RICHARD ARMITAGE AND THE ISI
Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
On November 17, 2004, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage indicated he would be leaving that job. The average American is probably aware of little if anything about this important power player in international affairs, but his activities have been of considerable significance.
For years, Richard Armitage worked for the CIA and DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency). He also holds the highest Pakistani civil decoration that a foreigner can receive, and he has many friends in Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI, Inter-Services Intelligence).
Why would an American government official become so involved with Pakistan? For one thing, most CIA covert operations in that part of the world have been run through the ISI. The CIA used the Pakistani-funded, ISI-connected, infamous Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), which engaged in money laundering among other nefarious activities. Also, Pakistan is geopolitically important in obtaining oil from the Caspian region where Kazakhstan is located. Armitage (whose business clients have included Halliburton's Brown & Root division, Boeing, Goldman Sachs and Chase Manhattan) and Dick Cheney in the 1990s had business or consulting interests in the Caspian region (Cheney has been CEO of Halliburton and on the Kazakhstan Oil Advisory Board), and in 1997 Armitage was contacted by the oil and gas giant UNOCAL to work for its Central Asia pipeline interests. Armitage also co-authored the July 2000 report of The Commission on America's National Interests, which described the need for obtaining oil from the Caspian region. The recalcitrant Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, however, were standing in the way of moving the oil and gas from that region to Pakistan, the U.S., and elsewhere.
Relevant to this, in 1997 Zbigniew Brzezinski (first director of the Trilateral Commission) wrote THE GRAND CHESSBOARD, referring several times to "ruling national elites," and describing the importance of a pipeline from the Caspian region to the Arabian Sea via Afghanistan. He explained: "America is now Eurasia's arbiter....How the United States both manipulates and manages Eurasia's key geopolitical pivots will be critical to the longevity and stability of America's global primacy....A possible challenge to American primacy from Islamic fundamentalism could be part of the problem in this unstable region...and would be likely to express itself through diffuse violence." And concerning American power, he continued: "The pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being....America may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." Like the terrorist attack of 9-11, or the claim that Saddam Hussein had WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction)?
Digressing briefly, in 1952 the World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government developed a map showing what nations' military forces would be policing other nations when the world government became a reality. According to the map, American forces would be policing the Caspian region (Kazakhstan, etc.), and on September 14, 1997 American military forces did indeed begin conducting joint military exercises there, where the U.S. now has military bases.
The rumor now is that Richard Armitage will be replaced as Deputy Secretary of State by John Bolton, both of whom (along with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and others) have been members of PNAC (Project for the New American Century), which University of Pennsylvania Professor Ian Lustick on ABC's "Nightline" (March 5, 2003) said was in "control, now, of the White House." On January 26, 1998, Armitage, Bolton, Wolfowitz et al signed a PNAC letter to President Bill Clinton advocating the removal of Saddam Hussein. In March 2005, President Bush will nominate Bolton to be American Ambassador to the U.N.
And after the terrorists attacks of 9-11, on September 15, 2001 at Camp David, Wolfowitz argued for attacking Iraq, with THE LONDON TIMES (August 29, 2002) reporting that Wolfowitz "argued that September 11 provided a perfect pretext to hit Baghdad."
Returning now to the Armitage-ISI connection, in May 2001 Armitage and CIA director George Tenet had an unusually long meeting in Islamabad, Pakistan with the head of the ISI, Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, and with Pakistan's chief executive Gen. Pervez Musharraf. A few weeks later, in mid-July 2001 in Berlin at a U.N.-sponsored international contact group meeting on Afghanistan, U.S. representatives told Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik that the Taliban must submit to U.S. demands regarding Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda or face military action. The Taliban was actually a creation of the ISI.
On September 10, 2001 at the same time Armitage was meeting with Sir David Manning (national security adviser to Tony Blair, British Prime Minister and a vice-president of Socialist International), the Pakistan daily newspaper THE NEWS reported that Gen. Ahmad was in Washington, and had been meeting some top officials at the Pentagon, the CIA and the NSC (National Security Council). Was it a coincidence that on this same day, some top Pentagon officials suddenly cancelled their travel plans for the next morning (9-11) apparently because of security concerns? What did Gen. Ahmad tell some top Pentagon officials before September 11, and did it have anything to do with the fact that Gen. Ahmad previously had Saeed Sheikh (convicted on July 15, 2002 of kidnapping and killing WALL STREET JOURNAL reporter Daniel Pearl) wire $100,000 to 9-11 terrorist leader Mohammed Atta?
As the attacks of 9-11 unfolded, Gen. Ahmad was having breakfast with Porter Goss (a member of Yale University's secret Book & Snake society), who would be named late in 2004 by President George W. Bush (a member of Yale's secret Skull & Bones society) as the new head of the CIA, reportedly having previously been a member of its infamous "Operation Forty" team. And the afternoon of 9-11, as well as on September 12 and 13, Ahmad met with Richard Armitage.
