The Strange Case Of Sergeant Bales: Enemy Agent In The Ranks?
April 2, 2012
By Cliff Kincaid
We are told that Sergeant Robert Bales navigated his way through Taliban-infested areas and killed 17 Afghan civilians, including women and toddlers. Then he took time out from shooting to stack up several of the bodies and light them on fire. One might expect that such a shooter would be running from any angry mob who identified this obvious intruder in their midst, if not be pinned down in a battle with the local Taliban. Instead, we are told that he walked back alone and calmly surrendered.
How could he have done this by himself? And how could the most horrific case of mass murder committed by a U.S. soldier since Fort Hood just be a case of too much war stress?
Claims that he suffered from PTSD or a brain injury do not square with the methodological approach that he apparently took in the killings. This was not a madman going berserk. The rampage had the earmarks of somebody programmed or manipulated to kill, with the killings and the aftermath being carefully orchestrated by those in on the secret of what actually happened.
Bales’ lawyer claims he “does not remember everything” from the day of the shootings, and that he has not actually confessed.
It is eerily reminiscent of when fanatical Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan, a Marxist who killed Robert F. Kennedy, claimed he couldn’t remember anything, after initially confessing to the crime. Few today remember that RFK was actually the target of a terrorist attack on American soil motivated by Sirhan Sirhan’s allegiance to Palestinian nationalism and Arab socialism.
What is apparent in the Bales case is that the level of violence carried out against civilians is strikingly similar to the terror and assassination that the Taliban inflicts on communities that dare to oppose them. This was clearly premeditated mass murder. But for what purpose? And who or what was behind it?
What we know, at this point, is that Iranian Press TV and Moscow-funded Russia Today (RT) are blaming the killings not on one man but a high-level U.S. conspiracy. They insist that Bales did not act alone but was assisted by other U.S. military personnel in what was a planned and systematic massacre of civilians. The conspiracies being offered by Press TV and RT should not be dismissed but rather understood in the context of what they want us to believe and why. This is a global information war and the ultimate prize is control of the Middle East.
The stakes are high as President Obama embraces the anti-Semitic and pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood, Russia and China continue to support Iran, the regime in Syria hangs on to power with the help of Russia, and the Chinese-backed Islamic regime in Sudan continues to wreak havoc in Africa, including through its support for warlord Joseph Kony.
The malicious charges stemming from the Bales case clearly endanger our troops throughout the world, especially the Middle East. We know that U.S. troops have already withdrawn from Iraq and that a panicked departure from Afghanistan would be a major debacle that would lead to the takeover of the country by the Taliban, the same group which hosted the 9/11 plotters. So the killings play into the hands of our enemies. Iran, which has been working with the Taliban and even Al Qaeda, stands to benefit enormously.
This poisonous coverage will no doubt inspire others to kill Americans—in revenge or retaliation. Jihadist violence and terrorism on American soil are made more possible, perhaps inevitable, by the heavy-handed and vicious anti-American tone of the coverage.
It is significant that China’s news agency quotes an analyst named Wahid Mujda as saying that, “Intentionally targeting civilians and killing innocent people no doubt would enhance anti-U.S. resentment.” He said it would “enable the Taliban to benefit from the situation and recruit more fighters” as it pushed “affected families to join the Taliban and seek revenge.” Mujda used to serve with the Taliban’s Foreign Ministry before that government collapsed after the U.S. and its Afghan allies drove them out. Hence, the tragic killings serve as perfect cannon fodder for those like the Taliban and countries like Iran which want the U.S. out of the region.
What can be safely assumed at this point is that the anti-American narrative that the U.S. was backing Bales with a squad of soldiers in a deliberate conspiracy to massacre civilians is almost certainly a conspiracy theory that is part of a global attempt to convince the world of the opposite of what really happened.
Which means that another theory—that Bales engaged in the killings, with the help of the Taliban, in order to accelerate an American withdrawal—has to be seriously considered.
There is no direct evidence at this stage for the theory of Bales as an enemy agent or dupe. But Bales’ attorney says he has seen “no forensic evidence” and there have been “no confessions” to support the Army’s case. The fact is that so little is known about the killings that both sides of the story—the one told by the U.S. Army and the one told by anti-American foreign propagandists—have to be questioned.
The key to understanding what happened could lie in the blatant lies being told by the other side. It was not enough that Bales was accused of killing, with help, the 17 Afghans; now Iranian Press TV is adding the charge of rape. However, the U.S. has found no evidence of allegations of sexual abuse from villagers.
The killings were horrifying enough that to add to them with embellishments about a deliberate massacre carried out by high level U.S. commanders makes no sense—unless one is trying to further confuse the situation and divert attention away from the real ultimate truth. And that may mean that Bales was an enemy collaborator.
