Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm
Send this text
or the link to a friend.
Have you seen the Emperor's Clothes movie JUDGMENT? It proves the Western media lied about Bosnia.
Who is this man, the National Security Council Director in charge of everything from the Persian Gulf States to Southwest Asia?
Zalmay Khalilzad - Special US Envoy for Islamic Terror!
Compiled with comments by
[ www.tenc.net ]
The following text is more relevant today (April 16th) than when it was first written, six weeks ago. It includes a political biography of Zalmay Khalilzad, with useful source materials.
Two years ago, Khalilzad was put in charge of the Persian Gulf, Southwest Asia "and Other Regional Issues" for the National Security Council.
If learning about any one person can provide a clue as to what the U.S.- led Empire is trying to accomplish, from Iraq to Afghanistan, it is Zalmay Khalilzad. Hence the importance of the information that follows.
- Jared Israel
Who is Zalmay Khalilzad and why is he the man on the ground in Iraq?
George Bush has named the disease: Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.
But rest easy. He has also named the cure: Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad.
Dr. Khalilzad? Would that be the same Zalmay Khalilzad who oversaw the mobilization, leadership, funding and coordination of, and the media support for, the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists who devastated Afghanistan and Bosnia?
That's the man.
Dr. Khalilzad is in charge of a large part of Asia and the Middle East for the National Security Council. He has two field positions: special U.S. envoy to Afghanistan and special U.S. envoy to the Iraqi opposition. 
Why those two? Afghanistan and Iraq aren't even in the same region. They are separated by 1424 miles, Baghdad to Kabul. 
Those miles have a name. It's Iran. Could that be a clue?
Describing Zalmay Khalilzad as an 'envoy' charmingly understates his power. For example, he is the one who chose Hamid Karzai to head the current Afghan government, after which Khalilzad's choice was 'democratically approved' by the members of the Afghan elite, whom he had assembled. 
To help us think about what Khalilzad could be doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, let us examine his curriculum vitae, or résumé.
To that end, I have assembled significant excerpts from a few of the news reports and documents I've collected about Khalilzad. You can skip ahead to those excerpts [E] or continue with my comments.
Misinformation on Khalilzad
You may have heard Khalilzad described, with some scorn, as a 'Unocal consultant.'
This label derives from the latest war in Afghanistan. After the U.S. launched that war, some writers put forward that the U.S. goal was to force Afghanistan to accept a gas pipeline, supposedly desired by Unocal, a big U.S. oil company. We have refuted those writers  and shown that their research techniques and reasoning are sloppy to the point of parody. [5C]
Those putting forward the 'it's-for-oil' argument made much of Zalmay Khalilzad's brief stint working with a company that did some consulting for Unocal. Based on that minor gig, hundreds of Websites and some mainstream journalists still refer to Khalilzad as a 'Unocal consultant.'
Thus we are now told:
1) Khalilzad is the envoy to the Iraqi opposition;
2) Khalilzad is a Unocal consultant;
3) Therefore, it's 'all about oil!' 
Never mind that Khalilzad is a top figure in the US-led Western Empire - hardly an 'oil consultant.'
Never mind that Unocal pulled out of Afghanistan in 1998 (i.e., during the Clinton years) because the war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance showed no signs of ending and you can't build a pipeline during a war.
Never mind that when Unocal pulled out the U.S. did not immediately invade Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. (Indeed there is strong evidence that at that time, during the Clinton years, the U.S. covertly helped the Taliban fight their Northern Alliance enemies.  )
Of course, the US-led Empire did finally break up the Taliban government. But now, almost two years later, Unocal still has not returned.
Never mind that today Zalmay Khalilzad,
the 'Unocal consultant', is in charge and yet there are
exactly zero plans by any Western oil company to build a
pipeline through Afghanistan. (For a comical look at
attempts by officials from Turkmenistan, Pakistan and
Afghanistan to pretend a pipeline into existence, see
The Great Afghan Oil Pipeline
Calling Khalilzad an 'oil industry consultant' is like calling U.S. President Harry S. Truman a 'hat store owner' (which he was). Then, when Truman's government drops the A-bomb on Hiroshima, everyone can say, 'See? It's all about hats!'
And here's the central point: the 'oil consultant' label trivializes the harm Khalilzad has done.
When the Turkish media speaks of Khalilzad, they refer to him as President Bush's adviser on Iraq. Given the relative intellectual stature of these two men, it is unlikely that Khalilzad is merely Bush's 'adviser'.
