A FAITHLESS FRIEND

AND A PLAYGROUND FOR SPIES

INTELLIGENCE BRIEFS
A publication of the center for intelligence studies

THROUGH ENEMY EYES

We – with God’s help – call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill Americans and plunder their money whenever and wherever 
they find it…
Osama bin Laden~February, 1998

In public pronouncements, President Bush has offered a more basic explanation. Since 11 September, the President has repeatedly affirmed that America is both the symbol and the bastion of freedom; and for these reasons, anathema to the religiously inspired totalitarianism espoused by bin Laden. Although the President’s interpretation differs from that of the media, the divergence is one of degree rather than of kind; reflecting at most the difference of perspective inherent to his position. But there is another factor at work that neither the media nor the President have thus far identified, even though bin Laden and his henchmen have regularly cited it in passing – and that is the revolutionary impact of interest-rate finance upon traditional Islamic societies. Because this is ultimately fundamental, it deserves far greater scrutiny.
 

Interest-rate finance has been a part of Western capitalism for so long that it has become unremarkable. The fact that it has been prohibited by Christian teaching, and was once proscribed by the Catholic Church, has been relegated to the footnotes of economic texts. Although the conflict between the Christian doctrine and interest-rate finance – usury, in theological terms - is now regarded as an historical curiosity, it was not always so; and indeed, the practical triumph of interest-rate finance over theological prohibition during the Early Middle Ages marked a watershed in both Western political and economic development. For according to most economic historians, interest-rate finance made possible the development of modern capitalism - and the social revolution that has accompanied it. 
 

Although interest-rate finance gained grudging acceptance in the West as a practical necessity, the Islamic prohibition against usury proved far more resilient; and for that reason, financial institutions developed very differently in the Muslim world. Within that geopolitical space, finance capital has historically profited from futures rather than interest rates. In the place of interest-bearing loans, banks in the Islamic world have traditionally purchased shares of projected profits from individuals or consortiums seeking operating or investment capital. And if this system is cumbersome and inefficient, it nonetheless has the merit of theological acceptability; and the perceived virtue of supporting social stability. 
 

For Westerners long accustomed to the rapid social, economic and technological changes generated by modern capitalism, it is difficult to understand the dread that interest-rate finance inspires in more traditional peoples. Yet it is a powerful force among them, for they have learned from the Western experience. They clearly perceive the causal connections that bind interest-rate finance to economic development, and economic development to social upheaval. For it is an historic truth that interest-rate finance fosters much more than mere economic development. It also fosters market-place democracy, consumerism and, ultimately, the emergence of an individualistic ethos. Moreover, it encourages secularity and - more arguably - the emancipation of women, the breakdown of the traditional family structure, and sexual license. It is therefore not surprising that Islamic traditionalists fear it so deeply.
 

When viewed in this light, al Qaeda’s choice of targets and mode of attack are far more comprehensible. The World Trade Towers were the preeminent symbols of modern capitalism; and the Pentagon – through their eyes, at least – the symbol of the military might that shelters it. Both in their own ways represented an America which, to them, is the physical embodiment of modernity – a process that has acquired such enormous force and power in this century that it now threatens to sweep them away. 
 

Unlike their counterparts on the left, al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist networks are not in principal opposed to capitalism. Hard work, enterprise and profit are either encouraged or tolerated by Islam, depending upon one’s interpretation of the Koran. But the prohibition against interest-rate finance remains strong in the Muslim World, and in some places absolute. From the standpoint of intelligence this is significant, for it implies the range of future al Qaeda targets.
 

If the attacks of 11 September were profoundly symbolic, they nonetheless possessed a sophisticated substantiality. They were clearly designed to inflict maximum damage upon an already weakening American economy; and future attacks may be expected to share that objective. Because the great vulnerability of the U.S. economy is catastrophic deflation – in effect, a dramatic marketplace vote of no confidence in the foreseeable future - it is possible to deduce and rank order al Qaeda’s likely future targets by estimating the effects of their destruction upon investor confidence. For this reason, Wall Street, the White House, and Capitol Hill must be considered at grave risk. 
 

Although Islamic fundamentalists are motivated by the fear of social upheaval, their fear most often finds expression in the hatred of two more visible and urgent threats. The first of these is the Jewish State of Israel; and the second is the siren call of Western popular culture. 
 

When viewed from the perspective of Muslim traditionalists, the Jews of Israel appear less a people than a proxy for the West; and the Israeli State less a country than a bridgehead for Western economic, cultural and military expansion. Israel thus appears to them as a modern redux of the twelfth century Crusader’s kingdoms – a limited but potentially mortal threat to their lands, which must be eliminated by any means necessary. The fact that the United States provides Israel with virtually unlimited support is therefore taken by many as a casus belli. 
 

The lure of Western popular culture poses a less dramatic but far more insidious threat, for Western popular culture stands in stark opposition to the most fundamental values of Islam. Western films and recordings celebrating explicit sexuality and violence now saturate their societies, exerting a coarsening – and to some, a corrupting - influence. Moreover the security implications of such inflammatory presentations are severe in societies that have experienced more than two decades of economic decline, and where on average more than a quarter of the young males are perennially unemployed. 
 

