The Terrorism Paradox

What is the exact definition of terrorism?

Cambridge dictionary defines the noun as such:

"(threats of) violent action for political purposes."

The United States Department of Defense narrows it down to:

"the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

Its linguistic definition is to a large extent contaminated and manipulated though, especially since 9-11 when it became one of the most widely used and abused nouns in our political arena and the media spectacle surrounding it. From a neoconservative perspective, a typical terrorist is irrational, Arab, religious and with an inextinguishable appetite for Israeli, American and British blood. Why? Well, just because he feels like it, hates freedom loving people, hates our democracy etc etc. Personally I never accepted this as a satisfactory explanation.

In political debates the term is often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral and unjustified. However, it's worth mentioning that those accused of being terrorists rarely identify themselves as such, instead they prefer using terms that refer to their ideological or ethnic struggle, such examples include: separatist, freedom fighter or liberator. By now, dozens of written manifests containing the thoughts of terrorist leaders and actual terrorists have demonstrated this clearly. This is the first sign of the relative meaning of the word which (as most will agree) depends largely on ones perspective. In one of his columns republican commentator Patrick J. Buchanan made the correct observation that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." To a large extent we view violence against civilians for political purposes justified or unjustified based on our political affiliation and personal relationship with the terrorist group and its cause. Leftists tend to sympathize with the underdogs, the suppressed, the poor and their historic struggle against the capitalists, the strong, the establishment. This explains the fact that they generally support the Palestinian struggle and hence are less vocal in their denunciations of the Palestinian "acts of terror" compared to more right-wing oriented people, who in turn have their own quiet admiration for certain bona fide terrorists such as Menachem Begin.

The next question is establishing what the motives of those so-called terrorists are and how irrational their violent actions really are. I think most of us can agree on the fact that terrorists kill because they want to break the will of a government and/or its people and further their political interests, whether these political interests are just or unjust, reasonable or unreasonable, is a separate issue which depends largely on ones political orientation.

By bombing the London Subway the homegrown terrorists wanted to send out a message to the (democratically elected) British government: "Get out of Iraq or else." In an Al Jazeera broadcasted video message which was aired after the attacks had taken place, the alleged mastermind behind the attacks said: "I'm sure by now the media's painted a suitable picture of me. It's predictable propaganda machine, it's natural they try and point a spin on things to suit the Government and to scare the masses into conformity to their power and wealth obsessed agendas, and our words have no impact upon you, therefore I'm going to talk to you in a language that you understand.Your democratically elected Governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world, and your support of them makes you directly responsible. Until we feel security, you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people, we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I'm a soldier, now you too will taste the reality of this situation."

A clear example of politically motivated violence intended to put pressure on a government and its people, but let's move on to our second example, by bombing trains in Madrid terrorists had a similar politically motivated goal: put pressure on the Spanish government to cease its support for war efforts. The Spanish socialist government eventually gave in to the pressure, no terrorist attack has occurred in Spain ever since.

The attacks in Palestine serve a similar purpose, pressure the Israeli government and its democratic power base (the Israeli people) to withdraw from the West Bank, release child-prisoners, stop the occupation of historical Palestine (in their eyes) etc. The list goes on and on, all of them are political goals. Generally speaking these attacks are portrayed as an Islamic duty, but Islam is merely used as a way to recruit, the rest is politicized. In a September 2005 interview with Newsweek Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Zahar made the following remark:

-Newsweek: Does Hamas still stand by the tactic of suicide bombing?

-Mahmoud Zahar: [i]We were forced to do so [in the past]. When we reached the conclusion that nothing could be achieved by peaceful [means], we were forced to do [it]. Believe me, if it is not [/i]

Let's return to the US Ministry of Defense's definition of terrorism. "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." Of course, the first thing which is noteworthy is the word "unlawful" which stands out at first glance and attracts attention from careful readers. It makes one wonder what exactly constitutes "lawful" violence intended to inculcate fear and coerce and intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political. As it turns out the only criterion for making the distinction between lawful and the unlawful political violence is the source of the violence, in other words: we only refer to it as terrorism if others do it.