In any event, that's not his official title. As of May 2001, Khalilzad's official job assignment with the National Security Council was, "Special Assistant" for the "Gulf, Southwest Asia and Other Regional Issues." That's quite a bit of territory.
He appears to have played the decisive role in setting up the present government of Afghanistan.
He is now the power broker on the ground, wheeling and dealing with the Iraqi opposition, Iran, Turkey, everyone.
As one can see from the material posted after these comments, Zalmay Khalilzad's experience is highly specialized. He is perhaps the leading practical planner and on-the-scene operative for carrying out the Brzezinski strategy. It involves using Islamic fundamentalist terrorists to advance the US-led Empire. On the one hand, the fundamentalists attack secular movements and societies and take political and organizational leadership of opposition movements which can then be used as tools of the US-led Empire. On the other hand, they provide an excuse for military intervention by the Empire.
Khalilzad helped develop the notion of using the mass media to act as the public relations department for terrorists, demonizing those who resist terrorist attacks as human rights abusers.
All this is documented below.
It is my hypothesis that Khalilzad's role, at this time, is to coordinate the creation of a continuous line of Islamic fundamentalist states, including Saudi Arabia and Iraq, reaching Afghanistan and beyond. These states might be US puppets (Afghanistan) or they might officially have strong differences with the US government (Iran) but they must all be integrated, at least on the operational level, with the US-led Empire.
(In the past, Iran and the US have had the most hostile relations in public while cooperating extensively on a covert level. This is discussed at http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/deja.htm
It may be necessary for Islamic fundamentalists in countries like Iran not only to denounce the U.S., but also to organize demonstrations and even violent attacks against the current US-led invasion. That sort of thing easily deceives people who are used to thinking that the US government is the same as the US-led Empire. It is not. It is merely a part of the Empire.
As the documents below make clear, Khalilzad has a unique mixture of experience in both planning and actual work with terrorists, on the ground. There may be nobody better placed than he to coordinate joint efforts between various covert and semi-covert forces of the Empire, on the one hand, and Islamic fundamentalists who must seem to oppose the US-led Empire in order to maintain their political base, on the other.
If the US-led Empire can create an
Islamist bloc from Saudi Arabia going east, eventually
incorporating all of Central Asia, it would vastly
increase the influence of fundamentalists among Muslims
all over Asia and the Caucasus. The biggest potential
opponents of the US-led Empire are in this area. They are
the multiethnic states of India, China and Russia and
other parts of the former Soviet Union. Since 1984,
Zalmay Khalilzad has specialized in mobilizing Islamic
fundamentalism against opponents of the US (the Soviet
Union) and destroying multiethnic states (Yugoslavia-Bosnia).
I found the following description of Dr. Khalilzad in the Washington Post:
Yes, so is the devil.
The facts about Khalilzad follow.
-- Jared Israel
The facts about Zalmay Khalilzad
* 1960s to 1984 *
As a high school student, Khalilzad was 'discovered' by Thomas E. Gouttierre.
Concerning Gouttierre, in an article on CIA penetration of the colleges, the Boston Globe wrote:
For two decades, Gouttierre's Afghan Center at the University of Nebraska wrote, edited and produced the Islamic jihad textbooks that indoctrinated Afghan schoolchildren in Islamic fundamentalism from the 1980s until today. 14 million of these textbooks were shipped into Afghanistan last year alone - produced by Gouttierre, paid for by USAID and approved by the current Bush administration. Indeed, the textbooks were publicly praised by Mr. Bush at a time when Khalilzad was his National Security Council director for Afghanistan. [6E]
Khalilzad did his PhD work at the University of Chicago under Albert J. Wohlstetter. Unknown to the public, the late Prof. Wohlstetter was one of the most influential cold war strategists.
Next Khalilzad taught at Columbia. In 1984 he joined the State Department as a Council on Foreign Relations fellow. Within two years he was a member of the elite Policy Planning Council, as noted by the Washington Post:
* 1985 *
Khalilzad was on the Board of a company called Friends of Afghanistan. Also on the Board was Zbigniew Brzezinski, the self-described mastermind of using Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan to attack Russia. [5D] Khalilzad taught at Brzezinski's university, Columbia. Everything suggests Khalilzad was a Brzezinski protégé.
Below is a substantial excerpt from an Associated Press (AP) dispatch, entitled, "U.S. Provides $500,000 So Afghan Rebels Can Tell Their Story."
