Russian Intelligence Figure Analyzes
Further Threats to United States
Sept. 14, 2001 (EIRNS)The semi-official Russian news service Strana.ru today carried an interview with Andrei Kosyakov, described as a former aide to the Chairman of the Subcommittee for Monitoring Intelligence Service Activities, under the Supreme Soviet of Russia (while that existed, 1991-1993). The interview has a number of interesting elements, particularly in the second half, which intersect Tatyana Koryagina's strong warning earlier this week. Also the fact of its being put out now. Excerpts follow in translation. See also Lyndon LaRouche's assessment of Kosyakov's analysis.
Q: What shows that the attack in the U.S. was planned over a long time?
Kosyakov: First of all, people with professional flying skills were selected. There were are least four such agents [one for each plane], and they most probably each had a back-up, because of the high probability that the planned pilot could be injured during the hijacking. Secondly, all participants in the operation were prepared for martyrdom, and such people are not easy to find. Finally, the departure of four aircraft from four [sic] different points occurred at intervals of minutes. That means that the distances, times of flight, and schedules were calculated beforehand, and flights were chosen that could reach the strike targets within the most convenient interval of time. This is all quite complicated to calculate, considering that the airliners also had to be seized.
Q: ... Some analysts say, that only a state could do this.
Kosyakov: The preparation time has to have been months. And the organization must be quite powerful. In our view, the participation of some state, is doubtful.... Not a single secret service would accept such casualties. They train their members in a different way. Now if Bush had been killed, then one might suspect the secret service of some country. But in this case the target was the civilian population....
Q: And what follows from all this?
Kosyakov: You see, in evaluating the situation one fact stuck out. It is known, that there were telephone calls from the airplanes. One of the passengers that called was a professional journalist. But, the media has not made any mention of a description of the terrorists. None of the passengers who called said, for example, "we have been hijacked by Arab terrorists." Not one of them described what the terrorists looked like, their accents, pronunciation; nothing caused the callers to want to characterize them in some way....
Q: Couldn't the secret services conceal this information?
Kosyakov: These were private phone calls, which not even the FBI could keep secret. The conclusion suggests itself, that the outward appearance of the hijackers in no way distinguished them from the rest of the passengers. Only then, would a person fail to mention any features of the hijackers. This suggests that the hijackers looked Caucasian.
There is also another fact, pointing to this. The criminals left a big lead: a rental car was found, left at the airport out of which a plane was hijacked, filled with the Koran, and flying manuals in Arabic. But then look: Not a single organization has claimed responsibility. That means, the terrorists want to conceal their identity. So, given such professionalism, given such extreme care, how could such an error be permitted? This hardly fits with the minute detail of the planning of the action.
All this points to the conclusion, that the criminals wanted to leave a false trail. The secret services will pay no attention to ordinary Americans or Europeans, but will look for Arabs.
Q: But isn't the practice of self-sacrifice typical of Muslim culture?
Kosyakov: You are quite correct. But who told you, that the dead hijackers were not Muslims?... Based on the information we have, analysis might lead us to the conclusion, that the perpetrators were American or European followers of radical Islam. Meanwhile, the real criminals are being saved for the next actions. For it is quite clear, that a combination is being played that has several moves.
Q: You mean, you think there will be new attacks?
Kosyakov: Unfortunately, I think we must prepare ourselves for new acts of terror, in a different form, but just as effective. Our estimates indicate that ships could be used to ram hydroelectric infrastructure. Imagine a dam being hit by a passenger ship, or a tanker with two or three thousand tons of oil. It would inundate a couple of cities with a population of a million and a half, plus burning oil on top. Or another possibility: train lines under the Hudson River, which could be exploded from above or below. And water would rush into the tunnels.
Q: You say the attack will be in America?
Kosyakov: Yes. First of all, the terrorists want to demonstrate their skill. Secondly, remember, that besides the airplanes, also an automobile was blown up. So, what would have prevented the terrorists from also simultaneously blowing up a couple of automobiles in Europe, if they are preparing to carry out actions all over the world? No, the target was America, and the civilian population in particular.
Q: But some analysts say, that if Bush had been in the White House on Sept. 11, then the one airplane would have fallen onto his residence, rather than the Pentagon.
Kosyakov: This is unlikely. In that case the White House or Pentagon, rather than the civilian population, would have been the first targets to be hit. For, clearly, after a first successful attack, the probability of success of the later ones decreases. As you know, the last of the attacks failed. I mean the plane that crashed near Pittsburgh. They probably shot it down; and, difficult as it is to acknowledge, they were right to do so. Thus, the target is the civilian population. There is such a formula: In democratic countries the population is responsibility for the actions of their government. This formula guides the terrorists.
Therefore, the next attacks will follow the same principle. It is obvious, that they will take place around Wednesday- Thursday of next week. Why? I don't want to explain the logic of the terrorists, that would do them too much honor.
But I want to repeat: the fact, that the terrorists are not claiming responsibility, indicates that they will strike again and again. Until the second stage is reachedthe stage of global conflict. This is the goal of all these actions. At that point they will reveal their authorship, in order to obtain a mobilization reserve.
Q: How could the U.S. secret services sleep through this?
Kosyakov: I'll give you two examples. Half a year ago, Israeli intelligence carried out an exercise with the use of aerial objects for carrying out terrorist acts. For certain, the Americans had some information about these exercises. But it did not even occur to them to apply this experience for their own purposes. The second example: already in March of 1991 Korzhakov [at that time, Boris Yeltsin's chief of staff] sat in our office, and we laid out to him the development of a coup in September. Everything occurred according to our scenario, except it happened in August instead. That is, when a supposition or a scenario is put out beforehand, which appears improbable, no one takes it seriously.
And that is why Vladimir Putin says, that the intelligence services of all nations should work together.
Q: What is the probability that American intelligence will be able to find the leader of this operation? Or, will they just give the public some cover story?
Kosyakov: The probability is high. There are people, there are the apartments where they were located, and so there is a trail, of course. Through the perpetrators, the organizer may be found.
Q: And who is it? Bin Laden?
Kosyakov: Hardly. Sure, some conversation of his was intercepted, where someone reported about hitting two targets. That would indirectly support his involvement. But he is not the ideologue. he is too visible. Those who could organize all this are too clever, to be so visible.
Lyndon LaRouche Assesses
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
Sept. 15, 2001
The Kosyakov item from Strana.ru [see above] is excellent, and should be read by every member of the U.S. government at all levels, in addition to our associates and networks. This is genuine expertise, and first-rate analysis. Although it contains elements of assessment which I have not previously made, it coincides entirely with what I have stated, and its adds nothing with which I would not concur to my own earlier assessments of this past several days.