Having failed to dislodge the Israelis with military force, or to provide a productive outlet for the frustrated energies of their young men, most of the Arab governments have adopted a policy of disguised aggression against the West generally, and against the United States particularly. And as an expression of religious solidarity, many Islamic governments have followed suite even though they are far removed from the Middle East battlefields. In both cases, anti-Americanism is tacitly encouraged as a popular diversion; and anti-American terrorist organizations are often provided with such extensive support that they are, for all practical purposes, a covert arm of Arab or Islamic governments. Here bin Laden’s al Qaeda organization provides a spectacular example, for it was first sponsored by the Saudi Arabian government during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan; and later sustained by the recently deposed Talliban regime that seized control of that country after the Soviet withdrawal. 
 

The creation and sustenance of such terrorist organizations provides Arab and Islamic governments with a covert asymmetrical warfare capability.  In simple terms, asymmetric warfare refers to a strategic design that enables the weak to attack the strong, by targeting their greatest vulnerabilities – as in the 11 September attacks, which exploited the free and open nature of American society to deliver a powerful blow against the U.S. economy. A covert asymmetric warfare capability thus allows Arab and Islamic governments to attack the United States and it’s allies by proxy; and it provides a reasonable prospect of achieving their strategic goal of expelling the United States – and Israel, by extension – from the Middle East. 
 

The American response to the attacks of 11 September was swift and sure. Within a matter of days, American special operations forces were operating on the ground in Afghanistan; and by the end of a month a massive aerial bombardment campaign was underway. The Talliban regime’s command and control system was shattered within the first week, and their air defense network reduced to rubble. During the second and third weeks, American aircraft systematically destroyed Talliban tanks, armored fighting vehicles and transport; and in the fourth, they pulverized the Talliban’s front-line positions. On 11 November – exactly two months after the attacks on The World Trade Towers and the Pentagon – the allied Northern Alliance stormed out of their mountain redoubts and swept across the country. Within 72 hours, they had liberated 80 per cent of Afghanistan.
 

The lightening advance of the Northern Alliance forces surprised the Western media as much as the Talliban; for in the week preceding the attack, the print and electronic media in the United States, Britain and Western Europe had been filled with reports of stalemate and dire warnings of prospective failure. What they had failed to note was the effectiveness of a joint American-Northern Alliance tactic in eviscerating Talliban ground forces; and the impact of Remote Influence Technologies on their leadership.
 

During the week leading up to the Northern Alliance’s general offensive, the media reported what appeared to be a string of Northern Alliance defeats. According to press reports, on at least a dozen occasions Northern Alliance attacks on Talliban positions were repulsed with little effort. In actual fact, the reported attacks were merely probes; and their purpose was to entice the Talliban to first reveal and then to reinforce their positions under the surreptitious gaze of American reconnaissance aircraft and satellites. The gathered data was transmitted in real-time to American intelligence analysts; and within a matter of hours, American strike aircraft were dispatched against the newly uncovered targets. According to informed sources at the Pentagon, the result was sheer carnage. Over the course of four days, nearly 50 percent of the Talliban’s front line troops were killed or wounded; and their reserves exhausted. When at last the Northern Alliance launched their offensive, the Talliban forces were unable to offer serious resistance.
 

To no one’s surprise, Administration officials had a field day lampooning the media. Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer chastised the press from the podium of the White House pressroom, while Vice President Richard B. Cheney ridiculed them in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington. During that speech, the Vice President admitted to the audience that he could not resist the temptation to crow over the media’s folly.
 

If the media stumbled in their reportage of the aerial campaign, they failed altogether in their coverage of Remote Influence Technologies ( RIT ).    For it is an open secret in Washington that the National Security Agency initiated a RIT campaign against Osama bin Laden and the Talliban regime that sheltered him within days of the 11 September attacks.
 

Although the existence of RIT was a closely guarded secret for more than 40 years, information concerning the general design and function began to leak in the early 1990’s; and with little fanfare, the manufactures of these exotic armaments have recently begun offering non-military variants to police and security services world-wide. As of this writing, three basic types of RIT weapons have been deployed by the United States, employing respectively acoustic, microwave, and radio wave technologies.
 

Acoustic based weapons are of short range, and most often used to physically sicken individuals within a tightly circumscribed target area. Although the U.S. Army had originally hoped to employ acoustically based RIT against massed formations, field-tests during the 1960’s failed to meet the Army’s expectations. Nonetheless they proved surprisingly effective as a means of urban crowd control, and for that reason have been widely adopted by police and gendarmeries around the world.
 

Radio and microwave RIT weapons differ fundamentally from the acoustic based weapons. Although they may be employed to physically sicken, their primary purpose is to shock, frighten, confuse and control their targets by conveying non-aural voice communications directly into their minds at or below the level of conscious awareness. Although generally dismissed as fantastic, radio and microwave RIT weapons have a long history. According to unsubstantiated reports, they were first developed by Nazi Germany for psychological warfare purposes, and employed during the Second World War to attack the resolve of Allied forces and to bolster the moral of their own. Whatever the actual history, radio and microwave RIT weapons were in operational use with both the Soviet and American intelligence services by the late-1960’s.
 

