Inivisible History

Invisible History:
Afghanistan's Untold Story

Tells the story of how Afghanistan brought the United States to this place in time after nearly 60 years of American policy in Eurasia - of its complex multiethnic culture, its deep rooting in mystical Zoroastrian and Sufi traditions and how it has played a pivotal role in the rise and fall of empires.

Invisible History, Afghanistan’s Untold Story provides the sobering facts and details that every American should have known about America’s secret war, but were never told.
The Real Story Behind the Propaganda (read more)

Crossing Zero: The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire

Focuses on the AfPak strategy and the importance of the Durand Line, the border separating Pakistan from Afghanistan but referred to by the military and intelligence community as Zero line. The U.S. fought on the side of extremist-political Islam from Pakistan during the 1980s and against it from Afghanistan since September 11, 2001. It is therefore appropriate to think of the Durand/Zero line as the place where America’s intentions face themselves; the alpha and omega of nearly 60 years of American policy in Eurasia. The Durand line is visible on a map. Zero line is not.(Coming February, 2011) (read more)

Comments

"A serious, sobering study... illuminates a critical point of view rarely discussed by our media...results of this willful ignorance have been disastrous to our national well-being."

Oliver Stone

Read more...

Invisible Sources

Read the document that reveals an invasion of Afghanistan by the Shah of Iran was being prepared years before the Soviets invaded. Read more...

Mystical Imperialism

A 19th century philosophy still in use by Washington that infuses a sense of divine mission into the politics of empire building. Read more...

Invisible History Blog

We'll explore anomalies we discovered while researching the causes of the Soviet and American invasions of Afghanistan. We look forward to your comments. Paul & Liz.


A New Memoir Reveals How Brzezinski’s Chessboard Led to U.S. Checkmate in Afghanistan

November 9th, 2021

globalresearch.ca

The pathological hatred of Russia by an strategically placed Polish emigré continues to cast a long shadow in global history


 Nearly as suspenseful as the Taliban’s meteoric return to power after the final withdrawal of American armed forces from Afghanistan is the uncertainty over what will come next amid the fallout. Many have predicted that Russia and China will step in to fill the power vacuum and convince the facelift Taliban to negotiate a power-sharing agreement in exchange for political and economic support, while others fear [that] a descent into civil war is inevitable. Although Moscow and Beijing potentially stand to gain from the humiliating U.S. retreat by pushing for an inclusive government in Kabul, the rebranded Pashtun-based group must first be removed as a designated terrorist organization. Neither wants to see Afghanistan worsen as a hotbed of jihad, as Islamist separatism already previously plagued Russia in the Caucasus and China is still in the midst of an ongoing ethnic conflict in Xinjiang with Uyghur Muslim secessionists and the Al Qaeda-linked Turkestan Islamic Party. At this point, everyone recognizes the more serious extremist threat lies not with the Taliban but with the emergence of ISIS Khorasan or ISIS-K, the Islamic State affiliate blamed for several recent terror attacks including the August 26th bombings at Hamid Karzai International Airport in the Afghan capital which killed 13 American service members and more than a 100 Afghans during the U.S. drawdown.

Three days later, American commanders ordered a retaliatory drone strike targeting a vehicle which they claimed was en route to detonate a suicide bomb at the same Kabul airport. For several days, the Pentagon falsely maintained that the aerial assault successfully took out two ISIS-K militants and a servile corporate media parroted these assertions unquestioningly, including concocting a totally fictitious report that the blast consisted of “secondary explosions” from devices already inside the car intended for use in an act of terror. Two weeks later, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) was forced to apologize and admit the strike was indeed a “tragic mistake” which errantly killed ten innocent civilians — all of whom were members of a single family including seven children — while no Daesh members were among the dead. This distortion circulated in collusion between the endless war machine and the media is perhaps only eclipsed by the alleged Russian-Taliban bounty program story in its deceitfulness.

If any Americans were aware of ISIS-K prior to the botched Kabul airstrike, they likely recall when former U.S. President Donald Trump authorized the unprecedented use of a Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, informally referred to as the “Mother Of All Bombs”, on Islamic State militants in Nangarhar Province back in 2017. Reportedly, Biden’s predecessor had to be shown photos from the 1970s of Afghan girls wearing miniskirts by his National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster, to renege on his campaign pledge of ending the longest war in U.S. history. As it happens, the ISIS Khorasan fighters extinguished by the MOAB were sheltered at an underground tunnel complex near the Pakistani border that was built by the C.I.A. back in the 1980s during the Afghan-Soviet war. Alas, the irony of this detail was completely lost on mainstream media whose proclivity to treat Pentagon newspeak as gospel has been characteristic of not only the last twenty years of U.S. occupation but four decades of American involvement in Afghanistan since Operation Cyclone, the covert Central Intelligence Agency plan to arm and fund the mujahideen, was launched in 1979.

Frank Wisner, the C.I.A. official who established Operation Mockingbird, the agency’s extensive clandestine program to infiltrate the news media for propaganda purposes during the Cold War, referred to the press as its “Mighty Wurlitzer”, or a musical instrument played to manipulate public opinion. Langley’s recruitment of assets within the fourth estate was one of many illicit activities by the national security apparatus divulged in the limited hangout of the Church Committee during the 1970s, along with C.I.A. complicity in coups, assassinations, illegal surveillance, and drug-induced brainwashing of unwitting citizens. At bottom, it wasn’t just the minds of human guinea pigs that ‘The Company’ sought to control but the news coverage consumed by Americans as well. In his testimony before a congressional select committee, Director of Central Intelligence William Colby openly acknowledged the use of spooks in journalism, as seen in the award-winning documentary Inside the C.I.A.: On Company Business(1980). Unfortunately, the breadth of the secret project and its vetting of journalists wasn’t fully revealed until an article by Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame appeared in Rolling Stone magazine, whereas the series of official investigations only ended up salvaging the deep state by presenting such wrongdoings as rogue “abuses” rather than an intrinsic part of espionage in carrying out U.S. foreign policy.

Clip from Inside the CIA: On Company Business (1980)

The corrupt institution of Western media also punishes anyone within its ranks who dares to swim against the current. The husband and wife duo of Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould, authors of a new memoir which illuminates the real story of Afghanistan, were two such journalists who learned just how the sausage is made in the nation’s capital with the connivance of the yellow press. Both veterans of the peace movement, Paul and Liz were initially among those who naively believed that America’s humiliation in Vietnam and the well-publicized hearings which discredited the intelligence community might lead to a sea change in Washington with the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976. In hindsight, there was actually good reason for optimism regarding the prospect for world peace in light of the arms reduction treaties and talks between the U.S. and Moscow during the Nixon and Ford administrations, a silver lining to Henry Kissinger’s ‘realist’ doctrine of statecraft. However, any glimmer of hope in easing strained relations between the West and the Soviet Union was short-lived, as the few voices of reason inside the Beltway presuming good faith on the part of Moscow toward détente and nuclear proliferation were soon challenged by a new bellicose faction of D.C. think-tank ghouls who argued that diplomacy jeopardized America’s strategic position and that the USSR sought global dominion.