Note that according to this dispatch, Congress proposed that Khalilzad's organization, Friends of Afghanistan, teach the Afghan terrorists how to win international support by portraying those opposing them as human rights abusers. This technique is now a staple of U.S. strategy. (For example, the media demonized the Serbs in just this way.)
Here's the excerpt from the AP dispatch:
[For the full text of the AP dispatch, with comments, see "Zbigniew And Zalmay's Excellent Afghan Pro-Terrorist Propaganda Adventure"] http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/zbi-zal.htm
* 1987 *
Khalilzad was a member of State Department's Policy Planning Council, as noted in the excerpt from a (London) Financial Times article, below:
* May 1988 *
Note that according to the dispatch from the Soviet news service, Itar-Tass, posted below, Zalmay Khalilzad was by 1988 the State Department's "special advisor" on Afghanistan. He was the one who dealt directly with the Mujahideen (Islamic holy warriors). In four years he had risen to the top. Note also the message he delivered to the Mujahideen: if you want our (continued) support a) you cannot make peace with the pro-Russian government and b) you must win. Note how this foreshadows Khalilzad's harsh criticism of the Taliban, made in the year 2000: that they were incapable of winning the war with the Northern Alliance, and that they were driving the Central Asian Republics into Russia's arms. [http://emperors-clothes.com/archive/khalilzad-facts.htm#M]
Consider also that Khalilzad has extensive experience not only in planning how to use Islamic fundamentalist terrorists against secular governments, but also in working with the terrorists.
Here's the excerpt from Itar-Tass:
* June 1988 *
The following excerpt from a New York Times article suggests that by 1988 Khalilzad advocated a policy of attacking Iraq and strengthening (!) Iran. 
[Note: Take that last sentence [L], about the Bush, Sr. administration overlooking Khalilzad's suggestions, with a grain of salt. In 1988, Khalilzad said the U.S. should, 'Work with Iran, attack Iraq.' Didn't the Gulf War involve attacking Iraq? And, according to the Dutch government report issued last year, didn't the Pentagon coordinate Iranian and Saudi Arabian efforts to ship money, arms and mujahideen terrorists to the pro-US Bosnian government of Alijah Izetbegovic? [6E] Doesn't that constitute allying with Iran?
And Khalilzad became head of Policy Planning at the Pentagon! In other words, the boss. Does all this suggest a man whose advice was being 'overlooked'?] 
It is true that while Khalilzad was the top Pentagon planner the U.S. and Iran continued to trade barbs and oppose one another in public. But at the same time, they worked together where it counted most, on the ground, to destroy Yugoslavia.
Or look at it another way: what huge Muslim state fought a bitter war with Iraq in the 1980s, a war in which hundreds of thousands died? Wasn't that state (Iran) the most obvious beneficiary of the Gulf War, which hobbled the Iraqi military? And isn't Iran the most likely beneficiary of the recent invasion?
* 1990 *
During the Reagan years Khalilzad reportedly rose to oversee the entire Persian Gulf region. The following is excerpted from a discussion of the Gulf crisis on The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, a US Public TV program. Ms. Woodruff was a reporter on the program.
Consider the following words, taken from Martin Indyk's remarks to a meeting of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. (A longer excerpt from Indyk's remarks is posted after my comments.)
Director of US military policy planning!
Let me say a few words here about Martin Indyk, because he has some interesting similarities to Zalmay Khalilzad.
Indyk became a U.S. citizen in 1993. President Clinton immediately took him on as a top adviser, officially in charge of the Middle East for the National Security Council.
In his remarks, quoted below, Indyk says that he and Khalilzad worked together on a policy paper on "proposals for reshaping the Middle East in the areas of regional security, arms control, economic and political development." This position paper, says Indyk, affected US policy because Khalilzad and two others who worked on it took top policy-making posts in the Bush administration.
A year after Indyk made these remarks, Clinton replaced Bush, and Indyk became his Middle East adviser. Thus Khalilzad and then his colleague Indyk were key participants in Middle East policy at precisely the time the U.S. was pushing for the so-called peace process. The centerpiece of this process was the Oslo accords which involved a) a total change in Israel's relationship with the PLO and b) legitimized the idea of a Palestinian state that would be run by the same terrorists who had been attacking Israeli civilians and who have continued to do so.
Some people argued that Indyk's appointment involved a conflict of interest because Indyk is Jewish. This assumes that because Indyk is Jewish he must be loyal to Israel. This assumption is evidence that anti-Semitism destroys one's ability to think. Though he is an Afghan, Zalmay Khalilzad is obviously not an agent of "The Afghans"; so why do people assume that Indyk is an agent of "The Jews."