Looking more closely at Saeed Sheikh (who studied for some time at the Fabian Socialists' London School of Economics), on February 5, 2002 Sheikh voluntarily surrendered to Pakistani authorities who wanted to take him into custody for the kidnapping and killing of Daniel Pearl. Sheikh reportedly was taken to Rawalpindi (where Gen. Ahmad is now living in seclusion), where Ahmad ally Gen. Mohammed Aziz Khan has lived. Khan has been with the ISI and is now head of Pakistan leader Gen. Musharraf's Joint Chiefs of Staff. Gen. Khan also hosted parties where Sheikh was frequently in attendance before October 8, 2000. The reason Sheikh was taken to Rawalpindi reportedly was so that Gen. Khan could convince Sheikh not to reveal the ISI-bin Laden connection. Gen. Khan had helped Osama bin Laden get dialysis treatment and helped the Taliban and Al Qaeda relocate in safe sanctuaries in Pakistan after the U.S. attacked the Taliban.
Have you ever wondered why Sheikh was not charged for his alleged involvement in the attacks of 9-11, and why the U.S. did not request his extradition for the murder of Daniel Pearl who was investigating the ISI-Al Qaeda connection? Could it be because Sheikh would have exposed the link between Gen. Musharraf, the ISI and bin Laden? On November 27, 2004 Gen. Musharraf's military spokesman, Major-General Shaukat Sultan, announced that they were pulling Pakistani forces who had been searching for Osama bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda away from checkpoints and some other positions along the border with Afghanistan, and they would no longer be searching specifically for them there.
In the Spring of this year, I wrote that there could be a surprise from Osama bin Laden before the election here, and sure enough, shortly before the November vote he released a videotape warning the U.S. that "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands, and any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security." But the warning is illogical (e.g., Al Qaeda does make decisions that effect our security, and individual states do not decide to take or not take action against Al Qaeda), unless it was a coded message. Perhaps Osama was signaling his agents in various U.S. states to wait until after the election, and regardless of who won, they should not wait for a directive from bin Laden himself before striking at a previously determined place, time, or occasion.
There are certain things the power elite simply do not want the people to know. First of all, they would prefer the public was unaware of their existence, but the fact that there is a power elite is explained in Prof. Suzanne Keller's BEYOND THE RULING CLASS: STRATEGIC ELITES IN MODERN SOCIETY (1963): "The notion of a stratum elevated above the mass of men may prompt approval, indifference, or despair, but regardless of how men feel about it, the fact remains that their lives, fortunes, and fate are and have long been dependent on what a small number of men in high places think and do."
And the attitude of the power elite has been revealed by today's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said: "My relationship to power and authority is that I'm all for it....People need somebody to watch over them....Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave." (U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, November 26, 1990) Of course, in order to tell people "what to do and how to behave," the power elite will have to be able to keep track of us. In this regard, WorldNetDaily on October 7, 2004 published "Feds plan to track every car" about a report concerning the federal Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office's plan to use Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology to track every movement of every vehicle in the country. "Onboard units" will be in the first model vehicles by Spring 2005, and by 2015 they will be in 57 million vehicles. Then, on October 13, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved an implantable computer chip for hospital patients containing their medical details. And most recently, THE LONDON TIMES (November 24, 2004) reported that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has backed compulsory ID cards (for public service health care, passports, etc.) for everyone in Britain by 2010-2012.
At this point, you may say that Americans would never submit to a national ID card, but then would you have ever thought Americans would allow the U.S. Senate to say that parents do not have to give their permission before their children receive a mental health screening? On November 20, 2004 Congress passed the omnibus spending bill, but rejected Rep. Ron Paul's amendment, which stated: "None of the funds available for State Incentive Grants for Transformation should be used for any programs of mandatory or universal mental-health screening that performs mental-health screening on anyone under 18 years of age without the express, written permission of the parents or legal guardians of each individual involved."
Although the U.S. House leadership supported Rep. Paul's language, the Senators on the conference committee objected. Kent Snyder, executive director of the Liberty Committee (founded by Rep. Paul), declared: " We believe the drug companies and psychiatric establishment convinced Senators Arlen Specter and Bill Frist to block it." It is a truly sad day when the U.S. Senate does not support parental rights when it comes to something as far-reaching and psychologically invasive as the "mandatory or universal mental-health screening" of their children!
© 2004 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved
Order Dennis Cuddy's new book "Cover-Up: Government Spin or Truth?"
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.
Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress
on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or
edited seventeen books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles
appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post,
Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio
talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York
City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs
USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.
Why would an American government
official become so involved with Pakistan? For one thing, most CIA covert
operations in that part of the world have been run through the ISI. Also,
Pakistan is geopolitically important in obtaining oil from the Caspian
region where Kazakhstan is located.