Since intelligence assessments inconveniently contradicted the claims of Soviet aspirations for strategic superiority, C.I.A. Director George H.W. Bush consulted the purported expertise of a competitive group of intellectual warmongers known as ‘Team B’ which featured many of the same names later synonymous with the neoconservative movement, including Richard Pipes, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. Bush, Sr. had replaced the aforementioned Bill Colby following the notorious “Halloween Massacre” firings in the Gerald Ford White House, a political shakeup which also included Kissinger’s ouster as National Security Advisor and the promotion of a young Donald Rumsfeld to Secretary of Defense with his pupil, one Richard B. Cheney, named Chief of Staff. This proto-neocon soft coup allowed Team B and its manipulated estimates of the Soviet nuclear arsenal to undermine the ongoing Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) between Washington and the Kremlin until Jimmy Carter and Leonid Brezhnev finally signed a second comprehensive non-proliferation treaty in June 1979.

The behind-the-scenes split within the foreign policy establishment over which dogma would set external policymaking continued wrestling for power before the unipolarity of Team B prevailed thanks to the machinations of Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski. If intel appraisals of Moscow’s intentions and military capabilities didn’t match the Team B thesis, the Polish-American strategist devised a scheme to lure the USSR into a trap in Afghanistan to give the appearance of Soviet expansionism in order to convince Carter to withdraw from SALT II the following year and sabotage rapprochement. By the time it surfaced that the C.I.A. was supplying weapons to Islamist insurgents in the Central Asian country, the official narrative dispensed by Washington was that it was aiding the Afghan people fight back against an “invasion” by the Red Army. Ironically, this was the justification for a proxy conflict which resulted in the deaths of at least 2 million civilians and eventually collapsed the socialist government in Kabul, setting off a bloody civil war and the emergence of the Taliban.

Even so, it was the media which helped manage the perception that the C.I.A.’s covert war began only after the Soviets had intervened. Meanwhile, the few honest reporters who tried to unveil the truth about what was happening were silenced and relegated to the periphery. Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould were the first two American journalists permitted entry into the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in 1981 by the Moscow-friendly government since Western correspondents had been barred from the country. What they witnessed firsthand on the ground could not have contrasted more sharply from the accepted tale of freedom fighters resisting a communist “occupation” disseminated by propaganda rags. Instead, what they discovered was an army of feudal tribesmen and fanatical jihadists who blew up schools and doused women with acid as they waged a holy war against an autonomous, albeit flawed, progressive government in Kabul enacting land reforms and providing education for girls. In addition, they learned the Soviet military presence was being deliberately exaggerated by major outlets who either outright censored or selectively edited their exclusive accounts, beginning with CBS Evening News and later ABC’s Nightline.


Not long after the Taliban established an Islamic emirate for the first time in the late 1990s, Brzezinski himself would shamelessly boast that Operation Cyclone had actually started in mid-1979 nearly six months prior to the deployment of Soviet troops later that year. Fresh off the publication of his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, the Russophobic Warsaw-native told the French newspaper Le Nouvel Observateurin 1998:

“Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs that the American intelligence services began to aid the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. Is this period, you were the NationalSecurityAdvisor to President Carter. You therefore played a key role in this affair. Is this correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujaheddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely 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 militaryintervention.

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

B: It wasn’t quite like 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 secret US involvement inAfghanistan ,nobody believedthem .However, there was an element of truth in this. You don’t regret any of this 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, essentially: “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 that was unsustainable for theregime,a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B :What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”


If this stunning admission straight from the horse’s mouth is too candid to believe, Fitzgerald and Gould obtain confirmation of Brzezinski’s Machiavellian confession from one of their own skeptics. Never mind that Moscow’s help had been requested by the legitimate Afghan government to defend itself against the U.S. dirty war, a harbinger of the Syrian conflict more than three decades later when Damascus appealed to Russia in 2015 for military aid to combat Western-backed “rebel” groups. Paul and Liz also uncover C.I.A. fingerprints all over the suspicious February 1979 assassination of Adolph Dubs, the American Ambassador to Afghanistan, whose negotiation attempts may have inadvertently thrown a wrench into Brzezinski’s ploy to draw the USSR into a quagmire. Spurring Carter to give his foreign policy tutor the green light to finance the Islamist proxies, the timely kidnapping and murder of the U.S. diplomat at a Kabul hotel would be pinned on the KGB and the rest was history. The journo couple even go as far as to imply the branch of Western intelligence likely responsible for his murder was an agent from the Safari Club, an unofficial network between the security services of a select group of European and Middle Eastern countries that carried out covert operations during the Cold War across several continents with ties to the worldwide drug trade and Brzezinski.

Although he was considered to be of the ‘realist’ school of international relations like Kissinger, Brzezinski’s plot to engineer a Russian equivalent of Vietnam in Afghanistan increased the clout of neoconservatism in Washington, a persuasion that would later reach its peak of influence in the George W. Bush administration. In retrospect, the need for a massive military buildup to achieve Pax Americana promoted by the war hawks in Team B was a precursor to the influential “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” manifesto by the Project for the New American Century cabal preceding 9/11 and the ensuing U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Fitzgerald and Gould also historically trace the ideological roots of neoconservatism to its intellectual foundations in the American Trotskyist movement during the 1930s. If a deviated branch of Marxism seems like an unlikely origin source for the right-wing interventionist foreign policy of the Bush administration, its basis is not as unexpected as it may appear. In fact, one of the main reasons behind the division between the Fourth International and the Comintern was over the national question, since Trotsky’s theory of “permanent revolution” called for expansion to impose global revolution unlike Stalin’s “socialism in one country” position which respected the sovereignty and self-determination of nation-states while still giving support to national liberation movements.

The authors conclude by highlighting how the military overhaul successfully championed by the neoconservatives marked the beginning of the end for U.S. infrastructure maintenance as well. With public attention currently focused on the pending Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to repair decaying industry at home just as the disastrous Afghan pullout has put President Joe Biden’s favorability at an all-time low, Fitzgerald and Gould truly connect all the dots between the decline of America as a superpower with Brzezinski and Team B. Even recent statements by Jimmy Carter himself were tantamount when he spoke with Trump about China’s economic success which he attributed to Beijing’s lack of wasteful spending on military adventures, an incredible irony given the groundwork for the defense budget escalation begun under Ronald Reagan was laid by Carter’s own foreign policy. Looking back, the spousal team notes that the ex-Georgia governor did not need much coaxing after all to betray his promises as a candidate, considering his rise to the presidency was facilitated by his membership alongside Brzezinski in the Trilateral Commission, an elite Rockefeller-funded think tank. What is certain is that Paul and Liz have written an indispensable book that gives a level of insight into the Afghan story only attainable from their four decades of scholarly work on the subject. The Valediction: Three Nights of Desmond is now available from Trine Day Press and the timing of its release could not offer better context to recent world events.