If terrorism is "violent action for political purposes" than surely the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which killed many tens of thousands of Japanese women, children and elderly were among the biggest terrorist attacks of the century. For these attacks were specially planned to break emperor Hirohito's will and force him to capitulate. Neither attack had much militarily value, since neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima had any real militarily significance. They were simply a necessity to break the will of the people and the emperor. To break his will the enormous and scandalous "nuclear collateral damage" was tolerated. Needless to say the tactic was successful and indeed the emperor-God Hirohito signed a ceasefire shortly after the attacks. It's noteworthy to state that emperor Hirohito remained emperor until his death in 1992, although he did lost his "God Title." Let this sink in, we are talking about rivers of blood, yet we generally refer to this act with pride and without remorse, whereas we usually strongly condemn comparable acts on a much much smaller scale (for instance a minor suicide bombing) for being scandalous acts of terrorism.

Click here for a picture of one of the many Hiroshima victims.

There's an abundance of such examples in US history. For instance the mass starvation of Iraqi civilians to break he will of the Saddam Hussein after he attacked Kuwait. This became even harder to bear after the harsh stance of the otherwise extremely diplomatic secretary of State Madeline Albright during a CBS interview with Leslie Stahl in 1996, in which the following exchange was made:

-Lesley Stahl: "speaking of US sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is the price worth it?"

-Madeline Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."

Note that this the mass death toll had not reached its peak in 1996, the final death toll is estimated to be somewhere around 1.000.000, of which most were infants. Once again, the killing (either directly or indirectly) of civilians to break the will of its rulers is justified. Albright did not even have the courtesy to mask her intentions.



Above: One of the million victims of the Iraq embargo.

Although some critics might protest by bringing up the fact that the US was not directly responsible for the deaths and that this was due to Saddam's irresponsible use of the "Oil for Food" program, I'd like to assert that even I (who was a high school student at that time) knew perfectly well that if we deprived Saddam (or any other dictator for that matter) of income, the next step was going to be that he would claim a bigger piece of the shrunken GDP, leaving less for the rest, since it's naive to assume that the ruler himself will lead a more sober life once income shrinks. Surely our experienced diplomats and politicians were capable of the same basic thought process a teenager was capable of?

Purely based on logic, these citizens were much more innocent than the citizens who died in the London Subway terror attacks.Contrary to the British, neither Iraqis, nor Japanese had any saying in their government's policies, the policy of emperor Hirohito or Saddam Hussein was not by definition the will of their citizens, nor did these despots hold a mandate from their subordinates. But the subordinates had to pay and we delivered the payload and we did it on a massive scale and we were successful. Others trying to do the same, on a much much smaller scale are branded terrorist. Note I'm not changing the definition of terrorism to suit my own taste, on the contrary, I'm just being consistent instead of using the word randomly based on arbitrary criteria. The one thing which today’s terrorists can be accused of is their incompetence and lack of effectiveness, since your average terrorist takes out only a handful of people with every attack at best, save nine eleven which was a remarkable exception. State-sponsored terrorism such as the attacks on Hiroshima, Iraq claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

But nowhere in the world is the definition of terrorist so randomly tossed around as in the birthplace of modern terrorism: Israel. According to the Old Testament ancient Israel was born by the sword, the area was ethnically cleansed in a gruesome fashion, I will not abuse this to discredit today's Israelis since such practices were rule rather than exception in those barbaric days. What is troubling however is the fact that modern Israel too was born by the sword although in a less bloody way than its ancient version. At the start of the last century Israel was known as the Mandate Palestine which was under British rule, it housed a majority of Christian and Muslim Arabs and a minority of Jews, some of the latter were so-called Sabra Jews who were born in the Mandate Palestine and some of them Zionist immigrants who had escaped the surge in antisemitic acts in Europe and Asia. Noteworthy is that by 1948 the Mandate Palestine ceased to exist and the nation of Israel was born and the non-Jewish majority had evolved into a minority.

More than nature's course and healthy Jewish immigration lead to this remarkable demographic shift. A string of terror attacks by Zionist organizations such as IRGUN against British and Palestinians finally broke the will of the British and Palestinians and so Israel was born. One of the most notorious and bloody terrorist attacks by Jewish groups was the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem which killed around 100 people and seriously wounded many more. The King David Hotel bombing was not the first attack, dozens more preceded it. King David Hotel was the beginning of the end for British rule in the Mandate Palestine. Noteworthy is the fact that the attack was ordered by Menachem Begin, who later went on to become the Prime Minister of Israel and even received the Nobel Peace Prize, dealing a huge blow to the Nobel Prize committee's reputation. It is ironic, but Israel was perhaps the first and most successful product of successful tactical terrorism, but they paid a price since their own success became a source of inspiration for the Palestinians to adapt similar methods starting in the late 1960's. Of course by then, terrorism was no longer a justified resistance struggle tactic like it was during Menachem Begin's days, but had become an act of barbarism. Too bad for the Palestinians.



