Lev Navrozov
Tuesday, June 11, 2002

The Ideal Case

Let me begin with what the mainstream media, including all their guests from the government, the Congress and the universities, evaluated in May 2002 as the ideal case in the struggle against terrorism.

CIA and FBI agents questioned – no, you would not believe it! – Abu Zubaydah himself! An insolent maverick like Lev Navrozov, who never appears on mainstream television screens, had the nerve to assert back in 1978 that the CIA and 13 other U.S. intelligence institutions do not virtually exist as espionage/intelligence agencies.

Now, do you know who Abu Zubaydah is? Osama bin Laden's operations chief! And he is revealing to CIA and FBI agents the innermost secrets of al-Qaeda! Its forthcoming terrorist attacks in the United States! Super-espionage!

In his national 11-minute address of June 6, President Bush mentioned Abu Zubaydah by name. His revelations were important for President Bush's restructuring of government institutions, unprecedented since the 1940s:

Among those we have captured is a man named Abu Zubaydah, al-Qaeda's chief of operations. From him, and from hundreds of others, we are learning more about how the terrorists plan and operate, information crucial in anticipating and preventing future attacks. (1)

William Webster, former CIA and FBI director, said that the United States should have considered injecting the key man in global terrorism with sodium pentathol, truth serum.

But truth serum belongs to the past, and today's CIA and FBI agents extracted from the world's No. 2 terrorist (Osama himself has not yet been found) all the information they wanted, owing to their skill and without any truth serum. The world's No. 2 terrorist confessed (oh, tremble, Osama, in your hiding) to al-Qaeda's two forthcoming terrorist attacks: one on the Statue of Liberty and the other on the Brooklyn Bridge. The 9-11 attack in a new ideological version!

But weep, al-Qaeda, for your heyday is gone! The CIA and FBI did not lose the relevant memos among hundreds of thousands of other papers. There was no communications break between the CIA and the FBI, for both questioned the arch-terrorist together. Nor was their report ignored or lost or mislaid or pigeonholed!

A reliable anti-terrorist defense was put up to protect the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge. Obviously cowed, so far al-Qaeda has not attempted an attack on either symbol, one of the United States and the other of New York.

Osama must have been gnashing his teeth and weeping in rage and threatening his operations chief (whom he has no doubt demoted and expelled from al-Qaeda, without paying him his salary for six months on the plea that all his deputy has been doing all this time is fleeing, surrendering and now revealing al-Qaeda's secrets).

No, the CIA and FBI are not what they were in the summer and fall of 2001, when the reports on hijacking as a possible means of al-Qaeda terrorism and on Moslems training in flight schools (also for hijacking?) were ignored as too vague – and meaningful only after Sept. 11, 2001, for paranoiacs. Nearly eight months later, al-Qaeda was met with an impregnable defensive shield.

Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, Abu Zubaydah – Who Are They?

During the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's intelligence agency) recruited and trained hundreds of thousands of Moslems for guerrilla war against Soviet troops. Bin Laden, who had inherited $300 million from his father, served as a screen for them, for he could plausibly be presented as an Islamic multimillionaire financing this guerrilla army. In Afghanistan today a man will do the hardest work for $1 a day.

When the Soviet war ended, because Gorbachev concentrated on the development of post-nuclear superweapons and lost interest in territorial acquisitions, bin Laden converted the guerrilla army into an alleged terrorist organization for suicidal terrorist war against, in this order, "Jews and Crusaders" (Christians).

But there is a difference between guerrilla war and suicidal terrorism. You pay a Moslem in Afghanistan $1 a day, in a training camp he learns how to shoot a Kalashnikov, shoots and runs, and lives happily ever after on $1 a day.

Now, no one will die in a suicidal attack for $1 – or $1,000. If a man has a family in need, he may sacrifice himself for, say, $10,000, but most poor Islamic males are single, since it is the rich who have up to four wives. In contrast to shooting a Kalashnikov to hit and run, suicide cannot be bought, recruited, trained or ordered. One must be genetically inclined to suicide.

Therefore, some of the al-Qaeda men may still be usable as guerrilla soldiers, but this does not mean that the organization has ever had or will ever have a single suicidal terrorist.

Since the U.S. war in Afghanistan began and up to now, the al-Qaeda men have not made a single suicidal terrorist act to revenge the U.S. war. They were simply running like a herd of scared sheep and many of them, including bin Laden's operations chief, "bravely surrendered," while bin Laden himself "bravely escaped" and is "bravely hiding."

At the same time, bin Laden and his rabble playing at suicidal terrorism have been useful to the CIA. For about 10 years they have been lying for all the world to hear about how they are destroying and will destroy the United States, by means of their suicidal terrorism, and the CIA faithfully recorded their stupid boasts as top secret intelligence data to be passed to the U.S. government. Thus, bin Laden became a world celebrity, a new Hitler to Westerners and a new Muhammad to many Moslems.

Abu's American Dream

So Abu Zubaydah has "bravely surrendered," along with thousands of other "suicidal terrorists" who contemplated suicide no more than did New Yorkers as they were fleeing from the rammed World Trade Center towers.

