

Antique Hooked Rugs - Antique Ming Chinese Rugs - Oriental Rug Washing Austin - Antique Oriental Rugs

L. Paul Bremer, Former US Ambassador for Counter-Terrorism

L. Paul Bremer, Former US Ambassador for Counter-Terrorism
This is the transcript of the 'Prime Suspect' interview with L. Paul Bremer, former US Ambassador for Counter-Terrorism. 'Prime Suspect' probed the background and career of Osama bin Laden.

The BBC three years ago reported that a couple of years earlier around 1996, President Clinton and his close advisors met in secret to discuss a plan to kidnap Osama bin Laden from his Afghan hideout using US special forces, but in the end the plan was shelved. Can you describe what happened?

L. Paul Bremer These snatch and grab operations which I have been involved in looking at now for some 15 years, are very difficult to carry out, because they depend on having very precise and current operational intelligence. And particularly you need to know exactly where the target is, in this case bin Laden. You need to know not only which house he's in, but which room in the house he's in and not only that, but which way does the door open? Does it open in or out? Does it open from the left hinge or the right hinge? And you need then to get your forces and get them there alive, s- with enough force that they can overcome the protection and get the target out. Bin Laden is protected, we think, in general by almost a battalion of strength of of security officials, so there really is no easy snatch and grab with bin Laden. Even if you had - which we don't, as far as I know - operational intelligence which is of a high enough quality that the president would be willing to risk American lives to go in and try to conduct such an operation, and I suppose that was President Clinton's conclusion.

So you think the plan was a bad one, because there just wasn't enough intelligence.

I think it's a very difficult operation to carry out. It certainly is not satisfactory to the current situation in any case.

After the bombing of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, America attacked bin Laden's headquarters, and the training camps in Afghanistan with cruise missiles, but they failed to kill him. Was that a failure of intelligence?

The attacks after the east Africa bombings were not a failure on intelligence. It was a failure of will. What we did was essentially engage in feckless, pinprick attacks. Even if they had succeeded what they would have done was destroy a few mud huts. The paper are reporting and have been reporting that bin Laden's group simply rebuilt those camps within weeks after the attacks. And those attacks, I think, symptomised what was wrong with American counter-terrorist policy under the Clinton administration, which was that in effect when we were hit by terrorists, we tried to limit our response, to a sort of signal to the terrorists that we were serious. And of course, by being feeble in our response, the terrorists got the exact opposite impression, which was that we were weak.

And do you think that western intelligence is, given what's happened here in New York, that western intelligence is capable of defeating the kind of terrorist networks you've described to us earlier?

I think we have to be realistic that we're not going to eliminate terrorism from the face of the world. Terrorism has been around for all of recorded history. So it's going to be here the way crime is here. The objective therefore can't be to eliminate terrorism, but we can certainly take a major stride here in this war against this kind of terrorism, this kind of organised, fanatical terrorism that we've seen here. And it will require a lot of cooperation among western intelligence agencies, and I think we can make a lot of progress.

Given your knowledge, how sophisticated do you think Osama bin Laden is?

This was a very sophisticated attack, which had the earmarkings of a bin Laden attack. As it sort of had similarities with the east African attacks. The fact that he used in east Africa sleepers, agents who had been sent into those countries, in some cases, five years before the attack, who had integrated themselves into the local society, even married local women, taken jobs, and then were basically called upon when the time came. We seem to be seeing the same kind of operation here.

How do you fight a terrorist network, which has tentacles that are spread, not all over, but has the sophistication to put people in place? Sleepers, as you say.

You fight a terrorist network, with no remorse. With a relentless pursuit of intelligence; with a mandate to disrupt and prevent any attack that you come upon. And the basis of that is good intelligence. Without that there is no counter-terrorist policy.

Can we now look maybe a bit at his organisation? Can you describe the structure of bin Laden's organisation?

Bin Laden's organisation, which is called Al Qaeda in Arabic, the Base, is a rather loosely structured organisation, with bin Laden and a few top deputies doing the strategy and major planning. And then he's got affinity groups, groups who support him one way or the other. They may not at all times even be on his payroll, spread in probably as many as 40 or 50 countries around the world.

Janes defence analyst has said that bin Laden has the organisation with a consultative council below him, and four committees covering military, religious, legal, finance and media affairs. Hand-picked members of the committees, especially military, supposedly conduct special assignments for bin Laden. Is that the way you understand it? Is it that sophisticated?

It's a sophisticated organisation. It certainly has a top council that has a group of sort of committees under the top council. But the problem that all of us have to face now, is that even if we could deal with bin Laden and all of his top deputies and his council and everything, the organisation is diffuse enough, with enough adherence around in various places, that that isn't going to be enough. That's why part of our approach to this coming war, has to be to root out all of these cells and affinity groups wherever we find them.