Above: The King David Hotel bombing.

Indeed, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.




.

US: Taking your own life is an act of war.

The suicides of three detainees at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, amount to acts of war, the US military says. The camp commander said the two Saudis and a Yemeni were "committed" and had killed themselves in "an act of asymmetric warfare waged against us".

Lawyers said the men who hanged themselves had been driven by despair.

Read the entire article here.

Taking your own life is now being seen as an act of war? At first I assumed it was sarcasm or a bad joke, but then I read the story on the BBC website and was baffled by the absolute idiocy of the statement. Clearly once again the US has sunk to a new low. How fast things can change, just a few years ago the US was a respected nation, leading the world by example, it now is a laughing stock of the international intellectual community, a rogue state flirting with bankrupsy which does not respect basic human rights and is not even capable of reasoning by logic, since I am not even capable of detecting the slightest bit of logic in the camp commander's statement. .

If taking your own life after being inprisoned without a trial, a clear charge, or the prospect of a fair trial and regural subjection to torture is an act of war, surely crying when they torture you might be interpreted as a nuclear threat.

Sieg Heil America, land of the free, home of the slaves.


.

Dear Ahmadinejad.....

“To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."

-Winston Churchill

Possibly one of the biggest diplomatic errors made in the last decades was the manner in which the Bush Administration chose to handle the Islamic Republic of Iran’s first time ever direct letter to a US leader, written by its most conservative leader to date: the controversial Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Although the Iranian manifest was not the ideal letter the Bush Administration would have envisioned, it could still be viewed as a once in a lifetime opening, a rare window of opportunity. Talks could take place, at the very least testing the waters would have no negative effect, any positive effect would come as a bonus. In the light of ever increasing tensions, a situation in which you can’t lose and perhaps might gain a little bit too, should be welcomed with open arms. Any true diplomat would have used this narrow opening to defuse the tense status-quo, or so one would expect. Unfortunately the much publicized letter was simply shrugged off as a "ploy" by the Iranians to fracture the UN Security Council on the issue of sanctions. Condoleezza Rice stated shortly after receiving the letter that "This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to engage on the nuclear issue or anything of the sort." Bush didn’t even bother to comment extensively on this 18 page milestone written by his Iranian counterpart.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator called the surprise letter a new "diplomatic opening" and indeed it was, but the way it was handled had the converse effect. To expect the Iranians to reach out a second time only to find themselves embarrassed, belittled and ignored is not plausible, the next window of opportunity might never come. The ideal letter form a neoconservative perspective might have looked like this:

Mister President,

We bow down to you, we suspend our legitimate nuclear activities (even though technically we are not doing anything wrong) as of immediate and recognize the US as the one true ruler of double standards.

Kind Regards,

Your humble servant.

This might sound humorous, I assure you it’s not meant as humor, this is deadly serious. It’s absurd to expect from such a proud people to cave in, especially since technically they are not doing anything wrong. Bare in mind that the use of nuclear energy is their legitimate right as NPT members. At the very best, the only accusation to them could be that they fail to swallow the double standards which permit the US and Israel to expand their already enormous stocks of nuclear and biological weapons.

As stated earlier, the letter is not the ideal letter which the neoconservatives might have envisioned. Ahmadinejad’s letter is not free of criticism, perhaps it’s genuine criticism from a genuine man, perhaps the criticism is purposely inserted in the letter in order to not come across as surrender thus preventing the loss of face. Yet Ahmadinejad (or the people surrounding him) is diplomatically sharp enough to include numerous (semi) compliments and openings too in his rather long address. Respected conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan stated: “Better to talk. To test the waters, President Bush might take up Ahmadinejad's missive, manifest the same respect for Islam that he showed for Jesus of Nazareth, rebut his attacks on America and lay down what Bush would like to see in a future relationship with Iran. We have much to talk about: terror, nuclear power, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, oil, what we owe Iran and what Iran owes us."

I tend to agree with Buchanan in general and this time is no exception. Why not criticize the Iranian policy in the same manner in which they criticized the US policy yet insert a few carefully planted openings and (semi) compliments thus leaving the door ajar for further talks?