Despite widespread knowledge of the United States’ use of RIT weapons against bin Laden and the Talliban, the precise application remains a closely held secret. Presumably, however, it is following the pattern established in the 1989 invasion of Panama. Once it became clear that Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega had personally ordered the so-called “Dignity Battalions” to attack American servicemen stationed in the Canal Zone, former President George H.W. Bush concluded that an invasion was necessary to protect U.S. interests there. As a preface to the invasion, the NSA targeted Noriega with radio frequency RIT weapons in an effort to destabilize him psychologically. The point was to alternately tempt and provoke him to ruinous behavior by playing upon his inflated self-image - and by all accounts, the effort was highly successful. Within a matter of weeks, Noriega is reported to have become episodically delusional. Persuaded that he enjoyed divine favor, he ordered an increase in the number and ferocity of attacks against American servicemen while neglecting his own defense.  The result for him was disaster.
 

On the basis of the available evidence, it appears that the Talliban leadership and Osama bin Laden may have fallen victim to the same ploy. Following the 11 September attacks the Talliban decision-making process became increasingly erratic, resulting in a series of political, diplomatic and military blunders. And in the same time frame, bin Laden inched closer and closer to openly admitting his role in the attacks. 
 

At the present time it is impossible to assess with certainty the effectiveness of the NSA’s RIT operation against either the remnants of the Talliban leadership or bin Laden himself, but the intelligence officers in charge of the project are buoyant. Persuaded that they will self-destruct under the NSA’s onslaught, an unofficial betting pool at their Ft. Meade headquarters is said to be offering 3 to 1 odds that bin Laden will seal his fate with a colossally stupid blunder. According to one anonymous source, “The smart money says he’ll give away his position with a cell-phone call. And then we’ll nail him.”
 

At 8:48AM on the morning of September 11, a hijacked commercial airliner crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone onboard and hundreds - perhaps thousands - of people in the building. Eighteen minutes later another hijacked jet struck the South Tower, with similar effect. In less than an hour, both Towers collapsed into a heap of twisted wreckage. 
 

According to both the mainstream press and official reports, U.S. intelligence officials assumed the first attack was the result of pilot error or mechanical malfunction; and it was not until the second aircraft struck that it became clear the unfolding tragedy was the work of terrorists. The President was informed immediately thereafter and, within a matter of minutes, he ordered Air Force fighters into the air to defend the nation's capital. The airspace surrounding Washington, D.C., was closed to commercial aviation; and the pilots of the Air Force interceptors were ordered to down any aircraft that refused to divert to alternative landings.
 

At 9:40 AM a third hijacked airliner slammed into the Pentagon, killing everyone onboard and an estimated 188 personnel on the ground. Two minutes later, the F-16 interceptors scrambled from Langley Air Force Base arrived on the scene. Too late to stop the carnage, the jets established a combat air patrol over the metropolitan area in apparent anticipation of a fourth hijacked airliner then en route to either Camp David or Washington, D.C. That aircraft crashed into the countryside at approximately 18 minutes later; but had it continued, there is no doubt that the F-16's would have destroyed it long before it reached it's intended target.
 

Much has been made of the President's decision, but as of this writing there has been little commentary regarding the intelligence it was based upon. The enormity of the tragedy and, perhaps, the residual fear of further attacks have thus far overshadowed any debate over the apparent intelligence failure that made the terrorist assault possible. With very few exceptions, the mainstream media has continued to report without comment the official position that the United States was taken entirely unaware.

In actual fact, the U.S. intelligence community went on alert at about 6 PM on the evening prior to the attacks, apparently in response to an electronic interception of a cell phone conversation in Afghanistan. The alert was increased at approximately 9 PM; and the community went to full alert at 6:05 AM the following morning. According to informed sources in the Executive Branch, the intercept provided fragmentary evidence of an impending attack against one or more military installations in the Washington metropolitan area, but apparently made no mention of the attack on the World Trade Center. On the condition of anonymity, sources within the U.S. intelligence community informed Intelligence Briefs that, on the basis of the intercept, they had concluded that terrorists would attempt to detonate a single truck bomb at either the Pentagon or Ft. McNair. As a result, they were completely unprepared for the tightly coordinated aerial assault that actually followed.
 

Intelligence is at best a hit or miss proposition; but on the basis of the available information, it seems apparent that even a slightly increased intelligence capability might have prevented the calamity that befell the nation on September 11. The above referenced intercept was apparently made by the National Security Agency based at Ft. Meade, Maryland. The NSA is the lead agency for codes and ciphers, electronic intercepts, decryption and communications analysis; and in theory, it has the capability to monitor virtually every electronic transmission in the world. But as the result of funding restrictions and misplaced prioritization, the NSA has in recent years been plagued by repeated equipment failures. These have been severe and widespread; and on at least one occasion in the past 18 months, the NSA's computerized intercept operations "crashed" altogether. For most of the 48 hours it took to bring the agency's computers back online, the intelligence community was substantially "blinded."
 

At the time of this writing, no conclusive evidence has linked Saudi Arabian fugitive Osama bin Ladden to the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. Nonetheless, the circumstantial evidence is so compelling that suspicion of his involvement has hardened into a near certainty. One reason for this is the extraordinary capability his organization has achieved. Known as al Qaeda, it is believed to have at least 3000 operatives and 30,000 auxiliaries in 27 countries around the globe. By comparison, the Central Intelligence Agency numbers slightly more than 22,000. 
 

Believed to have been born in 1957, bin Ladden first rose to prominence in 1979 when he went to the aid of the Afghanistan mujahideen. A civil engineer by training, bin Ladden employed his professional skills and his family's fortune to build training camps, roads and bases for the anti-communist resistance. Impressed by his organizational ability, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf-state regimes provided him with an estimated $25 million a month to recruit, train and equip Arab volunteers to fight along side the Afghan resistance. Ironically, the CIA contributed substantial sums to bin Ladden as well.
 