1979 Assassination of U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Adolph Dubs Set Groundwork for America’s Longest War

November 2nd, 2021

covertactionmagazine.com

By   Jeremy   Kuzmarov, Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine  October 29, 2021

U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Adolph Dubs, center, with family. [Source: Washingtonian.com]

New evidence links Zbigniew Brzezinski, the CIA and European fascists who formed the Safari Club to the crime.

Dubs had sought to prevent Soviet and U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, which made him a target of neoconservatives.

Elizabeth Gould: “Carter was supposed to advance détente and SALT [strategic arms control agreement], not start a new cold war. Pundits joke he’s so innocent and pure he can’t find his way to the bathroom but he brings a known Russophobe (Brzezinski) into the White House? Then he gives him the power to make every top level decision and nobody notices? That’s Machiavellian.”
“But even Machiavelli needs a sacrifice to make the plan work—and that’s where Afghanistan comes in,” Paul Fitzgerald interjects.
Elizabeth responds: “They needed a sacrifice. But they needed someone to set the trap for it—and that’s where Adolph Dubs fits in.”[1]

As America’s oldest living president, Jimmy Carter is widely revered for his down-to-earth and folksy manner and for having taken many principled stands on political issues.However, during his presidency in the late 1970s, it was Carter who enmeshed the United States in its longest war in Afghanistan by arming Islamic fundamentalists. The United States aimed to unseat Afghanistan’s socialist government that came to power in a 1978 revolution and induce a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in order to give the Soviets their Vietnam. The mastermind of Carter’s Middle East policy was Zbigniew Brzezinski, a descendent of the Polish nobility with strong Russophobic views.Brzezinski had helped elevate Carter to the presidency as a member of the Trilateral Commission, a Rockefeller-funded group whose goal was to restore U.S. hegemony after the Vietnam War and undermine the 1960s movement.

Brzezinski with Carter, left, and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance outside the Oval Office in September 1979. [Source: washingtonmonthly.com]

Brzezinski was allied with the Pentagon’s Team B led by neoconservatives who advocated for a massive program of remilitarization to counter the Soviet Union. Brzezinski was also associated with the Safari Club, a shadow CIA backed by members of Europe’s old nobility and the Saudi Royal family that ran clandestine operations against left-wing groups financed by the drug trade. Afghanistan was crucial to the designs of the global Right because it provided an opportunity to strike a blow at the Soviet Union and avenge the lost war in Vietnam.But there was one man standing in their way—U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Adolph Dubs—who had to be killed.

PDPA Coup

In 1978, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan, a Marxist political party allied with the Soviet Union, launched a coup against Mohammed Daoud, Afghanistan’s ruler who had overthrown the monarchy in 1973. Daoud was killed along with most of his family by PDPA officers in what is known as Afghanistan’s Saur revolution. Its leaders conceived of it as a national democratic revolution.[2]Brzezinski along with the CIA at this time warned of a Soviet master plan to take over the oil fields of the Middle East, using Afghanistan as a stepping stone. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance dismissed Brzezinski’s claim as a Cold War fantasy and the State Department’s intelligence unit found no evidence of Soviet complicity in the 1978 PDPA coup. While there was an oppressive side, the PDPA is considered the best government in Afghanistan’s history. It focused on building Afghanistan’s infrastructure, and providing education and health care to the masses while advancing women’s rights.

May be an image of 5 peopleWomen support Afghanistan’s Saur revolution. [Source: facebook.com]

The revolution was opposed at every step by religious fundamentalists backed by the CIA who wanted to bring Afghanistan back to the Middle Ages and had a fondness for burning mosques, hospitals, and schools.[3]

Afghan “freedom fighter” set to launch Stinger missile provided by the U.S. [Source: npr.org]

The CIA’s favorites—Gulbuddin Hikmatyar and Ahmad Shah Massoud—financed their terrorist militias through the heroin traffic and threw acid in the faces of women who did not wear the veil. Brzezinski enlisted the Chinese to train Hikmatyar’s rebels in Xinjiang Province.

Richard J. Kerr, Deputy Director of the CIA, meeting with Gulbuddin Hikmatyar in Islamabad in 1988. [Source: rawa.org]

He also sought to provoke a factional struggle within the PDPA in order to destabilize Afghanistan, as declassified government documents reveal. This strategy bore fruit when Hafizullah Amin, a main organizer of the Saur revolution who had studied at the University of Wisconsin, wrestled power from Nur Muhammad Taraki and proceeded to execute many of his political rivals. Amin was a member of the Ghilzai clan, the same clan as Hikmatyar, and wanted to wipe out the rival Durrani family.[4] The Soviets believed that Amin was on the CIA’s payroll.

Conflict with the Deep State

Nicknamed “Spike,” Dubs took up his position as ambassador to Afghanistan in May 1978. A proponent of Nixon’s détente policy and opponent of Brzezinski’s anti-Soviet plots, he was a Soviet expert who had served as chargé d’affaires at the U.S. embassy in Moscow in 1973-74. Originally from Chicago, Dubs’ service in the Pacific War had convinced him that humanity’s finest ambition was the pursuit of peace.[5]

Dubs two months before his death. [Source: global-geneva.com]

According to former Washington Post reporter Selig Harrison, Dubs’ assignment as ambassador was to coordinate a multinational and UN effort to control narcotics production and trafficking in Afghanistan and establish a close personal relationship with Amin and detach him from the Soviet Union—make him into a kind of Tito [of Yugoslavia] who was non-aligned.The latter two goals put him in conflict with Brzezinski, Team B and the Safari Club which was using control of the narcotics trade in Afghanistan to finance the campaign to overthrow the PDPA and deal a blow to Soviet power.

U.S. embassy in Kabul, 1970s. [Source: global-geneva.com]

Dubs secretly met with Amin 14 times during his tenure as ambassador. He wanted to keep a back door open to American influence with him while not triggering Soviet countermeasures. Dubs knew that Brzezinski did not approve of the meetings because Brzezinski had been running a covert operation to undermine the Afghan government since January 1977. He wanted religious fundamentalists in charge—not Afghan nationalists—and Dubs was screwing up this strategy.[6] When Dubs complained, Brzezinski blocked Secretary of State Cyrus Vance from doing anything, and sent “his guy,” Thomas P. Thornton from the National Security Council, to tell Dubs to knock it off.[7]On the morning of February 14, 1979, a kidnapper posing as a police officer stopped Dubs’ black Oldsmobile as he was traveling to the U.S. embassy.Dubs’ abductors took him downtown to the Hotel Kabul, now known as the Serena Hotel, and made demands of the Afghan government—that they release a rebel leader—but not of the Americans or Soviets.

