CIA and Terrorism

Gemini was asked about CIA's involvement in world terrorism. It answewd as follows. The question of the CIA’s involvement in "terrorism" is a complex intersection of Cold War history, clandestine operations, and unintended consequences. While the CIA’s official mandate is to combat terrorism, various critics, historians, and international bodies have pointed to specific operations that they argue meet the definition of state-sponsored terrorism or have directly led to the rise of terrorist groups. To understand the scope of this involvement, it is helpful to look at three distinct categories: 1. "Blowback": Unintended Consequences The term "blowback" was actually coined by the CIA to describe the negative, unforeseen consequences of a covert operation. * The Mujahideen (Afghanistan): During the 1980s, the CIA funneled billions through Operation Cyclone to support Afghan rebels fighting the Soviet Union. While the CIA maintains it only supported indigenous Afghan fighters, many of the radicalized "Afghan-Arabs" who joined the fight eventually formed the core of Al-Qaeda. * The Contras (Nicaragua): In the 1980s, the CIA backed the Contras against the Sandinista government. The Contras were frequently accused of using "terrorist tactics" against civilians, including the destruction of health clinics and schools. 2. State-Sponsored Regime Change Historians often cite CIA-led coups as examples of political violence that destabilized regions, sometimes creating power vacuums filled by extremist groups. | Operation | Target | Outcome | |---|---|---| | Operation Ajax (1953) | Iran (PM Mossadegh) | Reinstalled the Shah; fueled the anti-Western sentiment that led to the 1979 Islamic Revolution. | | PBSUCCESS (1954) | Guatemala (Pres. Árbenz) | Led to decades of civil war and state-sponsored violence against indigenous populations. | | Bay of Pigs (1961) | Cuba (Fidel Castro) | Failed invasion using CIA-trained exiles; led to increased tensions and the Cuban Missile Crisis. | 3. Controversial Counter-Terrorism Tactics Following the 9/11 attacks, the CIA’s methods came under intense international scrutiny for violating human rights laws. * Enhanced Interrogation: The 2014 Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture detailed methods like waterboarding and sleep deprivation used at "black sites" (secret prisons). Critics argue these methods were not only illegal but also served as a powerful recruitment tool for groups like ISIS. * Targeted Killings (Drones): The use of armed drones to eliminate high-value targets in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia has been criticized for "collateral damage" (civilian deaths), which international legal experts argue can constitute war crimes or acts of terror in the eyes of local populations. The Official Stance The CIA and the U.S. government reject the label of "terrorism," arguing that: * Legal Authority: Their actions are authorized by the President and overseen by Congressional committees. * Mission: Their primary role is Counter-Terrorism—collecting intelligence to prevent attacks like 9/11 and dismantling global networks. * Prohibitions: Executive Order 12333 explicitly prohibits the CIA from engaging in assassinations (though "targeted killings" of combatants are legally distinguished from assassination by the U.S. government). > Important Note: In the world of intelligence, one person's "freedom fighter" is often another's "terrorist." The CIA’s involvement usually falls into the gray area of Covert Action, which is designed to achieve foreign policy goals while maintaining "plausible deniability." > Would you like me to look into a specific region, such as Latin America or the Middle East, to see how these operations affected those areas over the long term?

Mehsud’s Murder

The fact that a coyote court in USA indicts someone does not make a premeditated murder a legitimate execution. It remains an assassination ordered by the US president. Even a mass-murderer deserves a fair trial.

It seems that American policies in this part of the world are based on an upside-down perception of realities. Neither the Afghan Taliban nor the TTP are militant cults anymore. Thanks to sustained conflict with extremist Christians and Hindus both have become popular movements. The TTP has more than 50 constituencies and it now has a stable pyramidal structure. Killing its top man will hardly make any more difference than the murder of a US president makes to that country. It was the realization of this fact that prompted the Pakistani leadership to treat them with some respect and negotiate peace with them.

The problems that the world is faced with today arise from a single cause that the political, economic and military leaderships of the USA are not on the same page. The thoughtful political leader ship is a hostage of the rash military and the economy is too dependent on military production and support. Even oil prices are being maintained at unacceptable levels throughout the world to keep the US shale business viable. The mystery of the standoff between the presidency and the house on budget is not over and horror may be yet to come.

The American addiction to bloodshed and arson cannot be justified in terms of sustained pursuit of retribution. If that were so, why do they expect the Japanese to forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the Palestinians to forget Sabra and Shatilla? Believe me when ever colonial rule is discussed in the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent, someone always reminds the audience of the Jalianwala Bagh massacre by the British as history and not as a mission for revenge.

One thing is obvious: the Americans are not reliable friends. The question now faced by the Pakistani leadership is whether it is preferable to have them as friends or enemies?