ISI  owes its existence to the CIA
[Home] [Others] [Pakistan's ISI link to 9/11 funding] [ISI  owes its existence to the CIA]

The story...

...Amply documented, the ISI owes its existence to the CIA:

 "With CIA backing and the funnelling of massive amounts of U.S. military aid, the ISI developed [since the early 1980s] into a parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government....The ISI had a staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers estimated at 150,000."

Michel Chossudovsky
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html

Our take...

The ISI owing “its existence to the CIA” is amply documented, Chossudovsky tells us, so you might expect the quote he uses as an example to be the very best available. But this doesn’t appear to be the case. 

First, the ISI was created long before “the early 1980’s”, in fact only the year after the CIA was established in 1947, so it’s hard to see any literal truth in Chossudovsky’s claim:

The Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence [ISI] was founded in 1948 by a British army officer, Maj Gen R Cawthome, then Deputy Chief of Staff in Pakistan Army. Field Marshal Ayub Khan, the president of Pakistan in the 1950s, expanded the role of ISI in safeguarding Pakistan's interests, monitoring opposition politicians, and sustaining military rule in Pakistan.
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/isi/

And second, Chossudovsky’s own quote is short on details. CIA backing? Where, exactly? How much? “Massive amounts of US military aid”? How much? Was this intended to develop the ISI into a “parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of Government”, or could that be an unexpected byproduct?

Enough. Chossudovsky does kindly provide a footnoted source for this comment, so perhaps that’ll tell us more. 

8. Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999. See also Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, Global Outlook, No. 1, 2002.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html

There’s no URL for the first source provided, unfortunately, but no problem. A quick Google search for the title “The Taliban: Exporting Extremism” delivers multiple copies, including one on IndianEmbassy.org. Read it, though, and you’ll find no real support for Chossudovsky. This is as strong as it gets:

With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI, who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan fight between 1982-1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad...

One of the main recruiters of Arab militants for the Afghan jihad was bin Laden. As the richest and highest-ranking Saudi to participate in the struggle, he was heavily patronized by the ISI and Saudi intelligence. Bin Laden left Afghanistan in 1990 but returned in May 1996. Soon he turned on his former patrons and issued his first "Declaration of Jihad" against the Saudi royal family and the Americans, whom he accused of occupying his homeland.
http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/Terrorism/think_tank/taliban_extremism_fa_nov_99.htm

Nothing on CIA “backing” for the ISI, nothing on “massive military aid”, nothing on “parallel structures”, no direct support for the comment its supposedly footnoting at all. Still, we do have the second source: “See also Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, Global Outlook, No. 1, 2002”. Yes, it seems Chossudovsky is sourcing comments from himself. Take a look at that page, and we find the following:

With CIA backing and the funneling of massive amounts of US military aid, the Pakistani ISI had developed into a "parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government". 8

8. Dipankar Banerjee; Possible Connection of ISI With Drug Industry, India Abroad, 2 December 1994.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

We’ve not been able to trace the source document, unfortunately. (Can you? Point us to it.) However, the way this is written suggests Banerjee’s article is a source for the "parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government" quote: it may have nothing to do with establishing “CIA backing”, or the ISI “owing its existence to the CIA” at all.

Let’s be fair, though. This quote may be referring to earlier parts of the “Who is Osama bin Laden” document, so let’s see what Chossudovsky has to say here:

In 1979 "the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA" was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.2:

With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.3
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

Here we a direct use of the source quoted earlier. No proof of links between the CIA and ISI, though. Next:

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.4
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

It seems things improve here with talk of “a dramatic increase in arms supplies”: is this the “massive amounts of military aid” referred to by Chossudovsky, earlier? We’d hope not, as the quote seems to be talking about aid intended for Afghanistan, not Pakistan, however in the absence of other candidates perhaps this really is it.

We do finally get some mention of links between the CIA and ISI, too. However, there’s nothing here to suggest there’s anything involved other than collaboration due to a shared goal. “CIA specialists” meeting with the ISI to “plan operations for the Afghan rebels” is barely support for Chossudovsky’s suggestion that of “CIA backing”, and certainly doesn’t help show that “the ISI owes its existence to the CIA”. Let’s keep looking.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) using Pakistan's military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam:

Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow.5
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

Note the unsupported phrasing here. Somehow we’ve moved to the CIA “using” the ISI. How? The previous article suggests only that they’re working together. Chossudovsky may want to prove that the CIA were in charge, but he’s yet to demonstrate it.

Then he tells us the CIA “played a key role in training the Mujahideen”, but he’s not established that yet either (the training, or the “key”). And again, there’s no support in the quote he provides. Maybe there will be something in a moment...?