Consider this: Zalmay Khalilzad is an Afghan and that is one of reasons he was invited to play such a prominent role in destroying.... Afghanistan.
Similarly, during the period when the US-led Empire was instituting Oslo, which was a big attack on Israel, they brought in a Jewish person to sell the deal.
Just as the Mujahideen war of the 1980s destroyed Afghan society, so the Oslo 'peace process' has facilitated the demonization of Israel and the whitewashing of the wost anti-Semites in the Arab world. Given the real character of Palestinian politics - that from the PLO to Hamas, all significant leaders are under the influence of the Saudis and all advocate the liquidation of Israel [6A] - a Palestinian state would be the worst possible thing for Israel.
It is no wonder that the PLO supported Indyk's meteoric rise to power:
This Empire is most clever. It has Khalilzad, an Afghan, sell the world on the Mujahideen, who destroyed Afghanistan. It has Indyk and other Jews sell the whitewashing of the PLO. And by the way, it is also Jews who whitewashed the Bosnian Islamic fundamentalists, who loathe Israel! And in the same way, it was a Serbian 'nationalist', Mr. Kostunica, whom the Empire chose to oversee the kidnapping of Slobodan Milosevic. It is Kostunica who has played Good Cop in Yugoslavia, doing immeasurable harm to the economy, culture and ordinary people's morale. [6C] But of course, anti-Serb racists in the Kosovo Liberation Army nevertheless attack Kostunica, claiming he is a Serbian super-nationalist! And when Indyk was made Clinton's Middle East advisor, leading anti-Semites argued that this was proof that Israel controlled US foreign policy. (Since Indyk helped orchestrate the attack on Israel known as the Oslo peace process, if his White House appointment was a manifestation of Israeli influence, Israel must be trying to commit suicide!)
Before coming to U.S. intelligence, Indyk worked in Australian intelligence. He was Deputy Director of Current Intelligence for the Middle East. It's a small world, isn't it? Meaning, it's a world Empire.
Below is the part of Indyk's speech where he talks about Khalilzad.
* 1992 *
In the excerpt below, Khalilzad, the top Pentagon strategic planner, is publicly described as advocating lifting the ban on arms to the Islamic fundamentalists in Bosnia. This of course does not indicate the limit of what his Pentagon subordinates actually did to Bosnia in private.
NATO and its allies referred to the Islamic fundamentalist faction led by Alijah Izetbegovic as the 'Bosnian government.' And so, in the excerpt below, this practice is followed.
A Dutch government report issued last year asserts that at this time, Iran and Saudi Arabia imported massive quantities of illegal arms and thousands of Islamic terrorists and trainers to shore up the 'Bosnian government' army. These terrorists conducted the most vicious and brutal assaults on Serbian civilians and created an atmosphere of Islamic fanaticism. And here's the kicker: according to the Dutch, it was Pentagon intelligence that coordinated the whole operation. 
The excerpt also refers to Khalilzad's previous role, in Afghanistan in the 1980s, where the U.S. and Saudi Arabia sponsored a terrorist war by the most fiercely dogmatic Islamic elements.
So we have the U.S. using Middle Eastern and Central Asian Islamic terrorists, first in Afghanistan and then in Bosnia. And both times, Khalilzad was a top man.
Below is the excerpt from New Republic.
* 1993 *
In the excerpt from another article in the New Republic, posted below, Khalilzad publicly called for illegal action to aid the Bosnian Islamic fundamentalists whose goal was to create an Islamist state. But as we know, much worse things were being done by Khalilzad's boys, behind the scenes.  Namely, they were coordinating Iranian, Saudi and Pakistani money, arms and mujahideen terrorists who attacked Bosnia. Note that Paul Wolfowitz is described as agreeing with Khalilzad. Wolfowitz is one of the much-discussed neoconservatives who, some claim, have a pro-Israeli agenda. I will give one dollar to anyone who can make an intelligent argument why it helped Israel to create an Islamic fundamentalist state in Europe. (By the way, according to the Dutch government report on Bosnia, the Israeli Mossad was arming the Bosnian Serbs who fought the mujahideen. So Wolfowitz opposed Israeli policy in Bosnia.)
In this excerpt, the NY Times confirms that Khalilzad was head of policy planning at the Pentagon under Bush Sr.