Which won't be easy by the sounds of things.

I never heard of an easy war.

We've, it sounds like, structurally, a very sophisticated operation. From your experience and knowledge, how is it technically?

There's an interesting paradox in these attacks. If you go back also to the World Trade Centre attack. And the paradox is, that the planning in concept, seems to be very sophisticated. The execution is also in a way sophisticated, but there is very little attention paid to making it hard to figure out who did it. Which suggests that the people in the front line, the people who are actually the guys who die, or in the case of east Africa, were supposed to die in the attack, are sort of foot soldiers. And what's new about this attack in the United States, is that you're obviously dealing with a much higher class, better educated group of terrorists now. We had people after all that were trained as pilots. We're beginning therefore to see a- people coming into the organisation who are not just foot soldiers in the war, but lieutenants and captains if you use a military term.

So you think that means, technically sophisticated?

It means that the organisation is more sophisticated. And of course, in this attack on the United States, there was a lot of technical sophistication in the planning, getting on the planes, diverting the planes, disengaging the transponders. There was a lot of technical sophistication.

You've had um quite a lot of experience with Afghanistan through your through your career. Does his network rely on support from Afghanistan?

Certainly if bin Laden were not given refuge in Afghanistan, his life would be much more difficult, because he'd have to find a safe haven someone - in Iran or Iraq, or somewhere. He'd have to find some place where he could run training camps, where he could feel relatively safe himself. Where he could get false travel documents and all of the things which states of port entails. So we're going to have to, as part of this effort, assuming bin Laden is behind it, we're going to have to deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan in a very decisive fashion.

So you think that he's he he's getting support, in a sense that he's living there and harboured there. But do you think the support goes further than that?

I think the support is very, very strong from the Taliban, and we know that for example, bin Laden provides troops that fight alongside the Taliban in their fight with the Northern Alliance, which is the group trying to overthrow the Taliban in the north of the country. So there's a clear tight relationship here between the Taliban and bin Laden that goes far beyond simply saying, you know, make yourself at home in Jalalabad.

You mentioned earlier, a list of countries, ah if I'm not mistaken you didn't mention Pakistan - is bin Laden receiving support from Pakistan, do you believe?

I do not believe that the government of Pakistan is supporting bin Laden. Certainly not officially. But they are a major support for the Taliban in Afghanistan. And so they are at least by implication, accomplices in the fact that bin Laden is still allowed, pretty much a free run in Afghanistan. We've had some… according to the press reports, some pretty tough talks with the Pakistanis since this attack, and I think this is the time for the Pakistanis, basically to make up their mind which side of this fight they're on.

Which side do you think they'll choose?

It's a very difficult problem for President Musharef. There are elements in the Pakistani government, particularly in their intelligence services, who were instrumental in getting the Taliban to power in Afghanistan. There is a tribal aspect to it, with support from the Pathans in the Pakistan government who are supporting the Pathans. It is, the Taliban is basically a Pathan operation. So it will be difficult for Musharef. But I think, he doesn't have a lot of friends in the world. It's interesting that the Chinese have so far promised support to us in this in this operation. That's about the only other friends the Pakistanis have. Musharef is going to have to come down on one side or the other. I think if he decides to resist our efforts to deal with Afghanistan. And our efforts will involve at a minimum over-flights of Pakistan, conceivable moving troops on the ground through Pakistan, then we're going to have to tell them we're going to do it anyway if we have to fight our way across Pakistan.

Can bin Laden survive if Pakistan decides to remove its support from the Taliban?

Well, bin Laden; I could well imagine a major operation in Afghanistan with tens of thousands of American troops on the ground overthrowing the the government in in in Kabul, and bin Laden still not being captured because, ah it's a part of the world where borders are ah porous, where the terrain is extremely difficult. Ah this guy, he may already be out of Afghanistan. So the approach to bin Laden is going to have to continue until we get our hands on him.

And perhaps be separate in a sense to the kind of pressures that are being placed on governments?

Well, as I said at the outset, I think the president has got to have three objectives here. He's got to deal with the whoever did this, and whatever states supported it. He's got to go after terrorists groups, whether they're related to this guy or not. And there are a lot of other terrorists groups around, many of them being given, openly being given support and sanctuary, for example, in Syria and in Lebanon, that we're going to have to deal with. And he's got to move the world opinion in a way that it hasn't been moved for 20 years.

There are rumours that the Taliban has confiscated some of bin Laden's sophisticated communication equipment. Do you know whether that's true or not?