Pakistan's Intelligence Apparatus

Pakistan's ISI was used as a "go-between". The CIA covert support to the "jihad" operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI, --i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. In other words, for these covert operations to be "successful", Washington was careful not to reveal the ultimate objective of the "jihad", which consisted in destroying the Soviet Union.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

Chossudovsky once more tells us that “Pakistan’s ISI was used...”. Certainly they were an intermediary for US support, but that doesn’t mean they were subservient or didn’t have reasons of their own for acting as they did.

In the words of CIA's Milton Beardman "We didn't train Arabs". Yet according to Abdel Monam Saidali, of the Al-aram Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo, bin Laden and the "Afghan Arabs" had been imparted "with very sophisticated types of training that was allowed to them by the CIA" 6

CIA's Beardman confirmed, in this regard, that Osama bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. In the words of bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): "neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help". 7
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

Here we do have someone appearing to say that the CIA were involved in training. What’s that based on? We have no idea, and that matters, because other very qualified commentators take a very different view. Maloy Krishna Dhar, for instance, is a former Joint Director of the Indian Intelligence Bureau. His book “Fulcrum of Evil: ISI-CIA-Al Qaeda Nexus” is, as you might guess from the title, far from sympathetic to the US, yet his observations are quite clear:

Training to the mujahideen was imparted by the ISI in specially established camps. The ISI resisted all attempts by the CIA to impart direct training to the mujahideen. The objective was simple. Pakistan did not allow the USA to exercise direct control on the fighting arms of the mujahideen, though the political leaders and commanders were often exposed to the CIA and the White House
Page 247
Fulcrum of Evil
Maloy Krishna Dhar

Gerald Posner, in “Why America Slept: The Failure To Prevent 9/11”, has a similar observation:

Pakistan’s Zia-ul-Haq government had concluded immediately after the Soviet invasion [of Afghanistan] that the crisis in their northern neighbour constituted a national security threat with which they had to deal firmly. As a result, ISI, which had sponsored terrorism against India over the Kasmir dispute since the 1970’s, turned its attantion to the Afghan mujahedeen. General Akhtar Abdul Rahman, chief of the ISI from 1980 to 1987, was intimately involved in his service’s newly created Afghan division. He jealously maintained control over the training and supply of the mujahedeen, frequently infuriating CIA officials who wanted to be more involved in the field with the insurgent fighters.
Page 32, Why America Slept: The Failure To Prevent 9/11
Gerald Posner

Whatever the truth about the training issue, there’s still no support here for the idea that “the ISI owes its existence to the CIA”, or that it’s simply a client agency, doing as it’s told. Still, Chossudovsky ploughs on regardless.

CIA's Beardman confirmed, in this regard, that Osama bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. In the words of bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): "neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help". 7

Motivated by nationalism and religious fervor, the Islamic warriors were unaware that they were fighting the Soviet Army on behalf of Uncle Sam. While there were contacts at the upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic rebel leaders in theatre had no contacts with Washington or the CIA.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

Again, we have repetition of Chossudovsky’s theme, but with no supporting evidence. So he tells us that Milton Beardman saying “we didn’t train Arabs” still means he was playing a specific American role, as opposed to (for example) one for Pakistan. Can his last reference to CIA/ISI links save the day?

Meanwhile, CIA operations had also reinforced the Pakistani military regime led by General Zia Ul Haq:

'Relations between the CIA and the ISI [Pakistan's military intelligence] had grown increasingly warm following [General] Zia's ouster of Bhutto and the advent of the military regime,'... During most of the Afghan war, Pakistan was more aggressively anti-Soviet than even the United States. Soon after the Soviet military invaded Afghanistan in 1980, Zia [ul Haq] sent his ISI chief to destabilize the Soviet Central Asian states. The CIA only agreed to this plan in October 1984.... `the CIA was more cautious than the Pakistanis.' Both Pakistan and the United States took the line of deception on Afghanistan with a public posture of negotiating a settlement while privately agreeing that military escalation was the best course.10
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

Well, no. Although there’s a reference here to relations between the CIA and ISI “growing increasingly warm”, this also demonstrates that the ISI had plans of their own, not always in line with what the CIA wanted to do. And, of course, there’s still no support for Chossudovsky’s claim that we mentioned, what seemed so very long ago, at the top of the page. 

So what does Chossudovsky give us? Lots of accusations. Sources that don’t back up what he’s saying, or are just something he said in a previous essay. And the constant repetition of his main themes, as though this might make up for the lack of documentation. Well, we say it doesn’t: he displays minimal supporting evidence for his thesis here, and unless you’re predisposed to take his point of view, it’s hard to see why anyone could find this even faintly convincing.
 

[Home] [Hijackers] [Foreknowledge] [Stand down] [WTC (demolition)] [WTC (other)] [WTC7 and Silverstein] [Pentagon] [Flight 93] [bin Ladin] [Obstructing Justice] [Afghanistan] [Others] [Investigations, more] [What's New?]