Further down I have posted an excerpt from an address Zalmay Khalilzad made before the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. The full text, which you can read if you like, is worthy of a thorough commentary on its own. In one part, not included in the excerpt below, Dr. Khalilzad glibly explains away the harsh reality: that starting in the late 1970s, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia worked for over a decade empowering Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in Afghanistan.
He speaks as if the unbelievable brutality and extremism of the Afghan Mujahideen resulted from a) the law of unintended consequences - i.e., the U.S. never expected to win and b) a sin of omission - i.e., the U.S. let Pakistan play too much of a role. These are the usual rationalizations. Not only are these arguments morally bankrupt, but this picture is contradicted by the public record, including an excellent Washington Post article, which is posted on Emperor's Clothes. [6D]
I have posted a part of Khalilzad's address in which he deals with the Taliban. Khalilzad makes some familiar comments about their extremism, but in the midst of these usual platitudes he cuts to the chase.
He argues that a) the Taliban have failed to win the war with the Northern Alliance and at the same time that b) they openly sponsor the export of Islamic fundamentalism and therefore c) they are pushing the Central Asian Republics into working more closely with Russia.
This is interesting. In the Washington Post in 1996, Khalilzad wrote:
This is quaint. What constitutes the "Saudi model" of Islam? It is the Wahhabi sect. And it was precisely the Wahhabi sect which Khalilzad and his associates pushed on Afghanistan in the 1980s. The Wahhabi sect is arguably the mother of all Islamic extremism.
Why did Khalilzad ludicrously downplay the Taliban's ideology in 1996? Because at that time the US-led Empire hoped these monsters could consolidate control over Afghanistan. Indeed, Emperor's Clothes has posted evidence that around this time, the U.S. used treachery in an attempt to help the Taliban destroy the forces of the Northern Alliance. It would appear that for the U.S.-led Empire (and Dr. Khalilzad) the Taliban's greatest sin was not excess but failure. 
In the excerpt posted after my remarks, Khalilzad mentions the oil company, Unocal. Indeed, this is one of the few places I could find where he ever mentioned Unocal. He says that Unocal wanted to export energy through Afghanistan.
His comments here are revealing. Far from being motivated by a desire to help Unocal get a pipeline, Khalilzad never even uses the word, 'pipeline'. Rather, he refers briefly to the earlier effort to build a gas pipeline through Afghanistan, saying it was too bad it failed because it could have given the Central Asian republics some hope, thereby luring them away from Russia! In other words, the pipeline was interesting to top US strategists such as Khalilzad as a tool for weakening Russian influence in Central Asia. Note that in the following, Khalilzad does not speak at all as an envoy of Unocal; he refers to it in a distant and disinterested manner.
Khalilzad remains focused on Russia. It is the great enemy that defined him. That old enemy was stunned in the early 1990s, but Khalilzad will not rest until it is entirely tamed, or dead.
* May 2001 *
Following these comments is the text of a National Security Council statement announcing that Khalilzad has been appointed Bush's 'special assistant' dealing with the "Gulf, Southwest Asia and Other Regional Issues."
In just this way, the think tank boys move from the shadowy world of think tanks and high power institutes and covert and semi-covert agencies in which policy is actually made into the official world of government, where they occupy key strategic positions.
Special assistant dealing with the "Gulf, Southwest Asia and Other Regional Issues." Is anybody seriously going to argue that this brilliant and battle-seasoned strategist of empire merely assists George Bush, Junior?
The "Gulf, Southwest Asia and Other Regional Issues." That's quite an assignment. I especially like the "other regional issues." What's that? The world?
In general, it is not uncommon for a person labeled, 'Chief," to be a figurehead and for the person labeled, "Assistant" to make the decisions.
Thus, in the National Security Council biographical note below, Khalilzad is described as having been, "Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning" from 1991 to 1992.
But as quoted earlier, Martin Indyk described Khalilzad's job in the first Bush administration more bluntly: "Director of policy planning in the Pentagon." [I]
Here's the National Security Council notice.
Through various actions, culminating in the use of the jihadists in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, the US-led Western Empire won the Cold War by the early 1990s.
This victory left the Empire virtually unopposed. The Soviet Union was broken up. Chinese labor was at the disposal of Western multinationals. In the West, the Left was a shambles and easily controlled.
The Empire was in possession of the most powerful media, the biggest, richest and most multi-sided covert organizations, and the biggest military force in human history. Throughout the 1990s this apparatus has been retrained and tested to function in a partly new way to serve a new strategic goal.
