By Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources
August 21, 1998
In the suspicion following President Clinton's announcement of US missile attacks on a building in Khartoum, Sudan and on a target or targets in Afghanistan said to be the "terrorist camp" of Osama Bin Laden. We were told by the president that there was "convincing evidence" that there was a connection between the bombers of the US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam and Bin Laden. The attacks were by missile, not by aircraft, "for the safety of our pilots" it was announced.
Whatever people's view of the US strikes, making sure we sent missiles, not our airplanes was wise. The people that we have now labeled "terrorists" were our clients in the Russia-Afghanistan war a few years ago that is credited by some as wrecking the finances of the old USSR.
Osama Bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1979 to fight against the Russians and was credited with recruiting 15,000 dedicated fighters. He was one of the so-called "freedom fighters" we furnished with Stinger Missiles that turned the tide in that war. In fact, the Afghan rebels got really good at blasting Russian aircraft out of the sky with the shoulder fired Stingers supplied by the USA. Since the end of that war, it is reported that a large number of the Stingers supplied by the USA are now unaccounted for and in the hands of the Afghans we now dub "terrorists" not "rebels."
During the Clinton Administration, efforts by concerned members of the security community to reclaim the Stingers have been ignored. A State Department document on security practices.
entitled Terrorist Tactics and Security Practices, was released in February 1994 by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. The document, prepared by the bureau's Office of Intelligence and Threat Analysis, warned of the danger of the Stinger missiles in the hands of Afghan rebels.
The report said "there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that the threat to civil aircraft emanating from terrorist groups, rebel militias and even criminal enterprises possessing MANPADS is an increasing possibility."
"MANPADS were widely proliferated during the 1970s and 1980s. Now, after 20 years of reported instances of SAMs in the hands of rebel militias, narco-criminals, and terrorist groups, the potential for increased SAM threats to civil aircraft have become a serious reality. Recent terrorism events such as the World Trade Center bombing, and those that were prevented, underscore the fact that fanatical elements were not deterred by the potential implications of mass casualties that could occur if a man-portable SAM were used against a commercial airliner."
According to the State Department security report "another worldwide trend having implications for the safe passage of civil airliners is the growing instance of ethnic, religious, and civil unrest. Although the risk of a world war as at least temporarily passed, the ethnic and regional conflicts found in the four corners of the world indicate that perhaps our situation is more unstable than at any time in recent history. With this instability has come the risk of terrorism in new and more dangerous forms. Hundreds of MANPADs have fallen into the hands of ethnic militias that are battling against established governments."
"MANPADS were widely used against Soviet military aircraft-- and at least five civilian aircraft--in Afghanistan. Many people from Moslem countries elsewhere around the world came to Afghanistan to 'fight the infidel.' They became imbued with a religious fundamentalist spirit in their years there. Since the end of the war many have spread out across the globe to carry out attacks against more secular governments, from Cairo to Manila. Some of the suspects in the alleged terror ring that targeted the World Trade Center, as well as other landmarks and transportation targets, reportedly had links with the 'Afghans' as the insurgents of diverse nationalities are known to security agencies.
"Stingers will be used against U.S. aircraft, at U.S. airports, sooner rather than later. Like the World Trade Center an airliner-- any airliner anywhere in the United States--represents a high- value, low risk target. The experience of the 'Afghans' in knocking down planes--including commercial jets--as well as their training place them among the most likely to use MANPAD technology against Western, particularly American, aircraft. These are well-trained and experienced men of war. They probably have the means--access to hundreds of 'Stinger'-type missiles are unaccounted for in the war- -as well as the motive and opportunity."
It perhaps is significant that members of congress who have been closest to security concerns were also the first to question the timing and the style of Clinton's unilateral attack on targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. Sen. Spector, (R-PA) as Chairman of the Select Intelligence Committee, and the recipient of a letter of alarm about the Clinton Justice Department turning down the offer of the return of over 100 of the Stingers has questioned the timing.
"It is well known what the president's collateral problems are. It's on the front page of the New York Times today that the president was considering doing something presidential to try to focus attention away from his own personal problems."
Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) who is on the Armed Services Committee was even more blunt: "I am questioning was the president' role was in this decision and whether or not he was in a position to make a sound judgment call and whether he should have considered the speculation that would arise worldwide and the consequences of that in calling for this strike literally a day and a half after his speech."
It would appear that perhaps Clinton's sudden interest in finding something "presidential" to do may have prompted him to do something that should have been done two years ago when Bin Laden led attacks on US personnel in Saudi Arabia and wasn't.
It was the United States proliferation of weapons through Pakistan, to the Afghans that enabled the "rebels" to win the war in Afghanistan. Now one of the key figures among the rebels has become a fierce enemy of the United States and has the capacity to use our own weapons against us. So, perhaps the missiles were needed - but what is the next step? The Russians, thinking they would settle the problem in a couple of weeks, sent a huge number of troops into Afghanistan. It became their Vietnam. America may very well pay a bitter price for twice electing a president with no interest in foreign affairs.
If we find some of Bin Laden's Stinger sharpshooters taking down some of our airplanes (some believe it was a Stinger that brought down TWA 800) we may rue the day that we fell for the myth "it's the economy, stupid." Reagan-Bush policies had already created the base for economic expansion. What we needed six years ago was a president who probably would have stopped the terrorism several years ago.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com