Hotel Kabul. [Source: global-geneva.com]

The U.S. embassy reported that the men were Tajik Maoists, whom the CIA had recruited as a backdoor into Beijing and because they despised the dominant Pashtun rulers in Afghanistan.[8] CIA officer Warren Marik and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) attaché Harold “Doug” Wankel, who arrived around noon, observed three Afghan police officers with automatic rifles on the balcony of the bank building across the street.

After Afghan forces stormed Room 117 where Dubs was being held, Dubs was shot in the head and chest and died.

U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance (left) and U.S. President Jimmy Carter comfort Mary Anne Dubs, the widow of slain Ambassador Adolph Dubs, as Dubs’ body is returned to Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, D.C., on February 18, 1979. [Source: rferl.com]

The kidnappers—patsies in a wider plot—were also killed, one away from the hotel.

Photo in the state-run Kabul Times of the dead alleged kidnappers in the morgue on February 15, 1979. [Source: global-geneva.com]

The U.S. security officer transmitted over the radio that the Afghans had been told not to storm the room, but that they were acting on someone else’s orders.[9] When Wankel, Marik and a third embassy staff returned to Room 117 later in the day, they observed a strange man examining the room and found that the crime scene had been cleaned up and all evidence had been removed.

Soviets Are Blamed

In 1980, the State Department issued a report on its year-long investigation into Dubs’ death, attributing blame to Afghan authorities and Soviet advisers assisting them—though the report raised more questions than answers and was inconclusive.The State Department said that at least three Soviet advisers had played an “operational role” during the storming of the hotel.Chuck Boles, the U.S. embassy security officer saw a tall KGB operative hand a PSM pistol to an Afghan police officer whom he believes carried out the killing—though Dubs’ head wounds were determined to be inconsistent with those of a PSM pistol fired at close range.[10]Moscow acknowledged that its advisers were present but said they had no control over the Afghan decision to storm the hotel room. Russian Lt. Col. Sergei Gavrilovich Bakhturin insisted that, had Soviet special forces run the operation, Dubs would have been rescued.

Sergei Bakhturin, left, with KGB officer Viliov Osadchy (center) and Commandant Sayed Daoud Taroon of the Afghan National Police. [Source: global-geneva.com]

Harold Wankel—whose DEA background included buying drugs from informants, dealers, pimps, and prostitutes in Detroit—maintained that Dubs was killed by Soviet-directed gunfire from the bank balcony across the street and died slumped in his chair.However, U.S. embassy political counsel Bruce Flatin observed that half of Dubs’ body was wet—as though he had been lying on the floor—which had been covered in water from radiators shot up in the barrage.This implies that someone—likely police chief Lal Muhammed working in the service of Amin and the CIA—picked up Dubs and put him in the chair after he was killed—staging the crime scene.[11]Brzezinski claimed that the Soviets had wanted Dubs dead to fulfill their plans to take over Afghanistan, which was to serve as a stepping stone for conquest of the Middle East.[12]However, the Soviets got along famously with Dubs because he was not an anti-Soviet Russophobe like Brzezinski. The Soviets also never wanted to invade Afghanistan—they even went on record throughout the summer of 1979 trying everything to avoid it.The claim that the Soviets killed Dubs because they were afraid he would win Amin away from their control is misleading because Amin was never under Soviet control—the Soviets reviled him and tried everything short of invasion to replace him, including getting the exiled king back to form a new government.[13]

Who Derived Advantage?

The Roman philosopher Seneca once stated that “the one who derives advantage from a crime is the one most likely to have committed it.”In the case of Dubs’ killing, the main beneficiaries were not the Soviets, but neoconservatives within the United States and Europe and CIA who wanted to avenge the American defeat in Vietnam—by drawing the Soviets into a quagmire in Afghanistan.Five months after Dubs’ death, President Carter authorized the CIA to provide $695,000 in cash or non-military supplies to Afghanistan’s insurgents—a directive that set the groundwork for the largest covert operation in U.S. history to that point.

Dubs’ murder paved the way for Charlie Wilson’s War. Wilson was a Texas Congressman who championed aid to the Afghan mujahadin in the 1980s. [Source: independent.co.uk]

The Soviets had desperately wanted better relations with the U.S. at the time of Dubs’ killing and to withdraw from Afghanistan, but his murder ended any hope of this.Since the Soviets were blamed, Dubs’ death also helped fuel public support for a revitalization of the Cold War and growth in the military budget in the late 1970s and 1980s..

CIA, Safari Club and Brzezinski

In a memoir of their experience as journalists in Afghanistan in the 1980s, Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould present the theory that Brzezinski was behind Dubs’ assassination as an agent of the CIA and Safari Club.The authors suggest that one of Dubs’ kidnappers was a Safari Club agent who led the others to believe someone would be waiting for them in Room 117 and sent one of the kidnappers to clue in the U.S. embassy.The Safari Club had agents embedded with the Afghan police at the hotel coordinating security for Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein[14] and were advising Afghan chief of police Lal Mohammed—who was involved in drug trafficking—backstage.After the Church Committee hearings and Watergate had exposed CIA abuses, the CIA had gone underground. Carter was a transitional president and Brzezinski was brought in to manage the transition.France’s chief of external intelligence Count Alexandre de Marenches was a key figure along with his cousin, Belgian noble Arnaud de Borchgrave, Clark Clifford, the Democratic Party’s wise man, and CIA Director Richard Helms in setting up the Safari Club—named after a hunting resort in Kenya.

United States President Ronald Reagan during a meeting with Alexandre de Marenches in the Oval Office in June 1983. Reagan’s election had been part of an intelligence operation led by the Safari Club. [Source: wikipedia.org] The Safari Club functioned as an off-the-books covert action force with roots in the old European nobility, whose main purpose was to roll back Soviet power and overthrow left-wing governments around the world.

https://media.defense.gov/2014/Jun/23/2000802826/-1/-1/0/140623-D-ZZ999-017.JPGClark Clifford [Source: history.defense.gov]

Gould and Fitzgerald write that, “by 1976, the Safari Club had become the real CIA, covertly funded by Saudi Arabia through the Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) and run out of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. Afghanistan in turn offered the opportunity for BCCI to migrate the lucrative heroin business from Southeast Asia to the Pakistan/Afghan border,” where it was used to fund the covert war against the Soviet Union.[15] Dubs had to be killed because he was probing into the drug trade as part of a UN investigating committee and would have prevented a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which was needed to justify the reinvigoration of the Cold War arms and nuclear arms race.Dubs was further interfering with the Safari Club’s designs to bring Gulbuddin Hikmatyar to Kabul and establish Afghanistan as a base for Saudi Arabia’s religious and economic expansion into Central Asia, which housed lucrative oil and gas fields.[16]

 

Pallbearers at Dubs’ funeral. [Source: washingtonian.com]

Changing the Course of History

Dubs’ killing set the groundwork for America’s 40-plus year involvement in Afghanistan, which devastated the country. Had he succeeded in his mission of drawing Amin into the U.S orbit and preventing a Soviet invasion, Afghanistan would have been at peace in the 1980s and made progress under PDPA rule. The Taliban would never have come to power, Osama bin Laden would never have gone to Afghanistan, and the U.S. would never have invaded.