The US-led Empire's new goal has been to consolidate the Cold War victory by preventing the formation of a truly independent opposition and, especially, by preventing the formation of an international coalition that might form a world-pole of opposition, not under the Empire's control. The ultimate targets of this strategy: China, India and especially the former Soviet Republics.
Other smaller or weaker states have been forcefully targeted for national destruction during the 1990s. The most brutal example is Congo, in which literally millions of people have been killed by African proxy forces of the U.S.-led Empire. But the best-known case is Yugoslavia, which has the misfortune to be strategically placed. In attacking Yugoslavia, the Empire has perfected never-before-equaled techniques of media distortion and covert penetration. The breakup of Yugoslavia in an orgy of fascism, Islamic fundamentalism and national destruction, has been heralded by the mass media worldwide as a victory of democracy and nation building!
Meanwhile, all over the former Soviet Union, the US-led Empire has been penetrating the media and governments. The Empire takes over their militaries and sets up military bases. It sponsors phony democratic organizations and also Islamist and fascist movements with as much popular support as possible. The goal is to reshape the political makeup and national boundaries of the Eurasian landmass. Wherever possible, the big multiethnic states are to be broken up into smaller territories under the domination of controllable Islamic fundamentalist or fascist or other quisling governments.
In the process of turning national states into weak territories, and as a means towards this goal, the Empire strives to keep these states in poverty and debilitating strife. It assaults them with quislings, Islamic terrorists and fascists even as it penetrates them with military, political and economic advisers and 'aid.' Some of the fascists appear to the world as opponents of the Empire, even using Left-wing rhetoric, calling themselves anti-Imperialists. At the same time, the Empire funds Western-controlled 'democrats' and NGOs. It buys and creates media organizations that demonize real resistance while promoting negative alternatives and thoroughly confusing every issue.
It is inevitable that forces within national states try to resist destruction by Islamic terrorists or Fifth Column 'democratic movements' or other destructive forces connected with the Empire. (Sometimes we can actually trace the funding of such groups to the Empire's semi-covert organizations based in the US or Germany or Saudi Arabia or Norway or Holland...)
When a targeted state resists, the Empire's mass media and politicians blast the resistance as racist. The Empire sends in phony human rights groups to accuse those who resist of committing all manner of human rights abuses. By means of this and other stratagems, well-intentioned people in the Empire are drawn into movements which either justify Imperial actions or, though they may seem to oppose Imperial actions, are controlled by the Empire and serve its goals. This is possible because the mass media and the Empire's many-tentacled covert apparatus sow confusion. Ordinary people are misled about the Empire's most basic goals.
Thus, those trying to preserve the integrity of national states are continually thrown off balance. The Empire's main goal is to permanently prevent movements and states - and especially China, Russia and India - from achieving the independence of organization and thinking, and therefore the morale, needed to unite in resistance to this powerful attack. The point is not that the governments of these or other targeted states are necessarily virtuous. The Empire does not choose its targets based on virtue. The point is that regardless of the character of their current governments, the destruction of nation states means terrible suffering to ordinary people and renders resistance to the Empire much more difficult.
The US-led Empire is not nostalgic. Just as it does not choose its targets based on virtue, it also does not spare them because they are 'old friends.'
Yugoslavia was a loyal servant of the Empire during the Cold War - but Yugoslavia was attacked as soon as the Cold War ended.
The Baath fascists were backed to the hilt as the alternative to the Reds, whom they slaughtered; but even before the Cold War ended, Iraq was bombed.
Perhaps the best example is Israel. Because of the alignment during the Cold War, people still view the U.S. as defending Israel and opposing the Palestinian organizations. But the facts say otherwise. The U.S. covert apparatus has been funding and training anti-Israel organizations all over the Middle East, including in the West Bank, Gaza and Israel itself, for several years; US-sponsored states, like Qatar, run non-stop, government-funded anti-Israel and anti-Semitic Television programming; and the CIA has been 'training' the PLO's key forces in military and covert operations since shortly after the Oslo accords were signed, if not before. All this is public information. (Emperor's Clothes now has a whole archive of documentation concerning the involvement of the CIA and other parts of the Empire's covert apparatus with the PLO, which we will publish.)
Truly is it said: This Empire has no friends; it only has future victims.
The shattering of the Soviet Union was Zalmay Khalilzad's big concern when he was the State Department's 'special adviser' on Afghanistan during the 1980s.
Today, this area of the world remains his focus of concern.