There are some reasons why the Bush Administration is not tempted to do so. The Administration’s official motive for refusing to talk to the Iranians is that such a bold move would legitimize the Iranian regime. This is hogwash at best, since the regime is already legitimized. Iran has embassies in all major Western nations and vice versa, sans the US and Israel of course. The Islamic Republic also has wide-ranging business relations with most Western nations save Israel and the US. So from an objective point of view one might come to the conclusion that they are already viewed as legitimate by the world without America’s approval and a legitimate question to be raised would be: why should they not be legitimate in the first place? What’s their crime? If it were to be violation of human rights, Iran could be categorized as a moderate human rights violator at best, especially if compared to China or Saudi Arabia with which the US has extensive economical and political relations.

Thus it appears that the US Administration is talking out of both sides of its mouth, on the one hand the Administration insists that diplomacy is the way to go, on the other hand no direct talks are taking place. In an interview on CNN’s Late Edition, former US national security adviser Brezinski dismissed the current negotiations as "absurd" and went on to say that “it’s really ironic" since “We're not negotiating with Iran, but we are negotiating. Who are we negotiating with?" Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright stated the same criticism in slightly different wording. These are not spineless pacifists, in fact Mr. Brezinski and Ms.Albright were often quite hawkish on numerous subjects, but they are also experienced in the field of international politics and looking at some basic parameters of success such as the budget surplus and relative safety during their time in office, they know what they're talking about.



Above: The budget surplus during the Clinton era and huge budget deficit during the Bush era.

Of course we need to take into consideration that a solid and healthy economy/balance may not be a priority for this Administration, as far-fetched as it may sound: peace does not benefit all of us. Many assume this but it's dangerously naive to assume so. For the lucky few who have stakes in the military industrial complex (Calyle Group, Lockheed Martin, Hallliburton etc.) peace equates to losses, by analogy war equates to unimaginable profits. The influence of this so-called "military industrial complex" in the halls of government is one of the greatest and most immediate dangers to democracy and had been foreseen by so many including president Eisenhower. In his final and most inspiring speech he warned all Americans about the threats of the ever increasing power of this military-industrial complex: "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Let your voice be heard.




.

The Dying Dollar.

'We’re like the untrustworthy brother-in-law who keeps borrowing money, promising to pay it back, but can never seem to get out of debt. Eventually, people cut that guy off"

-American investor Jim Rogers.

More wisdom is hidden in this short sentence than most readers realize, it is in fact the very reason for the sharp decline in the US economy which still lies ahead. Rather than bombarding you with complicated economic data to argue my case, I will instead focus on a less mathematical approach to keep my thesis comprehendible.

Just like ordinary households, nations too rely on loans to finance certain expenses, for instance major and costly infrastructure projects. This by itself is not unusual nor is it a practice which I condemn, of course provided that future income is sufficient enough to repay the debt. Also noteworthy is the fact that these kinds of investments will lead to GDP growth in the long run. Borrowing money to finance a bridge will make transport more efficient, financing a new airport will increase mobility, financing a new refinery will guarantee the flow of affordable gasoline, these are all examples of investments usually financed by borrowing money and will add value to the economy in the long run. So far, no problem.
However, the trouble with the US federal government and average US household at this point of time is that they still have a strong and somewhat unfounded believe in the strong revival of the US economy and keep borrowing tirelessly, waiting for that light at the end of the tunnel which according to me and many world renowned investors such as Mark Faber may never come and continuous rise of poverty in the US is a bleak, yet more realistic future expectation.

Is the US able to repay its debt which is heading toward 10.000.000.000.000 US Dollars? In the old days of inexorable economic growth and the absence of serious competitors such as China and India, this would be considered plausible. Second of all, the money borrowed in those days was generally used for investment purposes rather than consumption. A billion of Dollars borrowed was used to build production facilities or improving infrastructure which in turn created new wealth: more jobs, more money. Today the situation is slightly different, not only is it unrealistic to expect continuous economical growth, but the money borrowed today is not so much used for investment, but mostly for consumption. The average American household seems rather reluctant to face facts and reconsider its unbridled spending habits, most choose for the easy way out: borrowing money. But consumption doesn’t lead to growth, consumption is merely digestion.