History might have turned out differently if Dubs had not been assassinated. [Source: cnn.com]

A new era of peaceful U.S.-Soviet relations might have also extended into the post-Cold War world. Unfortunately, the dark forces of the “deep state” had their own designs which changed the course of history—greatly for the worse


Review: The Valediction – Two Independent Journalists’ Dig for the Truth of the Other Afghanistan War

October 21st, 2021

 www.opednews.com

By Natylie Baldwin

Afghanistan has been in the news recently due to the end of the U.S.’s formal 20-year war there. However, there is a much longer history for the U.S. in that unfortunate nation that has been caught in the middle of imperial rivalries and power plays. That history has largely been obscured since the end of the Cold War. Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould have entered to shed light on this history in The Valediction. .

RIAN archive 476785 Soviet Army soldiers return from Afghanistan.
RIAN archive 476785 Soviet Army soldiers return from Afghanistan.
(Image by Wikipedia (commons.wikimedia.org), Author: Yuriy Somov / Юрий Сомов)
   Details   Source   DMCA

“The Afghan government was supporting Islam but Saudi Arabia wanted to spread radical Islam into Central Asia. They also wanted to control future oil pipeline routes. Pakistan wanted to legitimize its occupation of Afghan lands stolen by the British Empire in the 19th century and control events in Kabul. Communist China wished to curry favor with the United States and expand its control over its Muslim Xinxiang province. And the U.S.? The U.S. wanted to f*ck the Soviet Union for Vietnam and roll back the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 once and for all.” (p. 110)

Afghanistan has been in the news recently due to the end of the U.S.’s formal 20-year war there. However, there is a much longer history for the U.S. in that unfortunate nation that has been caught in the middle of imperial rivalries and power plays. That history has largely been obscured since the end of the Cold War. Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould have entered to shed light on this history in The Valediction, a book they describe as a novelized memoir.

The book does read like a novel with a fast-paced and compelling narrative that keeps the reader engaged and wanting to dig into the next chapter to see what happens. Though the book weaves in some longer history, the main focus is on the journalistic odyssey of the authors, which started in 1981 with a trip to Afghanistan to get on-the-ground information on what was really happening in the war that had been framed in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter as the greatest threat to world peace since WWII. The Reagan administration had subsequently intensified the rhetoric against the Soviet Union about the Afghan intervention. It was convenient for both the Carter and Reagan administrations that western journalists generally had little access to Afghanistan within a month of the invasion due to the Afghan government kicking them out under accusations of lying. This led to Americans having scant information about what was really happening there.

The story of how co-author Fitzgerald said he managed to get access to Afghanistan elicited a grin from this writer. He simply looked up who the UN representative for Afghanistan was in that ancient 20th-century artifact known as the phone book and went from there. Needless to say, after the first trip, it was clear things were totally unlike the narrative that was being pushed by the U.S. government and mainstream media.

A war in Afghanistan was, by all rational measures, not in the Soviets’ interests. There had been every indication by the late 1970s that the Soviets had wanted progress on arms control negotiations and a continuation of the de’tente policy. There have been suggestions that Brezhnev did not have consensus support in the Soviet government for the invasion. The authors and some others suspected that the Soviets were provoked into invading.

Many readers are likely familiar with Zbigniew Brzezinski’s infamous boast in a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur that, as Carter’s national security advisor, he’d helped goad the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan, which he described as “the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.”

Central to provoking the Soviet invasion, the book argues, was the assassination of Adolph Dubs, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. Indeed a good portion of the book revolves around the authors’ investigation into unraveling the mystery surrounding the murder, which uncovered conflicting reports from representatives of the State Department, the CIA and DEA [Drug Enforcement Agency], and the KGB. As the authors ask:

“Who would kill an ambassador? Not a rival superpower trying to get the American Congress to sign a nuclear arms deal they’d desperately needed. And certainly not a third-world backwater desperate for U.S. aid and recognition. Only someone trying to provoke retribution. And who would want that retribution? Zbigniew Brzezinski… What was a known Russia-hater doing in the Carter administration in the first place and why had the “Peace President” elevated his role to cabinet level?” (pp. 64-65)

Dubs, who had significant diplomatic experience with the Soviets and more nuanced views, was working at cross-purposes with Brzezinski. He believed he could diplomatically get then-Afghan-leader Hafizullah Amin to move away from any loyalty to the Soviets. To further this project, he’d had fourteen secret meetings with Amin, in order to avoid sabotage by Brzezinski. Dubs thought the kind of destabilization favored by Brzezinski in Afghanistan would provoke the Soviets and was dangerous. According to an interview Fitzgerald conducted with Afghanistan expert Selig Harrison:

“…I met him [Dubs] out there that summer. He was alone and I had a long evening with him. He came out with a very sophisticated conception of what he was going to do, which was to try to make the US-educated Amin into a kind of Tito, in other words, detach him. Dubs knew how subtle an operation it had to be. He had no illusions it could be done quickly. He would still be pretty close to the Russians, but he’d have more freedom of action and it would be enough to make it safe from our point of view. He met with Amin fourteen times and quickly understood that he was not a loyal Communist. He even bragged that the Soviets needed him more than he needed them. But the trick would be to keep a back door open to American influence while not triggering Soviet countermeasures… [the Soviets] were greatly alarmed because they thought Amin might be a CIA agent. And Brzezinski was actively promoting an aggressive covert anti-Soviet Afghan policy without the State Department’s knowing much about it. So it was extremely dangerous.” (p. 74)

Though the machinations around Afghanistan were started under Carter and Brzezinski, they were continued and expanded under Ronald Reagan, who had Richard Pipes – another Russophobic ideologue with a Polish background – on his national security council. By 1983, it was becoming clear to those who had genuine knowledge of what was occurring in Afghanistan that the Soviets wanted to get out and were willing to allow a coalition government after getting rid of Amin’s successor, Babrak Karmal, whom they’d grown to greatly distrust. But the U.S. didn’t seem at all interested in a Soviet exit, rebuffing Soviet overtures to negotiate a 6-month withdrawal in which they could save face in exchange for the U.S. giving up its support for the Islamist insurgency. Instead the Reagan administration announced increased support for the extreme nihilistic Islamist insurgents that were fighting the Afghan government.