Unlike other prominent members of the Afghan resistance, bin Ladden made no distinction between the United States and the Soviet Union. In his view both were mortal enemies of the Islamic world; and so when the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, he turned his sights upon America. As a practical matter, his first targets were pro-American regimes in the Middle East; but after a series of spectacular attacks there and in Asia, he moved against American assets throughout the world. According to U.S. intelligence officials, bin Ladden was implicated in abortive attempts to bomb U.S. embassies in Manila and Bangkok; the successful bombing of a hotel in Yemen that catered to American diplomatic personnel; the ambush killings of 18 American soldiers in Somalia in 1992; the World Trade Center bombing in 1993; the bombing of American housing facilities in Saudi Arabia in 1996; two failed assassination attempts against former President Clinton; the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998; and more recently, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.
 

Bin Ladden issued a formal declaration of war against the United States in 1996; but for reasons unknown, U.S. security officials discounted the warning. This is unfortunate, for bin Ladden's al Qaeda differs radically from other terrorist groups in terms of its organization, training, discipline, funding, capabilities and focus. For these reasons, U.S. intelligence should have realized that it posed a direct and immediate threat to the national security. 
 

Al Qaeda grew forth from a faction of the Afghan resistance, and it emerged from the crucible of Soviet occupation well organized and battle tested. Many of its operatives are combat veterans; and perhaps more importantly, they have all been shaped in bin Ladden's mold. They are highly motivated, well trained and superbly disciplined. They are described by friends and foes alike as fearless in battle; and they are, by religious training and conviction, predisposed to sacrifice their lives for what they presume to be a just cause. For the same reasons, they are not only willing but also intent upon inflicting mass casualties. Moreover, they are often well educated; and many hold degrees in science and engineering.
 

The latter two points are particularly significant in reference to weapons of mass destruction. Bin Ladden is known to have acquired at least three "suitcase nukes" from the former Soviet Union's arsenal, and is reported to be shopping for more. These weapons were designed as demolition charges, and for that reason have a relatively low yield.2 Nonetheless, they are capable of reducing dockyards, railroad junctions, dams, bridges, airfields and supply depots to a shambles; and in reasonably competent hands, they could be used to destroy select urban areas such as Wall Street or Capitol Hill.
 

Perhaps more ominously, bin Ladden's al Qaeda has the technical talent necessary to produce both chemical and biological weapons. According to U.S. counterterrorism officials, al Qaeda scientists attempted to develop poison gasses that could be delivered by projectile against U.S. military targets but failed due to the complexity of the delivery systems. Nonetheless they are said to have made great progress in developing exotic poisons for use against urban water supplies; and they may have succeeded in producing biological warfare agents.
 

1Also spelled Usama bin Ladden
2An estimated 3 kilotons
 
 

On September 18 the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt put to sea from Norfolk, Virginia, accompanied by a dozen warships. The carrier battle group set course for the Middle East, where it will join two others that are already on station. On the same day an undisclosed number of American B-1 and B-52 heavy bombers departed the U.S. for bases in the Middle East and the Indian Ocean, as select Army and Marine units prepared for deployment abroad.
 

Announcement of these events lifted public spirits and contributed to a surprising - if temporary - rally on Wall Street. Enraged by the atrocities of September 11, an overwhelming number of Americans want swift and overwhelming retaliation. According to recent polls, fully 89% are in favor of unrestricted war against the terrorists responsible and the governments that support them. 
 

In deference to public opinion, analysts in Washington anticipate early attacks against bin Ladden's camps and training centers in Afghanistan, and perhaps against Afghan government installations as well. But however successful these may be, they expect the operation will expand dramatically across space and time for a period of years. For as the President made clear in his September 20 speech to the nation, the Administration is determined to crush terrorism generally. 
 

Cynical whispers will no doubt accuse the President of exploiting the tragedies of September 11 as a pretext to wage a wider war; and to the extent that the forthcoming campaign exceeds the immediate requirements of defense, their criticism will be accurate though ill-advised. For the world is on the brink of a cataclysm; and the time line is exceedingly short. India and Pakistan have already crossed the nuclear threshold, and within the next few years four other Third World regimes are expected to follow. Most of these are unstable dictatorships, and all of them are profoundly hostile to the United States. 
 

Aided and abetted by covert Russian and Chinese assistance, Libya, Iraq, Iran and North Korea are expected to deploy operational nuclear weapons no later than 2005. More ominously, most - if not all - of these regimes are expected to have deployed medium and perhaps intercontinental range ballistic missiles by then as well. North Korea has already produced a two-stage missile capable of reaching Alaska; and is expected to have a three-stage ICBM capable of striking all of North America within a year. The four countries referenced above constitute a nuclear underground that - again aided and abetted by Russia and China - shares research data, development techniques, and equipment with one another. Their clear purpose is to incrementally overturn the global balance of power by making the cost of American regional deployments potentially prohibitive. American bases overseas are extremely vulnerable to nuclear attack; and against them, a single nuclear-armed missile could inflict casualties in the tens of thousands.
 

Given these facts, two scenarios are particularly chilling. The first is derived from the fact that neither the Middle Eastern countries nor North Korea follow standard engineering practices. Rather than systematically test designs, components and prototypes, they have historically skipped this phase and moved to untested production. This raises the likelihood of operational failure dramatically - but it also deprives the United States of advanced warning prior to deployment or actual use. For that reason, U.S. national security officials are deeply concerned that American forces abroad could be taken by surprise attack. 
 