I think the trouble today is that most people unjustifiably (or out of ignorance) take America’s prosperity for granted. They assume that the mere fact that the US is free, capitalistic and democratic is enough to guarantee everlasting economic prosperity. This is a huge oversimplification to put it in polite terms. In fact, one could argue that a democracy does not necessarily influence economic growth in a positive way. In China, the party decides that building a highway in a certain area would increase mobility (and thus the economical growth) and only a few days later construction begins. In Europe, it will take years just to convince the environmentalists that this highway is worth the environmental sacrifice, you’d be lucky if construction takes place within two years. As an ever increasing number of American companies relocate their production facilities overseas, the US is still awaiting the gains of globalism promised first by the Clinton Administration and propagandized to this very day by the Bush Administration tirelessly. Looking at the enormous trade deficit with China, one can only come to the conclusion that China stands to gain, whereas the US is the loser in the long run.

Some will denounce my thesis and will quickly point to America’s recent economical growth numbers which aren’t bad at first glance. What they fail to realize is that this growth is little more than statistical/paper growth, it doesn’t translate into growth in average disposable income, in other words: it's technical growth, mainly because of acquisitions overseas by major US companies. When General Motors or General Electric or some other major American enterprise buys a stake in some successful Chinese, Vietnamese, Russian or Indian firm, its assets will grow, its financial situation will perk up, this will show up in the GDP, however this leads to no increase in disposable income in the US. Let this sink in, because this is vital for understanding the fallacy of the economic growth numbers which are presented to us by the current Administration.

The recent surge in gold prices is not due to increase demand for jewelry. The surge in gold prices can be attributed to the increasing demand by investors who are losing confidence in the US dollar and are stocking up on gold. They are in search for some alternative for the US Dollar, since the Euro is heavily linked to the Dollar (which is becoming less stable) and the Chinese and Russian currency are not yet strong enough to take its place, more Central Banks and investors are rediscovering the stability of gold.

Recently, Russia, China, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria, have announced that they are taking steps to reduce their enormous stocks of US Treasuries and will diversify their reserves. Even the largest foreign holder of US currency (Japan) is taking steps to reduce its huge holdings of US Dollar reserves. Japan had US Dollar reserves valued at over $700 Billion at the start of 2006.



At this point, the steps taken by the nations above are not very drastic, most of them are merely reducing their US Dollar reserves mildly. However, if the US trade imbalance keeps increasing, Americans refuse to adjust their unbridled spending habits and the neoconservative Administration doesn’t find a way to alter the world order in a less costly manner, I’m afraid that this is just the beginning.

The Economist, a widely acclaimed magazine went a step further and even spoke of "the disappearing dollar." In its cover story it stated: [i]'[The] privilege of being able to print the world's reserve currency, a privilege which is now at risk, allows America to borrow cheaply, and thus to spend much more than it earns, on far better terms than are available to others. Imagine you could write cheques that were accepted as payment but never cashed. That is what it amounts to. If you had been granted that ability, you might take care to hang on to it. America is taking no such care, and may come to regret it.'[/i]

Most financial experts at the top are aware of this and are taking steps to force people to reconsider their rather wild spending habits, this is proven by Federal Reserve president Ben Bernanke’s unstoppable appetite for interest rate increasing, but I’m afraid that as long as the public insists on postponing the consequences of years of financial irresponsibility by borrowing, and the neoconservatives spend trillions on wars, mister Bernanke’s efforts may be in vain.

Lots of criticism so far, but are there any factual solutions? Newsweek provided the most basic solution: 'Americans need to export more and to consume less." I’d like to ad something to this: America needs to export more, consume less, and spend less on costly (2.6 trillion $) overseas “nation building” efforts, which in turn backfires in the form of increased security risks and thus a less favorable investment climate for desperately needed overseas investors.

B.C.



.

The effects of a Bunker Buster (short video).

Recently there has been a lot of talk about the so-called “bunker buster,” a nuclear bomb designed especially for the destruction of targets well below the surface, a team of scientists cooperated to make the following animation about the effectiveness (or rather ineffectiveness) and consequences of the use of a so-called “bunker buster.” They don’ t focus on the political consequences (which will be severe), but rather focus on technical details. Make sure to watch it and listen carefully to the audio comment. I assure you, it’s worth your time and lasts only a few minutes.

You can watch it by clicking here



.

Why were the planes not shot down on 9-11?

Below is an excerpt from a thought provoking article regarding the September the eleventh attacks which was first published in the British newspaper The Guardian. Its author however is not your usual paranoid madman, but a respected former British Minister: Michael Meacher.