Thus, for example, in a speech delivered at a meeting in 2000, which is quoted elsewhere in this article, Khalilzad called for removing the Taliban because their policies were driving the Central Asian Republics into the arms of Russia. [M]
Why would he care? Because Russia, despite its myriad weaknesses, was once the center of opposition - a counter-balance to US power - and Khalilzad and his Imperial associates do not want this to happen again. [5A]
There is no way that a US-led Empire can dominate the modern world simply through military force. The people who do the strategic planning for this Empire are aware of that axiom. They are smart, and Dr. Khalilzad is one of the smartest. They, and he, know: political power trumps military power. Therefore the US-led Empire focuses on politics in the most basic sense: ideology and organization. It is concerned with:
A) Creating two immense political forces. One opposes Islamic fundamentalism and believes the media hype that the US government is fighting Islamist terrorism. The leaders of this camp portray US military power as a liberating force and US hegemony as necessary in order to guarantee democracy, protect minorities against racism and racist ideas, such as anti-Semitism, and defeat terrorist regimes. They argue that it is OK to violate national sovereignty - e.g., invade other countries - if the governments of those countries violate, or are portrayed as violating, certain standards of behavior. Thus US leaders can wage what they portray as 'humanitarian' war (supposedly aimed at protecting minorities) or 'democratic' war or 'anti-terrorist' war.
At the same time, the US-led Empire fosters opposition movements whose leaders are covert agents of the Empire. These leaders claim to oppose US hegemony, while at the same time they support Arab, Albanian and other forms of chauvinism, Islamic fundamentalism and anti-Semitism. The traditional left wing idea of anti-imperialism is merged with the fascist idea that high placed Jews are behind the problems of the world. This is often put forward under the guise of opposing a few Jewish conservatives, or Israel, or both.
B) Winning many millions of people in Eurasia to Islamic fundamentalism. In this way, the US-led Empire hopes to destabilize China from the West, (Xingiang), India from the North (Kashmir) and Russian from the south and west (the Caucasus and Central Asia), thus hobbling its most obvious potential opponents.
C) By fomenting various kinds of racism and also Islamic fundamentalism, the Empire can breath new life into the most backward-looking forces around the world. This greatly multiplies the Empire's military power and also its ability to rule subject peoples. That is why during the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, the U.S.-led Empire mobilized the erstwhile allies of Nazi Germany throughout the Balkans - the Croatian clerical-fascist Ustashas,  the Bosnian Islamic fundamentalists and Serb-hating racists among Albanians. That is why they stir up anti-Semitism throughout the Muslim world, anti-Slav bigotry in the Baltic States, the Balkans and elsewhere, anti-Semitism in Russia and the rest of Europe, and so on, and on.
[Footnotes Follow The Appeal]
We get by with a little help from our friends...
Emperor's Clothes receives all its funding from our readers. We are most grateful for any help you can afford to give; small contributions help, and so, of course, do big ones. Our best is yet to come...
Here’s How to Make a Donation...
* Using Paypal (Visa & Mastercard) https://email@example.com&no_shipping=1
* By credit card at our secure server
Footnotes & Further Reading
See, official U.S. government announcement,
See map at
 Saying that U.S. envoy Khalilzad picked Hamid Karzai to be President of Afghanistan is not hyperbole. It is well known that Karzai was elected at an Afghan grand assembly, a loya jirga, held in Germany two years ago. Here's how the LA Times described the process of 'electing' Karzai:
Note that the first part of the above quote, where the Times states that the envoy (that's Khalilzad) got two candidates to withdraw, renders humorous the second part, about how the results reflected everybody's wishes. In today's Afghanistan, the elite, convened by Khalilzad, are free to democratically do whatever Khalilzad tells them, after which they are free to joyously celebrate their independence.
The notion that Khalilzad is a flunky of the oil industry
is eviscerated in "Zbigniew And Zalmay's Excellent
Afghan Pro-Terrorist Propaganda Adventure," at
For more on the
myth that U.S. actions in Central Asia are aimed at
making money for the oil industry, see 'The Empire Isn't in Afghanistan for the Oil!' by Jared Israel at
All Fisk leaves out is that:
A) Khalilzad was never a "Unocal Corporation oil industry consultant." He was apparently briefly associated with Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) an energy-and-geopolitics outfit whose luminaries move in and out of government including national security. CERA did some work with Unocal six years ago, and Khalilzad was involved. Defining Khalilzad based on this minor association with Unocal is simply ludicrous;
B) The Taliban never rejected building a pipeline. Why on earth would they? They needed money, and a pipeline is a cash cow, producing vast fees simply for letting oil or gas pass through one's country. Every Central Asian country wants a pipeline.