A second and closely related possibility is that one or more of these nations might make a nuclear weapon available to terrorist organizations such as bin Ladden's al Qaeda. For if the regime or regimes in question have followed past practices and not tested their weapons, it would be virtually impossible to trace them back to their source of origin. In the event that they were used against American forces abroad or against the American heartland, no evidence would exist that the offending power or powers were even capable of culpability. 
 

The Administration is acutely conscious of these grim scenarios, and determined to prevent their realization. For that reason the forthcoming campaign will likely include attacks not only against terrorist organizations but also the nuclear infrastructure of the above listed regimes.

By the tenth day after the attacks on New York and Washington, governments around the world had made significant progress in disrupting bin Ladden's apparatus. In addition to the approximately two hundred people who had been taken into custody in the United States, arrests had also been made on related charges in Canada, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Egypt. In the next few weeks, hundreds - perhaps thousands - of others are expected to be apprehended worldwide.
 

Many Americans were taken aback by the sheer numbers arrested in the United States. This and the fact that federal authorities warned of more arrests to follow contributed to a deep sense of public unease. The near certainty that more terrorists were moving undetected throughout American society was so deeply disturbing that serious commentators were prompted to talk of a Fifth Column. As Norman Podhoretz wrote in the Washington Times, "Even as we express concern for the well-being of Muslim and Arab-Americans…we also have to confront the very real fact that their neighborhoods and communities have dark crevices and corners where fifth columnists working for the al Qaeda network are finding succor."3
 

This fear is unfortunately well founded. Bin Ladden has had more than a decade to construct an infrastructure in the United States, and if past experience is any guide he has done his work remarkably well. But there are other threats as well. Chief among them are the 70 some-odd groups and organizations that make up the anti-war coalition which emerged only days after the September 11 attacks. These are less threatening in the short term, but no less insidious.
 

Most of these organizations were originally created by Service A4 of the KGB's First Chief Directorate during the Cold War in order to undercut American foreign policy; and many have retained clandestine ties to that service. Despite the collapse of Soviet Communism, Service A has not disbanded; and its international network of subversive organizations is believed to be substantially intact. Although Russia has become a nominally democratic state, the Russian government continues to invest heavily in radical groups around the world and, especially, in the United States. 
 

American analysts have been generally dismissive of these organizations and, in recent years, have ignored altogether their continuing ties to Service A. This is unfortunate, for Service A's writ extends far beyond the support of foreign subversives. In actual fact, the principal mission of this KGB subset is the conduct of Active Measures, i.e., clandestine operations above the level espionage but below that of outright warfare. These include bribery and the corruption of public officials, the manipulation of foreign political systems, kidnapping, murder, political assassination, sabotage, terrorism and disinformation. The fact that many of the anti-war coalition groups have maintained a relationship with this odious organization strongly suggests that they represent a continuing long-term threat that may be as severe as that presently posed by bin Ladden's al Qaeda.
 

After dominating the national news for 100 consecutive days, the story of Chandra Levy's mysterious disappearance from her Washington, DC, apartment, quietly slipped from the front pages. The inexplicable absence of the 24 year-old intern ignited a firestorm of controversy after the media revealed that she had been engaged in an adulterous affair with U.S. Representative Gary Condit, a moderate democrat from Levy's home state of California.
 

Despite a complete lack of physical evidence, the clear presumption throughout was that Ley's disappearance was the result of foul play; and because of her illicit relationship with the congressman, the mainstream press vigorously implied that Condit was involved. The congressman himself lent credence to this suspicion by first attempting to cover-up his affair with Levy; and then by granting only the most grudging cooperation to police investigators.
 

As of this writing, both the District of Columbia Police and the FBI have reclassified the Levy investigation as a "cold case," and reassigned their personnel to more pressing matters. If normal procedures are followed, then, police and FBI investigators will revisit the case at periodic intervals for an indefinite period; but unless hard evidence surfaces that demonstrates a crime was actually committed, it will not be seriously pursued.
 

The high-profile media coverage of the Levy case and the inconclusive outcome of the investigation have together generated a widespread public perception that Rep. Condit has literally gotten away with murder - and that may in fact be the case. However there are alternative possibilities that the mainstream press failed to explore; and these are fraught with implications for the national security.
 

Congressman Condit is a member of the House Intelligence Committee; and as such, he is privy to the nation's most closely guarded secrets. Although the Committee's deliberations are highly classified, Condit is reputedly one of the more hawkish members. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has systematically relaxed security procedures and practices that were designed to protect against foreign espionage. Condit is known to have taken strong exception to this; and he is said to have taken a particularly hard line against Russian and Israeli espionage, which have in recent years achieved epic proportions. 
 

The Clinton Administration did not consider foreign espionage a major threat, and for that reason still-classified House Intelligence Committee recommendations for increasing U.S. security measures were substantially ignored. The Bush Administration has, however, taken a much more aggressive stand on foreign espionage and is now in the process of developing new policy initiatives to combat the threat. Because the White House is carefully coordinating with both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees in this effort, foreign intelligence services had obvious motive for orchestrating Condit's removal from the process.
 