“The irony was sublime. The U.S. wanted to overthrow a Communist government that the Kremlin viewed as a middle class bourgeois disaster with no support from the population. And the Kremlin was right. Communism couldn’t exist without a working class, and Afghanistan simply did not have one. But that trivial detail didn’t matter to Washington.” (p. 86)

The authors’ efforts to get the real story on Afghanistan were not exactly rewarded by the mainstream media. Pitches to CBS and later ABC were met with attempts to significantly downplay the authors’ actual reporting or kill it since it didn’t fit the narrative established by “Gunga Dan” Rather, a narrative that the White House wanted reinforced: Soviet soldiers were all over Afghanistan, brutalizing civilians and perpetrating their own dirty little Vietnam-style adventure on behalf of an expansionist agenda. Each pillar of this narrative was contradicted by the authors’ research as well as observations and interviews with an array of individuals in Afghanistan.

Often lost in the coverage of Afghanistan and the wars that have been fought there by empires is the Afghans themselves who had their own interests. Those interests included finding ways to modernize their country and improve the quality of life for their citizens. Various Afghan leaders of the 20th century attempted to pursue these objectives under a combination of nationalist and socialist political influences – the details of which would be shaped by the country’s unique geography and culture. But these projects were always tragically derailed by outside hegemons.

As noted in the epigraphic quote to this review, this had gone back at least as far as the British and the sabotage of Afghan society was executed by many opportunistic players during the Cold War. In an interview with Fitzgerald, China was cited, in addition to the U.S. and Pakistan, as a country that had provided training and/or arms by a former fighter for U.S.-backed Islamist terrorist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

There are some things in the book that readers will have to decide for themselves the degree of importance and plausibility to assign to, such as certain connections made to rivalries among royal families and elite institutions from hundreds of years back. Another involves the man who is referenced in the subtitle of the book: Desmond FitzMaurice. He is described as a composite character and, interestingly, he is also the character that seems the most fantastical. It is these aspects that I imagine contribute to classifying this book as a novelized memoir. However, there are many other named people the authors discuss as providing important pieces to the Afghanistan puzzle that, along with the extensive research and contextual on the ground experience during the period in question, make for an interesting and informative read.

Natylie Baldwin is the author of The View from Moscow: Understanding Russia and U.S.-Russia Relations, available at Amazon. Her writing has appeared in Consortium News, RT, OpEd News, The Globe Post, Antiwar.com, The New York Journal of Books, and Dissident Voice.


TrineDay’s Roundtable #3 “Flipping the Script of the Secret Societies”

October 21st, 2021
May be an image of text that says
.
Please join with us to discuss how we can make a better world!
.
A FREE Zoom Event
Wednesday, November 10, 2021
3 p.m./eastern (90 minutes)
Registration Required at Valediction.net/eventlist
First half: Panelists  Second half: Audience participation
.
Panelists:
RA “Kris” Millegan, TrineDay publisher “The folks in the shadows who lie, cheat and steal to manipulate us must be exposed so we can create a better world for our children.”
Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are the authors of Invisible History: Afghanistan’s Untold Story, Crossing Zero: The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire, and The Valediction: Three Nights of Desmond. Paul and Liz got the first visas to enter Afghanistan in 1981 after the expulsion of all Western media after the 1979 Soviet invasion.
Jay Dyer, public speaker, lecturer, comedian and author of Esoteric Hollywood: Sex, Cults and Symbols in Film. His graduate work focused on the interplay of film, geopolitics, espionage and psychological warfare.
Sean Stone, filmmaker (Greystone Park, Enter the Fist, A Century of War) co-host (Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura and s the RT news show Watching the Hawks) and author (New World Order: A Strategy of Imperialism).
Bruce de Torres, author of God, School, 9/11 and JFK: The Lies That Are Killing Us and The Truth That Sets Us Free, moderator

ROUNDTABLE #2″Afghanistan: America’s Second Vietnam (Forty Years in the Making)”

October 15th, 2021
TrineDay’s THE VALEDICTION Roundtable Series:“Exposing the Failure of Empire and Reclaiming the Narrative Creation Process.”… inspired by the book, THE VALEDICTION: THREE NIGHTS OF DESMOND by Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould about America’s exploitation of Afghanistan, which began in the 1970s. How the use of force makes rulers “mystical imperialists” and insane, how we must put an end to empire, and how Washington and Hollywood cast spells through the narrative creation process/propaganda to hoodwink and hurt people and nations.
.
RA “Kris” Millegan, TrineDay publisher
Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould, the first American journalists to enter Afghanistan in 1981 after the Soviet invasion in December 1979.
Dr. Jawied Nawabi, assistant professor of economics, sociology and international studies at City University of NY, Bronx Community College.
Bruce de Torres, author of GOD, SCHOOL, 9/11 AND JFK: The Lies That Are Killing Us And The Truth That Sets Us Free.
.
Watch the Roundtable here.

Our Truth Jihad Interview with Kevin Barrett •  

October 14th, 2021
NO LIES RADIO

Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould Expose Political Assassinations and War-Trigger Provocations

Fitzgerald and Gould call The Valediction – Three Nights of Desmond “a novelized memoir.” It details their 1980s discovery that neoconservatives and allied members of the War Party were mounting an ongoing coup d’état against American democracy. That coup would come to full fruition with the 2001 9/11.

The Valediction begins in 1980, when Ted Kennedy was challenging malaise-plagued president Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination. Spearheading the Kennedy campaign was former congressman Allard Lowenstein, “the driving force behind Robert Kennedy’s election campaign in 1968.” Lowenstein told Fitzgerald: “Get Ted elected and we’ll finally bring those CIA sons of bitches that killed Jack and Bobby to justice. ‘Since you’re family I can tell you this. We know who did it and people are willing to talk,’ he said. ‘But we need the presidency to protect them.’”  Shortly thereafter Lowenstein was murdered by a mentally ill (MK-Ultra?) acquaintance.

After the Lowenstein assassination opens the book, the action moves to Afghanistan, where another political killing—the mysterious murder of American ambassador Adolph Dubs on Valentine’s Day 1979—triggered the chain of events that led to the Soviet invasion and US-supported resistance. The Valediction follows Fitzgerald and Gould as they travel to Afghanistan to make documentary films on the 1980s war and gradually learn that the dominant US media narrative is a propaganda charade..and that Dubs almost certainly was murdered not by the Russian or Afghan governments, as neocon propaganda suggested, but by the drug dealing wing of the CIA working on behalf of the war party in a successful war-trigger false flag.

And it gets deeper. Behind the neocons and their War Party, Fitzgerald and Gould suggest, is a millennial conspiracy aimed at establishing a one-world government in Occupied Jerusalem.I think they’re barking up the right tree. Listen and see if you agree. Listen to the interview here.