"All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate."

To this very day, no credible explanation has been given.

The complete article can be read by clicking here.




.

9-11's Predecessor.

Are (democratic) governments capable of killing their own civilians in order to achieve a higher goal? Let me rephrase this sentence: could a (democratic) government attack its own civilians in a staged attack in order to mobilize support for a war?

Anyone who is a regular on the internet has seen the literally thousands of conspiracy theories surrounding the horrific events on that dreadful September the eleventh morning. With the exception of a few well-argued, well-documented few, nearly all of them are hardly worth reading or watching, for the human mind and paranoia can produce the most preposterous conspiracy theories.

Personally I don't want to focus too much on the events on September eleventh, so much has been written, so much is documented that I don't feel that my contribution could be of any significance. What I do want to focus on is the question whether a democratic government could be capable of such an attack. I'm not going to answer that with a yes or a no, but here's food for thought: if one assumes that people in general and the ruling military elite have not changed significantly during the past 40 years, one would be tempted to answer “yes,” especially when analyzing what is called “Operation Northwoods.” A very real and spine-chilling plan, formulated by the American military elite to stage attacks on American civilians in order to mobilize support for an invasion of Cuba.

Below is an ABC News article from May 2001. After September the eleventh, the mainstream media hardly mentioned this ever again, fearing that this would be interpreted a unpatriotic.


N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001 In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro. America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.
"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

Gunning for War

The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.




.

The enemy within our gates.

As far back as the first century B.C. the Roman philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote:

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. And enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear."

-Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. As valuable as this historic wisdom is, it is often ignored by the masses when analyzing global status-quo. The Western world today is almost certainly an unprecedented powerful bloc, no empire, kingdom or loosely connected bloc of nations has ever been as powerful as the West and in particular the US is at present, Western economies are a huge success, Western culture is imitated on a massive scale, the western value system is being implemented in an increasing number of nations, sporadically by force as in the case of Iraq, but most often by consent. On top of that, all the world’s armies combined are powerless against the seemingly almighty US army.

Seemingly, our position is one of great political and economical power and no worldly power except the almighty himself can undermine our privileged positions as the wealthiest, most powerful bloc in human history, most of us assume that our position will remain stable or even improve over time, little do they know that the enemy within the gates will deal a devastating blow to us, unprecedented in human history.

By this time most of you almost certainly assume that I’m referring to "terrorists" when speaking of "the enemy within our gates." Not so. The enemy I'm referring to now is not foreign, he does not speak in a foreign tongue, he wears no turban, for he is in fact our own globalist capitalistic elite. And the devastating blow will not come in the form of a mushroom cloud, radiation fallout, bombs or toxic chemicals as FOX News and the likes like to suggest. No, this enemy has other tactics and its blow is a far more strategic, long-term and stealth one, it’s engineered in such a devious way that the victims will be the ones cheering as they are being dealt this huge blow, for they assume that the enemy within the gates is one of their own and has their interests in mind. So if this enemy does not use bombs, bullets or chemical weapons against us, then what does it use? The short answer is "globalism."

The story begins in the late 1980’s, when the Soviet Union began to crumble. Simultaneously with the Soviet Union's downfall, the communist ideology and the threat of the "Proletarian Revolt" starts to fade away. No longer fearing a worldwide proletarian movement, the capitalistic elite started to reverse some of the concessions they made to the people of the West and sneaked this process called “globalism" on the global stage. With previously closed markets opening up, the spread of "know how" and fearing no Marxist movement, suddenly it made no sense to improve the conditions of workers in the West. The capitalistic elite now even had the opportunity to blackmail the masses with massive layoffs if they demanded too much, the globalists would just move the plant over to China, Indonesia, Vietnam or wherever where the workers would be more desperate and acceptant of their unreasonable terms, something which was impossible in the days of the Soviet Union. This is globalism in its purest form: the continuous movement of production assets to places where the price/quality ratio makes most sense business-wise, leaving behind impoverished and disillusioned societies as it moves on to the next "promised land."

Globalism is often portrayed by the corporate media as a blessing for the Western world, globalism would mean the export of Western values and most important of all, it would mean a win-win situation for all of us economical-wise, of course the latter is a farce, since it is empirically obvious that globalism causes plants to shut down, constantly searching the globe for the cheapest labor force, a continuous process. The irony in all this is the fact that so indoctrinated have the Western workers become that they see it as a historic mission to help co-promote globalism. Therein lies the huge power of the corporate media.