Two theories have been presented regarding this possibility. The first is that the Russian foreign intelligence service became aware of Condit's liaison with Chandra Levy, and murdered her in order to disgrace and discredit the congressman and - presumably - to force him from office. The other is that Israeli intelligence either kidnapped her for the same purpose, or persuaded her to secretly defect. 
 

Although it seems most likely that Levy's disappearance resulted from a crime of passion, the alternatives recounted above cannot be lightly dismissed. For since the end of the Cold War, incidents of Active Measures have steadily increased. Active Measures is an intelligence term of Soviet origin that signifies intelligence operations above the level of espionage but below the level of outright warfare, and includes bribery, corruption, disinformation, kidnapping, murder, political assassination, terrorism and sabotage. Not surprisingly, the United States has in recent years become the foremost target of those intelligence services that employ these tactics.
 

Although the impact of Active Measures operations upon the American political system is a matter of great concern to U.S. security officials, little is actually known about their effects. They are by nature difficult to detect, and are generally executed by indirection. Most often they are designed to enhance already existing tendencies; and for that reason their effects are almost impossible to measure even after they have been uncovered and exhaustively analyzed. 
 

But there are rare exceptions, such as the Perfumo Affair in Great Britain. In that case John Perfumo, the British Minister of Defense, was engaged in an illicit affair with a call girl by the name of Christina Keeler - who, apparently by chance, was also sleeping with a senior Soviet Embassy official. Although Perfumo was entirely unaware of Keeler's connection to the Soviet Embassy, an anonymous tip to the British tabloids ignited a scandal that severely damaged the Ministry of Defense and drove Perfumo from office. 
 

Although the immediate political consequences of the Chandra Levy scandal pales in comparison to the Perfumo Affair, the general outline of the two scandals form an indistinct but nonetheless uncomfortable analogy. Representative Condit is undoubtedly a cad, and he may be a killer. But on the basis of both the available evidence and the historical record, it is equally plausible to suppose that he may also be a victim of an Active Measures operation. 
 
 

On August 2, the Senate voted 98 to 0 to confirm Robert S. Mueller as director of the FBI. After a period of lengthy deliberation President Bush nominated the 56-year-old U.S. Attorney to succeed Louis J. Freeh, who resigned in June after an eight-year tenure marred by scandal and controversy. According to White House sources, the President's selection of Mueller was based upon his willingness and perceived ability to reform this deeply troubled agency.
 

Although Mueller was well received by the Senate, he is given little chance of success on Capitol Hill. According to congressional sources, Freeh's failed leadership and mismanagement reduced the FBI to a shambles. Mueller's task of reforming the Bureau has been openly compared to cleaning the Augean Stables; and so by implication, the Bureau's problems are so enormous that it will take a latter-day Hercules to solve them.
 

Observers are in general agreement that the FBI's most basic problem is a fundamentally flawed institutional self-image. Senior FBI officials consider the Bureau - and themselves - both above the law and beyond reproach; and this ethos is deliberately drilled into FBI recruits. Within the Bureau institutional loyalty is prized more highly than competence, courage or integrity; and for that reason mistakes are routinely covered up, rather than corrected.
 

The results have been generally calamitous, and include the unlawful killings at Ruby Ridge; the massacre at Waco; the public persecution of Richard Jewel; the Filegate and Travelgate scandals; the FBI laboratory's falsification of evidence in more than 200 federal cases; the botched investigation of the Chinese penetration of the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory; the mishandling of evidence in the Oklahoma Bombing case; the Bureau's failure to detect a Russian penetration of its counterespionage division for more than 15 years; the loss of 449 weapons and 184 laptop computers, at least one of which held highly classified information; scores of cases in which senior FBI officials engaged in perjury and or obstruction of justice; and a serious breakdown of discipline in the Bureau's lower ranks, as evidenced by the fact that serving FBI agents have in recent years been convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery and grand larceny.
 

All this is publicly known, and has been repeatedly cited by members of the House and Senate in justification of far-reaching reforms. But there is a far more compelling reason for overhauling the Bureau that has thus far been successfully hidden from public view; and it is this, more than the scandals listed above, that are driving Congressional demands for reform.
 

According to highly placed sources in the executive branch, the Russian penetration of the FBI's counterespionage division was only one of many successful foreign intrusions; and although the damage done by FBI turncoat Robert Hanssen was breathtaking, it pales in comparison to others that have still not been publicly revealed. Of particular concern is the case of a former senior FBI official, who apparently spied for Israel throughout his long career. By the time this individual reached the rank of Assistant Director, he had achieved essentially unlimited access to America's  most closely guarded secrets; and, apparently, he betrayed them all. Worse yet, throughout his tenure he assisted Israeli intelligence in recruiting other agents; and as he rose through the ranks, he used his power and position to maneuver those agents into particularly sensitive positions. As a result, the Bureau is now honeycombed with Israeli spies.
 

The FBI's disarray holds implications that reach far beyond Washington; for contrary to the public's perception, the Bureau maintains an extensive presence in every American community, no matter how large or small. For all practical purposes, the Bureau has created a fully functional national police force that has for decades remained hidden from public view. 
 

