Bruce Sterling on Poindexter, the Contras, and al Qaeda.
- jim 4-03-2003 10:46 pm

Beautiful polemmic by Sterling but no nexus established [yet] between Contras and Qaeda or between [unnamed private sector secret sponsor] and Qaeda. Not even a hint...
- bruno 4-04-2003 1:13 am


That bothered me too. The only "link" is his metaphor.
- tom moody 4-04-2003 1:20 am


Well, he might not have written, or even had any control over, the article title. It really colors the piece, as it promises a direct connection. I probably shouldn't have parroted it so much in my post. I don't think Sterling is trying to provide such connections. I think he's just noting some similarities.

Still, that doesn't mean it's not lacking. I'm undecided after a reread. I appreciated the recap of Iran Contra, although I'm sure you two didn't need that. And I think you have to read 'Afghan rebels secretly trained and armed by the U.S. to fight the Soviets' for 'al Qaeda'. And these two may not be interchangable in this way.

I don't know.
- jim 4-04-2003 1:56 am


Right, he should have made the transformation from Afghan rebels to al-Qaeda clearer. But I like this part: "Iran-Contra wasn't about eager American intelligence networks spreading dirty money in distant lands; it was about the gap between old, legitimate, land-based governments ruled by voters and the new, stateless, globalized predation." We're now watching two versions of privately-funded, religious fundamentalist zaibatsu fight it out. Occasionally buildings will explode--over here, over there, the combatants don't really care. "Privately funded" meaning occasionally dipping into public tills (US, Saudi) as needed.
- tom moody 4-04-2003 2:23 am


Oh..kay. One of the (many) scandals with Iran-Contra was that Reagan/Weinberger et al were dealing under the table with Iran -- supposedly hostile to the US and the sponsor of Hezbollah -- at a time when we officially had no relations with Teheran and considered them outlaws. Remember Hezbollah not only held Americans hostage in Beirut, but had killed at least one of them and sent Washington a videotape to prove it (cf. Daniel Pearl?). We were selling arms to *both* sides in the Iran-Iraq war...and "negotiating with terrorists" all to fund the defeat of the Sandinists in Nicaragua. Crazy!

Sterling's is a good piece...I just meant that an investigative piece would really rock: e.g. American taxpayer money going to Saudi and being rechanneled via the Ministry of Religous Affairs to...Osama or whomever. Perhaps Iran-Contra figure Adnan Khashoggi (mentioned in Sterling's piece and cited by Hersh a few weeks ago in re Richard Perle/Trireme) knows something?

- bruno 4-04-2003 3:24 am


I think Bruno's got something here. What can we find out about this Khashoggi guy?

Whoa. Looks like Slate has some dirt. I don't have time to go through this now. If anyone wants to take a whack at a summary go ahead. If not I'll do so tomorrow.
- jim 4-04-2003 3:30 am


Down Khashoggi way lies Le Carré-ian madness. I'll stick to the neat symmetry of my conspiracy theory, thanks.
- tom moody 4-04-2003 3:54 am


I remember seeing Khashoggi's crib on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous in the late '70s or early '80s. Shortly thereafter, Time put him on the cover with the caption "Those Shadowy Arms Traders!" (Wow, aren't they zany!) American University had to deal with the semi-embarrassment of a Khashoggi Sports Center, because he was a big donor. He's one of those ugly figures from the Reagan Era, and it doesn't surprise me if Perle, et al are still hanging with him. I have to admit I didn't follow that Slate series, because it was giving me nasty Iran-Contra flashbacks.

Anyway, Digby has a good piece today on neocon-al Qaeda symmetry (captioned "Victories Old and New").
- tom moody 4-08-2003 4:45 am





add a comment to this page:

Your post will be captioned "posted by anonymous,"
or you may enter a guest username below:


Line breaks work. HTML tags will be stripped.