This new formal enemy (terrorism) which was summoned on stage exactly at the same time when the Soviet Union fell, is no coincidence, for they are actually a homebredd globalist asset, functioning as lightning conductors, to be called upon to perform an unholy task, namely distracting the masses as the capitalistic elite would move the economical assets for which generations have worked, to new locations all over the globe without encountering huge opposition. The masses, far too busy fearing Al Qaida, would have little interest in minor details like the vaporization of their savings, plants shutting down and one town after another becoming unemployed, for they would be much too busy fearing all kinds of wild terrorist attacks, a fear which is bred by the same corporate globalist elite by the way, for instance Rupert Mordoch's Fox news Network, shamelessly disguising their propaganda activities as “fair and balanced news."

It's plausible that within two decades the once prosperous West (and especially the US) will resemble Albania or Romania. That's the optimistic view, the more pessimistic (but nonetheless realistic) view is that the American situation will be worse, since the two nations mentioned above are most certainly not rich, they are however not so heavily in debt as the US will be in a decade or two from now. As I’m typing this, the US federal government has a debt which is getting close to 10.000 billion of dollars, an unprecedented national debt. A recent study by a Noble-Prize winning economist pointed out that the direct and indirect cost of the Iraq war would most likely be somewhere in the area of 2.500 billion dollars and this is based on the fact that Iraq’s situation will not deteriorate over time, which is nonetheless likely. Most likely a war with Iran and/or Syria still lies ahead, so add a few hundred billions to the already astronomical debt. Add to this explosive mix the fact that eventually most factory jobs will disappear, eliminating the middle-class, let’s take into account that a large and stable middle-class is one of the pillars for a stable and prosperous society, destroy the pillar and the consequences will be swift and disastrous: tensions within society will increase possibly leading to (racial/class) violence, at the same time poverty will increase, by that time there won't be much money left for the army, making the nation vulnerable to outside threats. There's one glimpse of hope though, because the US will be so impoverished by then that an attack is pretty unlikely, simply because the loot would not be tempting enough for potential invaders.

And this is why this gradual and stealth process called globalism, which is embraced by the ignorant masses, will be their own downfall.

B.C.




.

Israel's role in the assassination of Lebanon's Prime Minister.

After decades of bloodshed and tensions, Lebanon was struggling to once again reclaim its position as "the jewel of the Middle East," having been described as "the true garden of Eden" for decades, the small, progressive and multicultural nation had been through what can be adequately described as "decades of hell." However, the light at the end of the tunnel came in the form of the assassination of its most ambitious, progressive and patriotic leader ever: Rafik Hariri.(1944 – 2005)

For most people, the assassination of the Lebanese prime Minster Rafik Hariri was just one of the many other assassinations conducted by Islamist terrorists. Most people automatically assumed Syrian involvement. At least that was what the media spoon-fed the masses immediately after the assassination. But is Syrian involvement likely? To comprehend the situation, one should take the post 9-11 situation into account, all Islamic regimes laid low in that period, even Saddam Hussein and the normally fanatic Iranian regime kept a low profile for a while, all of them knew that this was not the time for provocations or negative media attention. Yet we are somehow to believe that it was in that period of time that Syria ordered the assassination of the Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, something which all rational people (and the experienced Baath party ruling Syria is far from irrational in matters as such) would describe as an absolute kamikaze action, only a nation or a regime with a death-wish would do such a thing in the post 9-11 world. Yet we are to believe that Syria ordered the assassination, fully aware of the fact that they would be seen as the prime suspects by the majority of nations.

Could Syria have done such a thing? Is this plausible? My guess is that it’s most unlikely, even dictatorships behave rational in certain matters, one of their most important principles being: not endangering their own positions of power. The assassination of Rafik Hariri left the Assad regime in Syria almost without any friends in an already hostile post 9-11 world. Any tactician saw that coming from miles away. A legitimate question would be: If Syria is probably not the force behind the assassination, then who or what is? My guess is that it’s most likely Israel. My assumption is not based on anti-Semitism or personal prejudice, but historical proof and careful geo-political analysis.

First of all, Israel has a long track record of so-called "false flag attacks," attacks they are responsible for but make it look like someone else’s work. One of them is what is today known as the "Lavon Affair," although Israelis themselves refer to it as "Operation Susannah."