For more than half a century, the FBI has conducted a special training program for select state and local police officers. This program is conducted at the FBI's National Academy at Quantico, Virginia; and typically runs for three weeks. During the course of study, the state and local police officers in attendance receive instruction in the latest law enforcement techniques and technologies. They are also profiled by FBI psychologists and carefully scrutinized by their instructors; and those that pass muster are approached confidentially, and asked to serve as FBI assets within their police department or agency. As an inducement, they are offered non-accountable cash payments, and promised assistance with their careers. Those who agree are formally recruited and assigned case officers; and upon their return, serve as penetration agents within their home organizations. From there they provide the FBI with confidential police information - especially files relating to prominent local citizens - record books of serving police officers, and other such tightly held information as may be required. They are also expected to be available from time to time to provide covert support for FBI operations within their jurisdiction.
 

 During the 1950's, the FBI used this network of state and local police agents to harass and discredit Communists and other malefactors; and in the 1960's expanded it to include leaders of the anti-war movement. More recently, in response to changed political circumstances, they have employed it with telling effect against the pro-life movement
 

The exact number of police-penetrations run by the FBI remains a tightly held secret; but according to one former senior FBI official, between 5 and 8 per cent of all serving police officers nationwide are under FBI control. Among senior police ranks, that figure is said to be more than trebled; and it is for this reason that honest and competent FBI leadership is so vitally important to American law enforcement. Corruption and mismanagement in Washington inevitably trickles down through the Bureau's network of police-penetrations, permeating state and local jurisdictions. One plausible result is the increasingly common malfeasance of state and local police.
 

For this reason, both the Congress and the Executive Branch expect the Bureau to provide a sterling example for American law enforcement nation-wide. The fact that the FBI has in recent years failed to do so has provoked widespread anger on Capitol Hill, and muted threats to terminate the FBI's police-agent program. One incident that sparked particular outrage was a sham-conference held at the FBI Academy in 1997. Ostensibly billed as a seminar devoted to "Integrity in Law Enforcement," it was in fact a retirement party for former Deputy Director Larry Potts. More than 140 senior FBI officials were flown to Quantico at taxpayer expense for the festivities; and while each of the 140 invited guests made their appearance at the party, only 5 attended the lunch-hour lecture on law enforcement ethics. The fact that this lecture was thrown together on the eve of the party led the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility to conclude it was "a sham, intended to be used as justification to allow financial reimbursement to [senior officials] to travel to a peer's retirement function."
 

Although newly appointed FBI Director Mueller has far more urgent and immediate tasks at hand, the impact of the Bureau's police-penetration program upon state and local police departments is sufficiently great to ensure the continued strong interest of Congress. In response to White House pressure, the FBI has repeatedly used this program for questionable - and in recent years, clearly unlawful  - political purposes; and at some point Mueller will be forced to make a decision to reform it fundamentally or abolish it altogether.
A GEOPOLITICAL NIGHTMARE
 

On July 15 the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China signed a friendship treaty explicitly designed to check the power of the United States in the post-Cold War era. This agreement follows by one month the signing of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Treaty, which bound Russia, China, and four former Soviet Central Asian Republics together in a formal politico-military alliance; and marked the culmination of a geopolitical realignment that has been in progress since the conclusion of the still-secret 1996 treaty of alliance between Russia and China. 
 

The strategic implications of this realignment are both profound and far-reaching. For the first time since the mid 1960's, the United States is subject to challenge by a geopolitical bloc capable of simultaneously threatening both Europe and Asia. The population of the Shanghai Pact countries is in excess of 1.5 billion, and their combined military force is approximately 3.6 million. Their nuclear forces are even more impressive, totaling some 20,000 warheads. 
 

More ominously, the Shanghai Pact is designed for expansion. Iran, Turkmenistan and Mongolia have already applied for membership; and Syria, Libya and Iraq have formally expressed interest. Within a year, the Pact might conceivably include a dozen or more militantly anti-American states; and extend from the Pacific Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea. Because most of the prospective new members are littoral states, the near-term threat to Western trade and commerce is potentially severe. 
 

The long-term threat is even greater, for the potential military capability of the Shanghai Pact far exceeds that of the United States and NATO combined. Although Russia has been economically prostrate for almost a decade, the Russian economy is rebounding sharply. Fueled by massive foreign aid - most of it provided or arranged by the United States - increased oil prices and, most recently, by multi-billion dollar arms purchases from the People's Republic of China, most observers agree that the Russian economy has turned the corner. Although it may still take some time, most economists expect Russia to emerge as an economic powerhouse within the next ten years. As a result, the severe economic constraints that have hobbled the Russian military for the past decade are expected to soon disappear.
 

Since 1917, the supreme national interest of the United States has been defined as the prevention of any power, or any group of powers, from dominating the Eurasian landmass. It was this consideration more than any other that compelled the United States to enter World War I, and it has driven American foreign policy ever since. It was the most basic reason for American assistance to Great Britain and China prior to the United States' formal entry into the Second World War, and for America's commitment to the defense of Europe thereafter. It was also the reason for America's intervention first in Korea, and later in Viet Nam. 
 

Both the White House and the State Department are attempting to portray President Bush's European summit tour as a success, despite its lack of substantive accomplishments. Although the President failed to obtain NATO's support for his plan to deploy a strategic missile defense and suffered severe public criticism for his environmental policies, official spokesmen maintain that the President impressed his European counterparts with his style, confidence and mastery of foreign and defense policy detail. Although the trip fell far short of initial expectations, they nonetheless maintain that it laid the basis for enhanced trans-Atlantic cooperation in the future.