I don't know whether that's true or not. I take, with almost no seriousness at all, anything the Taliban says about bin Laden.

There have also been rumours that bin Laden suffers from kidney problems, and that he's been travelling to Pakistan for treatment. If so, is that a way to get to him?

He does have some sicknesses. I don't know if he's been in Pakistan, but obviously if … I mean, my experience in trying to get our hands on terrorists, is if you can get them in motion, if you can get them moving across borders, you begin to get opportunities.

At what point, from your knowledge, did bin Laden become a serious international terrorist?

I believe bin Laden was involved in the attacks on American soldiers in Mogadishu as early 1993. And so he's been at it now for about a decade, against America.

If he's responsible overall, why do you think he did it? Was it religious zeal, is he just mad, or is there a logical, political aim?

It's a common mistake to think that terrorists are crazy. People talk about these senseless acts. These acts are not senseless in the mind of terrorists. Terrorists are very rarely crazy. Bin Laden is certainly completely rational. He is fired by a deep, deep hatred of America, and indeed of western culture. He believes that the government of Saudi Arabia - he's originally a Saudi citizen -is illegal, and that they are desecrating the holy places of Mecca and Medina, and sees the United States in the first place as a quasi-colonial power propping up this illegitimate regime in Saudi Arabia. And secondly he has a hatred for what American society has become - a free and open democratic society. And it's a kind of hatred that I think many Americans certainly find very difficult to understand, mostly because Americans generally like people, they like to be liked. They're kind of easy-going like Australians. They they have a really hard time believing that people can hate that much. Maybe now, this week, they'll see that it's true.

This doesn't sound like political aims. It sounds more like, as you say, a religious zeal of some sort.

Yeah, it's almost a Messianic calling. It is a religious fanaticism. In all I have written and believe that bin Laden is a disgrace to his religion. Islam is not a religion is not a religion of hatred. 99.9% of the Muslims in the world are peace-loving people like you and me. They're not terrorists. They want to go about their business. They want to bring up their kids, take them to school, they want to have jobs. Bin Laden is an outrage to the Muslim world.

Are these acts of terrorism all about removing the United States from the Middle East, weakening the US influence?

I think, ultimately, what bin Laden seeks, is the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy and the installation of an Islamic republic in Saudi Arabia to look after the holy places of Islam. He can't get there, he thinks, unless he can get us out of the Middle East, or at least get us away from Saudi Arabia. But it is deeper than that, because he is really motivated by a very deep hatred of the United States, and what we stand for - attacking us and New York doesn't get us out of the Middle East. He's making a point about American society here, particularly with the choice of targets.

But do you think that this attack will force the Americans, because of its need for support from all sorts of countries, that that might change the way the United States engages with the Middle East?

I think it will have the opposite effect. One of the history, one of the lessons of studying terrorism in the last 30 years, is that terrorists usually overplay their hands. They usually think that if we do x or y the other guy will back away or he'll do this or that. And actually this was the way that terrorists in Europe operated in the 60s and 70s. They thought if we can kill a few people and get some attention, maybe we can get the American bases removed from Germany, the Bader Meinhof gang's objective. Maybe we can get America out of France which was the idea. Actually what happens in the end, is they overplay their hand, and the public gets riled up and the governments get the courage to go forward and do the right thing, and that's what's going to happen here.

I guess you may have already answered this, but let me ask it again. If America captures or kills bin Laden, will that solve the problem?

We have a tendency in America, to over-personalise all of our politics. It's probably an outgrowth of television in its influence. We do it in our domestic politics, we tend to do it in international affairs. We think of Russia, not as Russia, but as Gorbachev, or Yeltsin, or Putin. So we have a problem, and we always had this problem with terrorism, there's always been sort of one bad guy, it's a part of sort of the American white hat black hat approach to life; there's good guys and bad guys, and in the 70s the bad guy was Gadaffi. He was replaced in the mid 80s by Abu Nidal, and the 90s now by Bin laden and even though Gadaffi and Abu Nidal are much less important now, terrorism didn't go away; it just evolved, now we've got Bin laden. So getting our hands on Bin Laden and killing him isn't going to solve the problem, it's going to evolve. That's why we have to go at this. This is not a question of retribution or retaliation; we must seek victory now.

Finally, overall, what do you think this attack has shown America?

Well, the attack has obviously on the first side shocked Americans to realise that we're vulnerable to this kind of attack, even though terrorist experts have been warning of it now for a couple of years. It has shown us, I think, the importance of putting together a coherent strategy to fight terrorism. It has shown us in a way, it will show us in a way, that being the world's superpower has costs, and it has responsibilities. We've paid the cost. We're now going to step up, I trust, to the responsibility.