So it was the
Taliban who pushed for a gas pipeline while powerful
figures in the US-led Empire, like Zalmay Khalilzad, made
such a pipeline contingent on the creation of a stable
government in Afghanistan. When it was clear that the
Taliban could not achieve even a modicum of stability, it
was Unocal - not the Taliban - that rejected the deal.
They pulled out in 1998, that is, two years before Bush
came to Washington. For more on this go to
C) Khalilzad now runs Afghanistan and still no pipeline. Not even any potential plans for a pipeline. This does not bother those who tell us that, "it's-all-about-oil." Their beliefs survive the inconvenience of contradicting the evidence.
has been a big player in the Bush government since before
Bush got elected. In my estimate he is much higher on
the real ladder of power than George, Jr. It is
commonplace for the biggest players to run things through
jobs without the biggest titles. A good example in recent
U.S. history is Averill Harriman, for more on whom see
'Nazis in the Attic,' at
[5A] See, 'What's the Target of the U.S. Move
into Central Asia?' at
[5B] The Washington Post
[5C] A book has been written and widely distributed arguing that the Afghan war is about oil. The authors' standards of argument and research are so bad it is breathtaking. We discuss their arguments and methods in a few articles, including:
Asks: 'What About Bush's Carpet-Of-Bombs Threat?"' (This
was a threat supposedly made to the Taliban, to accept a
pipeline or be bombed).
Gold...Is Brisard And Dasquié's Book Theater Of The
Absurd? Or Is It Worse?' at
[5D] See, "Ex-National Security Chief
Brzezinski admits: Afghan Islamism Was Made in Washington"
[5E] There is a certain humor in the never-ending
attempts by leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and
Pakistan to get a gas pipeline. So far, all they have
been lacking is an oil company to back the project and a
customer to buy the gas; other than that, no problem.
See, "The Great Afghan Oil Pipeline
The article, "U.S. & Iran: Enemies in
Public, but Secret Allies in Terror," shows that the US and
Iran attacked each other in public while cooperating to
carry out a massive terrorist campaign in Bosnia.
For a rare
newspaper account of the results of US-Iranian- Saudi
terrorism in Bosnia, see
[6A] "Confessions of a Once-Hopeful Leftist, or How
‘Disengagement’ Reveals the True Character of the Proposed Arab State in
the West Bank and Gaza," by Jared Israel
[6C] Vojislav Kostunica is often portrayed as an
innocent bystander in the June 2001 kidnapping of
Slobodan Milosevic. Not so. See, "The Treason of
Vojislav Kostunica," at
dissolution of Yugoslavia, see
[6D] To read the Washington Post story about U.S.
strategy during the Afghan war of the 1980s, go to
'Washington's Backing of Afghan Terrorists: Deliberate
[6E] "Bush & the Media Cover up the
Jihad Schoolbook Scandal," by Jared Israel
Defenders of US policy in Afghanistan claim that the US-Saudi creation of an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist force in the 1980s was a mistake. But the Jihad textbooks belie that claim.
During the period from the early 1980s up to and including the current time, USAID paid for millions of Islamic fundamentalist textbooks for Afghan schoolchildren. The Afghan center at the University of Nebraska did the writing, editing and printing. These books were used by all Islamist movements and governments, including the Taliban. For years, the books included pictures of mujahideen killing infidels with modern (i.e., US-supplied) weapons. Now apparently the pictures have been removed, but the Islamic fundamentalist message remains.
Why would the US-led Empire ship many millions of these books into Afghanistan unless they wished to foment Islamic fundamentalism? Emperor's Clothes has posted two articles on this topic:
& the Media Cover up the Jihad Schoolbook Scandal,"
by Jared Israel
 We have smoking-gun evidence that the U.S. in fact militarily supported the Taliban against the Northern Alliance in the late 1990s. This changed, apparently because it became clear that the Taliban were incapable of, and/or unwilling to, unite all the Islamic fundamentalist forces in Afghanistan; so the U.S.-led Empire took Afghanistan into receivership and set up a unified Islamist government.
covert US support for the Taliban, check out the stunning
debate between Cong. Rohrabacher and the State Department
in 'Congressman: U.S. Set Up Anti-Taliban to be
Regarding the Croatian Ustashas, who were so bad that
Hitler called them "our Nazis," see, "The Croatian Ustashi: Meet The Nazis The CIA
This Website is