This may not be the case; for the difficulties President Bush encountered only partly result from policy disagreements. For since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, the European political elites have shifted far to the left. Today only three European countries are governed by center-right political parties; and by American standards, even these are decidedly leftist in outlook and orientation. As the French Minister for European Affairs noted wryly, "Europe has become the natural place for the expression of progressive values that those on the left, whether Labor, Socialist or Social Democrat, all cherish."

The long-term implications of Europe's leftward drift remain uncertain; but despite the web of treaties and commercial ties that bind the United States and Europe, the Europeans appear to be intent upon effecting a de facto separation from the United States. According to unofficial sources, this will allow the Europeans to continue to reap the benefits of alliance with the United States while at the same time substantially escaping their treaty obligations. In this way they believe they can increase their commercial competitiveness in the state-controlled markets of the Third World - which are largely hostile to American business - and enhance their relative power and position in the United Nations, and in the host of international organizations that it sponsors.

Following the conclusion of a one-day summit meeting with Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin in Slovenia, President Bush unexpectedly declared his confidence in the former KGB officer. Speaking to assembled press reporters, Bush asked rhetorically if he could trust the Russian leader. Praising Putin as a family man and a patriot, the President then answered his own question with an emphatic yes. He further stated his belief that a fruitful relationship between the United States and Russia could be established on the basis of the trust and friendship the two men had developed in the course of their meeting.

The President's impromptu remarks sent shock waves coursing through the White House and the halls of Congress. Presidential advisors expressed immediate concern that Bush's remarks might return to haunt him; while members of the House and Senate expressed severe misgivings. Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., now chairman of the Senate Foreign 

Relations Committee, stated his distrust of the Russian leader and publicly expressed the hope that President Bush was speaking stylistically, rather than substantively. Off the record, lesser lights of both parties said much the same.

The most immediate reason for their concern is the menacing behavior of the Russian Federation. Despite the 1991 implosion of the Soviet Union, the foreign policy of the Soviet Union's principal successor state has remained substantially unchanged. Although the Russian Federation eschews Communist ideology and no longer sponsors Communist insurgents in the Third World, Russia has signed a secret military alliance with the People's Republic of China that is directed against the United States; has proliferated sophisticated weapons systems throughout the world; has aided Iran, Iraq, Libya and possibly other rogue states in the development of nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction; has intensified its espionage campaign against the United States; and has increased the size and scope of the KGB's "active measures" operations. The latter is particularly chilling, as active measures explicitly include acts of terrorism, assassination and sabotage as instruments of state policy during times of nominal peace. And if defector reports are to be believed, the Russians have since 1991 secretly emplaced more than 100 nuclear weapons on American soil as part of this ongoing campaign.

But there are even deeper reasons for concern. In December of 1961 KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn appeared unannounced at the U.S. embassy in Finland, in search of asylum. Maj. Golitsyn had been a staff officer on the KGB's long range planning division; and he brought with him a warning that shook the U.S. intelligence community to its foundations. According to Golitsyn, the Soviets had abandoned all hope of defeating the West in open warfare and had instead opted for a long-range strategy of deception, designed to entice the West into a policy of convergence. To encourage the West to partake in it's own destruction, the Soviets were prepared to make extraordinary - albeit temporary - concessions. In a 1984 book entitled New Lies for Old, Golitsyn made a spectacular series of policy predictions that included a radical - if false - liberalization of the Soviet Union, a secret alliance with Red China, the reunification of Germany and the eventual neutralization of Europe.

All of these then-extraordinary predictions have come true, or nearly so. Although Golitsyn did not predict the implosion of the Soviet Union, he did foretell the consolidation of political power by the KGB. And since 1991, KGB officers have dominated the Russian political process. President Putin is merely the latest in a long line of examples.

On the basis of the available evidence it is plausible to argue that a variation of the KGB's Long Range Policy remains in force; and it is this that so worries thoughtful observers. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the political center of gravity has shifted far to the left in both Europe and the United States; and the once strong political will to resist authoritarian socialism has all but evaporated. Although the Russian Federation is nominally democratic and capitalist, there is no assurance that it will remain so; and Russia's foreign policy -  and in particular, it's secret military alliance with Red China - provides ample reason for pause. 
 

CHINA AND TAIWAN

During the 2000 presidential election, Republican George Bush sharply distinguished himself from the Democrat nominee in his emphatic support for Taiwan; and since taking office, he has initiated a number of actions designed to enhance the security of that island nation. Over the strong objections of the Communist government on mainland China, he has authorized a multi-billion dollar sale of sophisticated arms to Taiwan. These include four modern surface warships equipped for anti-submarine warfare, eight modern diesel-electric submarines, and military communications systems. Moreover, Administration spokesmen have publicly mused about the possibility of including Taiwan in an expanded version of President Bush's proposed strategic nuclear defense systems.

These actions have sparked bitter protests from mainland regime; and may have contributed to Red China's decision to harass U.S. air and naval reconnaissance assets in the South China Sea.

 According to the Beijing, American support for Taiwan is an unwarranted intrusion into Chinese affairs that may eventually result in open hostilities. The United States disputes this, arguing that China's ongoing build-up across the Formosa Straits poses an unacceptable menace to Taiwan. The U.S. has expressed particular concern for the estimated 300 intermediate range ballistic missile that China has targeted upon Taiwan's ports, airfields and communications centers. According to the Pentagon these missiles are capable of inflicting massive damage on Taiwan's defenses, making possible - and pe