Bounties? What Bounties? by Daniel Lazare
(2021-04-22 at 02:19:06 )

Bounties? What Bounties? by Daniel Lazare

When truth is marginalized, the fringe is the only place where it is to be found.

So it looks like Russia did not pay the Taliban to kill United States soldiers after all.

Last summer, the New York Times announced in a front-page story that "American intelligence officials have concluded that a Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants killing coalition forces in Afghanistan - including targeting American troops."

The article rang with certainty. "Some officials have theorized that the Russians may be seeking revenge on NATO forces for a 2018 battle in Syria in which the American military killed several hundred pro-Syrian forces, including numerous Russian mercenaries," it said. The operation, it went on, appears to be "the handiwork of Unit 29155, an arm of Russias military intelligence agency, known widely as the GRU. .. Western intelligence officials say the unit, which has operated for more than a decade, has been charged by the Kremlin with carrying out a campaign to destabilize the West through subversion, sabotage and assassination."

This was red meat for congressional Democrats eager to tar Donald Trump with whatever brush was at hand. Nancy Pelosi issued a call to arms, declaring: "Congress and the country need answers now." Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer adopted a tone of mock disbelief: "Russia gives bounties to kill Americans and the administration does nothing? Nothing? Donald Trump, you are not being a very strong president here as usual." Joe Biden called the report "horrifying" and said "there is no bottom to the depth of Vladimir Putin and the Kremlins depravity if it is true."

Except that it is not true now that we know that United States intelligence agencies, according to the White House, view the report with only "low to moderate confidence" - which, in laymans language, either means that it could be true - kind of, sort of, maybe - or that it is pure baloney. In any event, it is hardly reason to accuse a sitting president of "a betrayal of every single American family with a loved one serving in Afghanistan or anywhere overseas," as Joe Biden did the day after the story broke.

Charlie Savage, whose byline appears on a number of last summers pieces, offered a series of mealy-mouthed excuses for how he and his fellow Times reporters managed to get it so wrong. "Former intelligence officials .. have noted that it is rare in the murky world of intelligence to have courtroom levels of proof beyond a reasonable doubt about what an adversary is covertly doing," he said. He described the original intelligence findings as "muddied" because a key figure in the alleged plot "had fled to Russia - possibly while using a passport linked to a Russian spy agency."

So it is not the Timess or the CIAs fault, you see - it is merely a hazard of the trade. But is it not curious how words like "murky" and "muddied" never cropped up last summer when the Times was busily egging Democrats on with stories charging that the bounties had led to "at least one United States troop death" or maybe even three? "Father of Slain Marine Finds Heartbreak Anew in Possible Russian Bounty," a Times headline declared. "American officials intercepted electronic data showing large financial transfers from a bank account controlled by Russias military intelligence agency to a Taliban-linked account," another claimed.

All of which was nonsense, as is now clear.

Yet not only has the Times failed to apologize but White House spokesman Jen Psaki managed to spin the story last week so that it is still Moscows fault and "there are [still] questions to be answered by the Russian government.""

Although the corporate media dutifully echoed the Times, a few skeptics did get it right.

Ray McGovern, an ex-CIA official who now heads a group calling itself Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, called the story "dubious" right off the bat. Scott Ritter, the ex-United Nations weapons inspector who blew the cover off charges that Saddam Husseins Iraq was bristling with weapons of mass destruction, wrote that "there is no corroboration, nothing that would allow this raw "intelligence" to be turned into a product worthy of the name."

Caitlin Johnstone, who covers United States politics from Australia yet still does a better job of it than most stateside reporters, denounced the entire affair as a "malignant psyop," adding: "It really is funny how the most influential news outlets in the western world will uncritically parrot whatever they are told to say by the most powerful and depraved intelligence agencies on the planet, and then turn around and tell you without a hint of self-awareness that Russia and China are bad because they have state media."

Then there is someone named Dan Lazare who had pointed out a few obvious facts in Strategic Culture a few days after the supposed Times scoop came out:

"But the report does not even make sense.

Not only have the Taliban been at war with the United States since 2001, they are winning. So why should Russia pay them to do what they have been happily doing on their own for close to two decades?

Contrary to what the Times wants us to believe, there is no evidence that Russia backs the Taliban or wants the United States to leave with its tail between its legs.

Quite the opposite as a quick glance at a map will attest. Given that Afghanistan abuts the former Soviet republics of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan and is less than a thousand miles from Chechnya, where Russia fought a brutal war against Sunni Islamist separatists in 1999-2000, the last thing it wants is a Muslim fundamentalist republic in the heart of Central Asia."

The fact that the New York Times does not even consider" the broad geopolitical backdrop, the article added, "makes its reporting seem all the more dubious" - words that are as appropriate now as they were then.

None of this matters, however, because Strategic Culture, it turns out, is "controlled by Russian intelligence" and publishes "fringe voices and conspiracy theories."

Yes, that is what the Times says, and its source, as usual, is nothing more than unnamed United States government sources whispering in its ear.

But if Strategic Culture is so marginal, how is it that it got the story right while the Timess own conspiracy tales turned out to be false?

When truth is marginalized, the fringe is the only place where it is to be found.

Reprinted here from the "Strategic Culture Foundation" provides a platform for exclusive analysis, research and policy comment on Eurasian and global affairs. We are covering political, economic, social and security issues worldwide. Since 2005 our journal has published thousands of analytical briefs and commentaries with the unique perspective of independent contributors. SCF works to broaden and diversify expert discussion by focusing on hidden aspects of international politics and unconventional thinking. Benefiting from the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.