Matt Ehret & Cynthia Chung’s interview with Paul & Liz about The Valediction

October 10th, 2021

Rising Tide Foundation                                                                                                                                                                                                     Watch the interview here.

A new book has just been published entitled Valediction: Three Nights of Desmond which provides an invaluable dimension to Afghanistan’s story within the context of world history from the first-hand account of the only two American journalists permitted to enter the war-torn nation in 1981 and again in 1983. The two documentaries produced by the duo during that period went far to shatter the carefully-constructed narrative of a “Russian Vietnam” that had been built up for years by a western deep state. In this Rising Tide Foundation interview, Cynthia Chung and Matt Ehret chat with husband and wife writing team Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould on their autobiographical account which takes readers through a process of discovery not only of those forces manipulating Afghanistan past and present, but also how those same forces took control of American policy making over the dead body of JFK.


Watch our interview about the Mystical Imperialism of Afghanistan

October 10th, 2021

Goodness Over Darkness Podcast

Watch the interview here.

Welcome to episode #56 with Paul Fitzgerald & Elizabeth Gould! Paul & Liz have been journalists for 40+ years. They have been researching and traveling to Afghanistan for 40+ years. They have been part of some very big world events. Their knowledge of these topics doesn’t just stop on the surface level, they know it very intimately. They go to the deep depths of the mystical realms as well. In this episode we get into all of this. Who some of the players who created this situation are/were. How that relates to today’s politics. How that relates to “conspiracy theories”. How that relates to the mystical imperialism. And how all of this combined for the pull out of American military from Afghanistan in 2021. We also talk about the Soviets pulling out in the 1980’s and how Paul & Liz were involved with that process. We also get into how they knew something was coming when 9/11 occurred, but of course they didn’t know what the event was or the magnitude that it would have on the world. They are such a great couple and this episode will really knock your socks off, I know it did for me.

 


TrineDay’s RA “Kris” Millegan interviews Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould

September 28th, 2021

#61: Carter Lured the Russians and Killed the Peace Movement and the Progressive Left   Listen here.

#62: The Journey Podcast  62: America Murdered Afghanistan    Listen here.

October 5, 2021   

RA “Kris” Millegan talks with Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould about their book, The Valediction: Three Nights of Desmond, their novelized memoir about America’s abuse and betrayal of Afghanistan, a process begun in the 1970s. Carter and Brzezinski demonized the Soviet Union’s presence in Afghanistan and created chaos there to justify an enormous arms buildup and kill the peace movement and kill investment in critical infrastructure here at home.

 

The Journey 61. Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould: Carter Lured the Russians and Killed the Peace Movement and the Progressive Left


Zbigniew’s Ghost: An Exorcism (A Book Review of Valediction: Three Nights of Desmond

September 27th, 2021

strategic-culture.org

by Matthew Ehret        September 25, 2021

As a journalist, it is necessary to do my best not only to stay up-to-date on as many of the cutting edge developments as possible, but to also keep a flexible mind so that the buzzing myriad of facts emerging every day can be imbued with value such that my analysis can be useful to readers.

Over the past weeks, my mind processed such a dizzying array of information pertaining to the evolving situation surrounding Afghanistan that I ultimately had to shut myself off of reading any breaking news for a few days. It was during this short break that I took great pleasure reviewing the pre-release of a new novelized memoir entitled Valediction: Three Nights of Desmond, published by Trine Day Press and written by the husband and wife team of Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould.

Just when I was beginning to think that nothing new could be offered to the topic, I was happily surprised that this book provided an invaluable dimension to Afghanistan’s story within the context of world history from the first-hand account of the only two American journalists permitted to enter the war-torn nation in 1981 and again in 1983. The two documentaries produced by the duo during that period went far to shatter the carefully-constructed narrative of a “Russian Vietnam” that had been built up for years by a western deep state.

Paul Fitzgerald’s story begins with a chance encounter with Presidential-nominee Edward (Ted) Kennedy’s chief of staff Al Lowenstein in the lead-up to the 1980 elections. In their brief exchange, Lowenstein described his and Kennedy’s intention to shed light on the CIA’s involvement in the murder of the two Kennedy brothers. When Lowenstein ended up shot dead in his office by a former colleague two weeks later, Paul and his wife began to realize that they were pressing on something much larger than themselves.

Taking the reader through their journey of discovery, the couple artfully relay how they grappled with the startling discovery that there wasn’t one USA, but rather two opposing factions of U.S. intelligence at war with each other.

The journey began with the discovery that Lowenstein had been the founder and president of the National Students Association launched in 1951 which operated as a CIA front group designed to recruit both talented young Americans and foreign students alike who would later be propped up in various governments during the Cold War. It was obvious that Al was sick of playing a part in this machine and had found his last years emersed in organizing for Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr and when they fell, made the surviving Kennedy brother’s presidential election his governing passion. (1)

The broader clash of two intelligence agencies touched upon the question of whether or not the USA would operate on the basis of a foreign policy doctrine that presupposed an honest intention on the part of the Soviet Union to adhere to detente and the 1972 SALT treaty or whether U.S. security doctrine would operate on the assumption that the Soviets were liars intent on imposing their own global world government onto humanity.

Paul and Liz document the rise of a new think tank named Team B formed in 1976 which revived the earlier Committee on Present Danger led by financier Paul Nitze who in 1950, used this organization to spearhead the passage of NSC-68 that first justified the notion that the USA should maximize its build up of nuclear warheads on the supposition that the USA was in a moral equivalent of war with Russia. Throughout the 1960s, saner forces pushed back against Nitze’s Committee resulting in the nuclear test ban treaty, Open Skies Treaty, Space Treaty, and other trust building measures. The 1972 SALT was an extension of those mechanisms and limited the growth of U.S. nuclear warheads while operating on a presumption that Russia would do the same while respecting each others’ spheres of influences.

In the minds of Nitze, Brzezinski and the growing hive of neoconservative right wingers like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pipes, Richard Perle and Bush Sr growing in power and prestige amidst the presidencies of Ford, Carter and Reagan, this push towards trust and cooperation had to stop.

Hence this cast of characters was grouped together to promote a counter-argument to the “official” National Intelligence Estimate (referred to as “Team A”) which was assigned the role of proving the Soviets to be honest in their promises to respect their fields of influence and limit their nuclear warheads.

Where the NIE at the time was still maintaining the view that the threat posed by Russia would decrease if it’s sense of security and stability were increased, Team B asserted the opposite view promoting the fictious idea of an evil empire committed to becoming a global Soviet hegemon.