Why did Abu blab about al-Qaeda's horrible intention to attack the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge? There is not a grain of truth in his boastful twaddle, but surely it incriminated him, since he was in charge of al-Qaeda.

Ahmed Ressam was an Algerian petty thief. Little money, but a lot of danger. He could be mobbed to death if caught. Then Abu "recruited" him. My God, what luck! No danger and no work, but $1 a day! His luck sustained, he was arrested by the FBI in December 1999, and he blabbed about his terrorist exploits to show how important he was. The result? He became an FBI informant. Believe me, this is not $1 a day. From a petty thief in Algeria to the American dream.

Surely Abu is worth having the American dream even more than was Ahmed.

Abu, the World's No. 2 Terrorist

As Abu blabbed to CIA and FBI agents about al-Qaeda's intention to destroy the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge, there was a difficulty: The world's No. 2 terrorist did not know the names of the two targets al-Qaeda was going to attack.

He probably saw the Statue of Liberty on Afghan TV and he called it "the statue in the water." It is probable that bin Laden's operations chief has never seen a map of New York or a tourist guide for the United States.

I am curious: How was he to "plan the operation"? "Ahmed, do you hear me well? Carry the explosives to . . . well, you'll see it! Look for the statue in the water!"

But there was no communications break. Abu knows enough English to say "the statue in the water." Abu may have had the impression that the statue stands with its legs in the water. Anyway, the smart CIA and FBI agents understood that the Statue of Liberty was meant.

Nor did Abu know the name "Brooklyn Bridge," which al-Qaeda was going to destroy. He referred to the bridge as "the bridge in that movie." What movie? The 1988 American remake of the Japanese series about the monster Godzilla.

Abu was enjoying life. Watching thrillers, for example. Once he saw an American bridge in a thriller and made a note of it: "I must brag of our intention to destroy that bridge." He has never learned its name, though. No problem. The CIA and FBI agents viewed the series. The final scene involved Godzilla's demise after becoming tangled in the cables of a bridge. "Aha!" shouted the CIA and FBI agents. "This is the Brooklyn Bridge, New York, New York!"

The memo is ready and properly dispatched. It is considered and acted upon. The two targets are protected, and the new 9-11 attack is thus repulsed. The CIA and FBI agents deserve bonuses and promotions for their impeccable work, saving the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge.

Do Fools Exist?

In private small business they do. I heard the explanation of the owner of a small firm as to why he fired an employee: "Because he is a fool." As the size of business grows, fools cease to exist. It is difficult to imagine a note of dismissal in a big corporation explaining that the employee has been dismissed because he or she is a fool. The note may say that he or she is inefficient or ineffective or incompetent, or insufficiently trained, educated, prepared . . . but a fool? Why, the employee may sue the firm for discrimination!

Government agencies are even more squeamish in this respect. The number of university students per capita in the United States is several times larger than in England. Why? Every American able to pay a tuition fee is supposed to be worthy of an academic degree in the humanities. To say, "Look, you cannot be a doctor of philosophy because you are a fool" is commercially, morally, civilly and politically outrageous.

In my article "Mediocrity and the Rescue of the West," published about 20 years ago in the Yale Literary Magazine, I distinguished between "mediocrities" and "fools." To those who think that the word "fool" is insufficiently scientific, official, scholarly or academic, I suggested the use of the acronym PMBA, "person mentally below the average," that is, below mediocrity.

Does it not seem to you, gentle reader, that those CIA and FBI agents who have been taking bin Laden's operations chief Abu and bin Laden himself in dead earnest, as the mainstream media did the above ideal case of CIA and FBI work, are not mediocrities but PMBAs, who do not even have a sense of humor?

24 Years Ago

The September 1978 issue of the then very prestigious magazine Commentary carried my article about the CIA, from which it followed that the CIA consisted of – no, not mediocrities, but PMBAs. "Face-to-Face," a Washington organization, sponsored on Dec. 13 that year a "dinner discussion" and invited me to a face-to-face discussion with Adm. Stansfield Turner, director of all U.S. intelligence agencies.

Those present included:

Ms. Deborah Axt, British Broadcasting Corporation
Mr. Donald Bandler, Director, Face-to-Face Program
Mr. Bryan Beecham, Foreign Editor, The Economist
Mr. Jerrold Berman, American Civil Liberties Union
Mr. Mark Bisnow, Office of Congressman Anderson
Capt. Robert Bovey, Central Intelligence Agency
Mr. Robert Brauer, Office of Congressman Dellums
Gen. Robert Cushman, President, Association of Former Intelligence Officers
Mr. Spencer Davis, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Mr. Robert Deary, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, State Department
Mr. Marc Jay Epstein, freelance writer
Dr. Alton Frye, Council on Foreign Relations
Mr. William Funk, General Counsel, Department of Energy
Ms. Marilyn Haft, Office of Vice President Mondale
Mr. Thomas Hahn, House Armed Services Committee
Mr. Morton Halperin, Director, Center for National Security Studies
Mr. Robert Herschman, "MacNeil-Lehrer Report"
Mr. Fred Hitz, Legislative Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency
Ms. Karen House, Wall Street Journal
Mr. James King, Academic Relations, Central Intelligence Agency
Mr. Will Kriegman, Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Mr. Albert Lakeland, Office of Sen. Javits
Mr. Brian Latell, Georgetown University
Mr. Mark Lynch, American Civil Liberties Union
Ms. Margot Machol, House Banking Committee
Mr. David Mark, Acting Director, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, State Department
The Hon. Robert McClory, U.S. House of Representatives
Mr. Harry McPherson, Verner, Bernhard, Lipson and McPherson
Mr. William Miller, Chief of Staff, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Adm. Daniel Murphy, Office of the Secretary of Defense
Mr. Fred Nyland, Rand Corporation
Mr. Daniel O'Flaherty, Project Director, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Dean Robert Osgood, Johns Hopkins University, SAIS
Mr. Richard Perle, Office of Sen. Jackson
Mr. Bernard Raimo, House Select Committee on Intelligence
Mr. Gerald Rosen, Office of Sen. Griffin
Mr. Charles Snodgrass, House Appropriations Committee
Mr. Charles Stevenson, Office of Sen. Culver
Capt. George Thibault, Central Intelligence Agency
Mr. Paul Ward, American Foreign Service Association

During the discussion, Adm. Turner vigorously counterattacked the critics of the CIA among those present, such as Marc Jay Epstein. In particular, Adm. Turner said that the writings of Epstein were harmful to the United States.

As I took the floor I stated that my evaluation of the CIA had been presented briefly in my articles for UPI in 1975, and more specifically, in the September issue of Commentary. Adm. Turner interrupted me to say that he had read the Commentary article. I summed up the article with emphatic conclusions. In particular, I said:

Admiral! If the CIA consisted of KGB agents only, then it would convey from time to time some valuable information, because the KGB would supply it to counter the American suspicion that the CIA consists of KGB agents only. As it is, the CIA conveys no valuable information. The CIA does not understand that Soviet propaganda is propaganda. It reads, borrows, digests it and conveys to the U.S. government and Congress as espionage data.

As I finished, there was dead silence, whereupon one of those present asked Adm. Turner whether he could say anything in rebuttal. Adm. Turner said, "No." There were several moments of silence again, but he said nothing else.

The tone of his answer struck me as grave and candid. Those with whom I spoke afterward had the same impression.

Nor did Adm. Turner attempt to rebut any statement of mine at any other time during the discussion. His only reference to my article or my presentation occurred when, in reply to Charles Snodgrass, of the House Appropriations Committee, who sat next to me, he extolled U.S. technological (nonhuman) intelligence and remarked to him that "your neighbor on your right [meaning me] is no doubt highly skeptical of what I am saying." To which I rejoined, "Yes."

Meanwhile my article was being reprinted or outlined all over the West, including Ronald Reagan's newsletter, published during his presidential campaign. On Feb. 5, 1979, I received the following letter from Richard Allen, later President's national security adviser:

Dear Mr. Navrozov:

Following your excellent and intriguing article in the September issue of Commentary, I had intended to drop you a line to tell you mow much I appreciated it. I also consider the article to be largely correct, based on my past experience with the organization in question. Then, in late Fall, Bill Stetson, Editor of the CFR Newsletter, passed along to me copies of your correspondence with him.

These materials arrived just as I was in the middle of planning a trip to Europe for Governor Reagan, and the subsequent dislocations in my schedule effectively prevented me from communicating with you. Then, Bill Stetson recently wrote me again to say that you are still interested in providing some inputs to Governor Reagan.

As the person who is handling foreign affairs and national security, and because I am on the East Coast, I will be more than pleased to initiate contact with you. Actually, I had hoped to be able to read your much-heralded book, but time has regrettably prohibited that so far. As soon as I can, I intend to procure a copy and go through it. The reviews were simply sensational!

Perhaps you would care to give me a call one day, and if you are to be in Washington, I will be pleased to have the opportunity to see you. In the meanwhile, I am enclosing a copy of the speech given by Governor Reagan upon the conclusion of his European trip. You may find it quite interesting.

With every best wish,

Yours sincerely,
Richard V. Allen

All I need to add is that in 2002, the matter is where it was in 1978 and 1979, when Adm. Turner, Ronald Reagan and I were 20-odd years younger.

One final remark is in place. As I arrived in New York after my emigration from Soviet Russia, I met a senior CIA analyst, Bill West. He is one of the most mentally outstanding persons I have ever met, East or West.

He said to me: "If I wrote about the CIA, I would write all you did – and more! But [if I do so] they will deprive me of my pension."

PUBLISHERS: Should you be considering the publication of Lev Navrozov's book in progress, "Out of Moscow and Into New York: A Life in the Geostrategically Lobotomized West in the Age of Terrorism and Post-nuclear Superweapons" (please bear in mind that substantial advance is expected), the 27-page Proposal and the first 106-page section of the book can be mailed to you if you apply to me ( navlev@cloud9.net, tel. 001 718 796 6028).

Source Note

1. Associated Press transcription, June 6, 2002, 8:44 p.m. Return

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Al-Qaeda
Homeland/Civil Defense
War on Terrorism