The Chechen for­ma­tions are described as “broth­ers” of the Islam­ic State.

Again, the Boston Marathon bomb­ing appears to have been blow­back from a covert oper­a­tion back­ing jihadists in the Cau­ca­sus.

“Ukraine Merges Nazis and Islamists” by Robert Par­ry; Con­sor­tium News; 7/7/2015.

In a curi­ous­ly upbeat account, The New York Times reports that Islam­ic mil­i­tants have joined with Ukraine’s far-right and neo-Nazi bat­tal­ions to fight eth­nic Russ­ian rebels in east­ern Ukraine. It appears that no com­bi­na­tion of vio­lent extrem­ists is too wretched to cel­e­brate as long as they’re killing Russ-kies.

The arti­cle by Andrew E. Kramer reports that there are now three Islam­ic bat­tal­ions “deployed to the hottest zones,” such as around the port city of Mar­i­upol. One of the bat­tal­ions is head­ed by a for­mer Chechen war­lord who goes by the name “Mus­lim,” Kramer wrote, adding:

“The Chechen com­mands the Sheikh Mansur group, named for an 18th-cen­tu­ry Chechen resis­tance fig­ure. It is sub­or­di­nate to the nation­al­ist Right Sec­tor, a Ukrain­ian mili­tia. … Right Sec­tor … formed dur­ing last year’s street protests in Kiev from a half-dozen fringe Ukrain­ian nation­al­ist groups like White Ham­mer and the Tri­dent of Stepan Ban­dera.

“Anoth­er, the Azov group, is open­ly neo-Nazi, using the ‘Wolf’s Hook’ sym­bol asso­ci­at­ed with the [Nazi] SS. With­out address­ing the issue of the Nazi sym­bol, the Chechen said he got along well with the nation­al­ists because, like him, they loved their home­land and hat­ed the Rus­sians.”

As casu­al­ly as Kramer acknowl­edges the key front-line role of neo-Nazis and white suprema­cists fight­ing for the U.S.-backed Kiev regime, his arti­cle does mark an aber­ra­tion for the Times and the rest of the main­stream U.S. news media, which usu­al­ly dis­miss any men­tion of this Nazi taint as “Russ­ian pro­pa­gan­da.” . . .

. . . . Now, the Kiev regime has added to those “forces of civ­i­liza­tion” — resist­ing the Russ-kie bar­bar­ians — Islam­ic mil­i­tants with ties to ter­ror­ism. Last Sep­tem­ber, Marcin Mamon, a reporter for the Inter­cept, reached a van­guard group of these Islam­ic fight­ers in Ukraine through the help of his “con­tact in Turkey with the Islam­ic State [who] had told me his ‘broth­ers’ were in Ukraine, and I could trust them.”

The new Times arti­cle avoids delv­ing into the ter­ror­ist con­nec­tions of these Islamist fight­ers. . . .

Discussion

No comments for “FTR #872 Interview with Elizabeth Gould and Paul Fitzgerald about Zbigniew Brzezinski, Afghanistan’s Untold Story and the Ukraine Crisis”

Post a comment