Although the media report that the military is investigating Bales—and that the story has now become that he made two trips outside his military base to carry out the killings—the Obama administration would not likely pursue the question of who was behind a shooter if the answer to that question would implicate the Taliban or other Islamists and if they could get him on an individual criminal charge instead.
Such was the case with U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 people in a Jihadist massacre at Fort Hood, Texas. Hasan, who yelled “Allahu Akbar” as he began killing his fellow soldiers and was linked to a foreign Al-Qaeda operative, the assassinated Anwar al Awlaki, engaged in what the administration now calls a case of “workplace violence.” General George Casey, then-Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, sent an e-mail to soldiers following the carnage in which he said that he was “. . . concerned about the potential for this speculation to cause a backlash against our Muslim Soldiers and civilians. We need to be vigilant to ensure this does not occur.”
If the enemy recruited Bales and then helped him carry out the massacre, so it could be blamed on the U.S., then we gain an additional important insight into the brutal nature of those who want the U.S. to leave so they can take over. Staging a massacre and blaming it on the Americans is something that makes sense, if we examine what is already known about the killings.
Consider that the enemy has infiltrated and recruited among members of the Afghan Army. Is it so far-fetched to believe that an American soldier was recruited as well? Perhaps he was not converted to Islam. But he may have had his outlook on the war completely twisted by the propaganda telling him that he is a member of an occupying force that has to leave the country.
So-called “information specialists” on the U.S. side of the conflict seem to have little understanding of how the Taliban might have used Bales for its own purposes, in terms of carrying out the actual murders, and then exploiting them for propaganda reasons.
One might assume that this story would be told, except that in this case the enemy’s methods might be too sensitive to be discussed officially in public. Perhaps this helps explain why Bales was moved out of the country for protection and monitoring.
The theory that Bales was co-opted by the enemy in some way should be analyzed in terms of who benefits from the disinformation. Clearly, the Taliban and its backers, including Iran in this case, benefit. These are simple facts of the case.
If the claim is that Bales was working under orders from the U.S. command is clearly false, then the opposite may in fact be true—that he was recruited by the Taliban and possibly Iran to be a shooter who would be prosecuted as a lone gunman, with no investigation of who or what was really behind him.
The truth in this case could be extremely embarrassing to the U.S., which would not want it known that one of its own soldiers could have been used in such a manner.
As such, a cover-up may be underway, intended to obscure the nature of the apparent brainwashing that Bales underwent at some point in his military career. It could be that he was won over to the anti-American cause because of information that he was receiving during or between deployments. What is needed is an examination of what he was saying about the cause for which he was deployed. It is possible that he even thought that a massacre of this kind would accelerate the early departure of U.S. forces from the battlefield.
While these assertions may strike some as fantastic, the official story, as told by his lawyer and others, is itself fantastic—that he either doesn’t remember what happened or suffered from stress or a concussion that made him go on a killing rampage.
By looking at the propaganda and disinformation in the Bales case, we understand whose interests are being served—America’s enemies and adversaries, including Iran and Russia. Using Americans to make foreign propaganda points is something the old Soviet propaganda apparatus specialized in. Now, all of this is being done out in the open—if only our side paid attention to its significance.
Incredibly, in regard to Press TV, as Ken Timmerman pointed out, “…the Obama Administration permits the channel to operate on American soil without a license and in violation of U.S. sanctions regulations, which ban commercial transactions with Iran. It appears to be another example of Obama coddling the terrorist regime.”
It would be a serious mistake to underestimate the influence of these propaganda channels and the conspiracy realm in general. In this context, we find that the universe of Ron Paul supporters includes many fanatics and 9/11 conspiracy theorists determined to find America and Israel guilty of various international and terrorist crimes. Ron Paul himself has not openly embraced the 9/11 conspiracy theory that the U.S. attacked itself, but many of his supporters do so.
Such a view tends to lead to an embrace of America’s enemies, as if they are victims of U.S. policy and have a legitimate complaint. For example, Paul has said that Army soldier Bradley Manning, now on trial for treason, is a “hero,” and that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, now working for Russia Today television, is a whistleblower. Iraq war veteran Adam Kokesh, a Ron Paul supporter, had a regular program on Russia Today and organized a “Veterans for Ron Paul” group.
Manning, who was an intelligence analyst in Iraq, is charged with aiding Al-Qaeda through his release of classified information to WikiLeaks. Some of the documents he released concern counter-terrorism operations in the Middle East and the vulnerability of top-secret facilities to terrorist attack. Such disclosures increased the dangers to his fellow soldiers and their Afghan allies.
Part of the answer to why these killings occurred will have to be found in the mind of Sergeant Bales and who or what influenced him. But is this a story that will be told? Or is U.S. leadership blind to the internal threat?