As one can imagine, the debates set up between the two teams were highly tilted in Team B’s favor as the champions selected to represent the Team A assessment was staffed by incompetent second rate minds completely out of their depths and totally incapable of refuting the vast data crunching sophistry of powerhouses like Nitze and his neocon team. Though history has demonstrated Team B’s thesis to be an artificial construction, the propaganda was successful and by 1978, the Trilateral-run coup of U.S. intelligence was nearly complete. At this time, a newly re-organized system of international clandestine operations were launched to conduct asymmetric warfare against not only Russia, but any other force in either the east or west that didn’t fit with Brzezinski’s ‘technetronic age’ then coming into being.

The Trotskyist Roots of the Neoconservative Takeover

In evaluating this strange cabal of right wingers, Paul and Liz astutely observe: “developed by an inbred class of former Trotskyist intellectuals, the Team B approach represented a radical transformation of America’s national security bureaucracy into a new kind of elitist cult.”

Tracing out the roots of these new neocons that dovetailed with the emergence of a new “end times” Christian-Zionist movement, the authors hit upon the Trotskyist common denominator which Cynthia Chung has also elaborated upon in her new series here and here.

It was no coincidence that this network of devotees of Trotsky’s particular brand of socialism with permanent revolution characteristics became a driving nexus of devotees among the imperial intelligentsia of the west like James Burnham, Alfred Wohlsetter, Richard Perle and Irving Kristol. These ideologues simply didn’t find the switch to neo-conservativism very difficult after Trotsky’s plans to take control of Russia failed by 1940. Trotsky’s fifth column in Russia had no trouble working with fascist Japanese, German, British or Wall Street powers in their fanatical aims to end Stalin’s “Socialism in one country” doctrine and impose global revolution which has been documented elsewhere and will be the topic of a future study.

The Murder of a U.S. Ambassador

This background helped set the duo up for the next series of discoveries they were to make preparing the groundwork for a journey with a camera team into Afghanistan in 1981. This preparation work involved Paul and Liz interfacing with a network of highly placed agents in dominant positions within the State Department and media industrial complex whose incredible overlap with the murder and coverup of president Kennedy, and management of the earlier Vietnam war is shocking.

Upon their arrival in Afghanistan in 1981, the duo also pieces together the mysterious anomalies of the assassination of American Ambassador to Kabul, Adolph Dubs on February 14, 1979. It didn’t take long before the couple discovered that Ambassador Dubs had been working covertly on an agenda that ran in total opposition to the Trilateral Commission plans for the region and if successful, threatened to disrupt all of Brzezinski’s designs.

It was Dubs after all, who had headed the Study Mission on International Controls of Narcotics Trafficking and Production for the Senate Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control only six months prior to his station in Kabul and understood better than anyone else where and how the global drug production complex functioned.

During dozens of meetings and interviews conducted with Afghanistan officials, Paul learned that Ambassador Dubs had at least 14 secret meetings with President Hafizullah Amin who was clearly not the sort of individual which western media portrayed. Not only was Amin not Marxist, he wasn’t in any way pro-Soviet or even a serious Muslim. Evidence piled up increasingly that Amin was little more than an opportunistic CIA tool interfacing closely with his nominal enemy Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (another CIA asset) in an effort to bring global heroin production into Afghanistan. As Paul and Liz discover, both men were in truth united as members of the same Ghilzai tribe which had long sought to assert dominance over Kabul.

This goal went part in parcel with Amin’s objective of undermining the nationalistic forces associated with King Daoud within the PRPD during the April 1978 Saur revolution that deposed the King.

However, when Dubs began negotiating a plan that kept the Soviets from falling into an Afghan trap while still enriching Amin, something had to be done to save Zbigniew’s script.

As Paul and Liz discover in the course of time, this CIA connection ultimately proved Amin’s own undoing and also resolved the paradoxical fact that despite being a nominally pro-Soviet Afghan president, Soviet forces wasted no time killing him on December 27, 1979 when Russia’s military entry officially began.

While official records still blame the death of Ambassador Dubs to a combination of Soviet and Afghan military forces to this very day, the authors demonstrate that bountiful evidence points to the hand of western intelligence that shaped the shootout that killed all three kidnappers and the Ambassador in room 117 of the Kabul Hotel. Chief among this evidence are the presence of CIA and DEA agents on the scene of the crime, evidence of Dubs’ having been alive after the famous shootout and his body having been 1) moved after his murder to make it seem as though bullets from the window might possibly have killed him, 2) shot several times by a .22 calibre pistol at close range… most likely by a sociopathic Kabul police chief Mohammed Lal who also turned up dead months later.

Russia Falls for the Trap

The murder of Dubs provided Zbigniew the propaganda needed to fuel the fires of anti-Russian hysteria among credulous Americans on the one hand, while also justifying the creation of a new clandestine asymmetric warfare policy that forever changed the fate of world history.

The only sacrifice needed on Brzezinski’s’ part was the murder of a pesky diplomat who wanted to avoid a world war, and the sacrifice of a highly placed CIA asset [President Amin] who would play the role of an Afghan Lee Harvey Oswald, taking the primary blame for the chaos that would erupt under Russia’s soft underbelly.

Additionally, the event that triggered so-called “Russia’s Vietnam”, provided the living proof which Team B’s fictitious thesis needed by demonstrating that Russia truly had a desire to dominate the world.

This, in turn fueled the money pit known as Operation Cyclone which poured billions of dollars into sponsoring terrorist movements that would soon morph into Al-Qaeda and the emergence of the world’s largest heroin production zone right in the heart of Mackinder’s World Island. It additionally justified Zbigniew’s push for “flexible response” limited nuclear war doctrine of 1980 which went on to shape the Full Spectrum Dominance program now encircling Russia and China.

When asked in a 1998 interview if he regretted having played a driving role in the creation of Al Qaeda, Zbigniew Brzezinski responded:

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.”

A year before this interview, Brzezinski wrote a poisonous book called “The Grand Chessboard” that became the guiding light for the neocon Project for a New American Century led by the same neo cons that emerged into power under his sponsorship in the 1970s like Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Helms and Dick Cheney where he stated:

In brief, for the United States, Eurasian geostrategy involves the purposeful management of geo-strategically dynamic states and the careful handling of geopolitically catalytic states, in keeping with the twin interests of America in the short-term preservation of its unique global power and in the long-run transformation of it into increasingly institutionalized global cooperation. To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.”

While the small space allocated for this review cannot do justice to the scope of this story which lead the reader up to the highest echelons of Europe’s old nobility and even a few under-appreciated secret societies, the lessons that are communicated have as much, if not more applicability now, forty years later as the USA departs from its own Afghan debauchery and mutant strains of Western/Saudi-sponsored radical Islam continue to plague the world in the form of ISIS-K, H. The only difference between 2021 and 1981 is that today, a Multipolar Alliance led by the Russia, China and joined by a growing array of great nations and many others have created a new paradigm founded upon a coherent alternative security, cultural and financial architecture capable of challenging the dystopic unipolar hegemon that Zbigniew Brzezinski believed should govern the New World Order.                       


Categories