In 1954, Israeli agents working in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including a United States diplomatic facility, and left evidence behind implicating Arabs as the culprits in order to create hostility between the Egyptians and the West. The ruse would have worked, had not one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to capture and identify one of the bombers, which in turn led to the round up of an Israeli spy ring. Some of the spies were from Israel, while others were recruited from the local Jewish population. Israel responded to the scandal with claims in the media that there was no spy ring, that it was all a hoax perpetrated by "anti-Semites". But as the public trial progressed, it was evident that Israel had indeed been behind the bombing. Eventually, Israeli's Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon was brought down by the scandal.



Above: Defense Minister Lavon and Golda Meir

Another deadly false flag attack is the attack (conducted with unmarked planes and ships) on the American ship USS Liberty. The attack killed dozens of Americans, wounded many more in an attempt to cause war between Arabs and America by making the attack look like an Egyptian attack, a nation at war with Israel in that period of time.



Above: The USS Liberty

Second of all, nobody benefited from the assassination more than Israel. "Qui bono" is always a legitimate question. Suddenly the Syrians, longtime foes of the state of Israel are in the spotlight and the international community puts them under pressure to leave Lebanon, which makes Syria's protege Hezbollah helpless in Lebanon, the same Hezbollah that successfully fought back against the Israelis after Israel invaded Lebanon and has been one of the many thorns in Israel’s side.

Third of all, Israel has a long track record of manipulating Lebanon for its personal gain. This became clear after former prime minister of Israel Moshe Sharett passed away and his son published his highly revealing diary, passages from the diary as well as letters addressed to him have been published in the book Israel's Sacred Terrorism.

The Diary of former Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett is a major source of evidence for a conscious policy of deliberate, unprovoked cross-border attacks, in which advantage was taken of superior military power and a servile western propaganda machine, with the intent of destabilizing neighboring states and provoking them into military responses. Sharett was a footdragger in these enterprises, often shaken by the ruthlessness of the military establishment-"the long chain of false incidents and hostilities we have invented, and so many clashes we have provoked;" the "narrow-mindedness and short-sightedness of our military leaders" [who] "seem to presume that the State of Israel may-or even must-behave in the realm of international relations according to the laws of the jungle." Sharett himself referred to this long effort as a "sacred terrorism."

A Passage from the diary of former prime minister Moshe Sharett:

[b]"Then he [Ben Gurion] passed on to another issue. This is the time, he said, to push Lebanon, that is, the Maronites in that country, to proclaim a Christian State. I said that this was nonsense. The Maronites are divided. The partisans of Christian separatism are weak and will dare do nothing. A Christian Lebanon would mean their giving up Tyre, Tripoli, the Beka'a. There is no force that could bring Lebanon back to its pre-World War I dimensions, and all the more so because in that case it would lose its economic raison-d'etre. Ben Gurion reacted furiously. He began to enumerate the historical justification for a restricted Christian Lebanon. If such a development were to take place, the Christian Powers would not dare oppose it. I claimed that there was no factor ready to create such a situation, and that if we were to push and encourage it on our own we would get ourselves into an adventure that will place shame on us. Here came a wave of insults regarding my lack of daring and my narrow-mindedness. We ought to send envoys and spend money. I said there was no money. The answer was that there is no such thing. The money must be found, if not in the Treasury then at the Jewish Agency! For such a project it is worthwhile throwing away one hundred thousand, half a million, a million dollars. When this happens a decisive change will take place in the Middle East, a new era will start. I got tired of struggling against a whirlwind." (27 February 1954, 377)[/b]

Opposing views are welcome.





.

Whose War?

Below is one of the finest articles I have ever read, I urge all of you to really take the time to read it, I realise that it's a bit long, but it really did open my eyes and perhaps it will open yours.

God Bless,

Bart

Whose War?

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.



by Patrick J. Buchanan


The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: “Can you assure American viewers ... that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?”

Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so.

Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign. When these “Buchananites toss around ‘neoconservative’—and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen—it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is ‘Jewish conservative.’” Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a “key tenet of neoconservatism.” He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush “sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible.” (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)

David Brooks of the Weekly Standard wails that attacks based on the Israel tie have put him through personal hell: “Now I get a steady stream of anti-Semitic screeds in my e-mail, my voicemail and in my mailbox. ... Anti-Semitism is alive and thriving. It’s just that its epicenter is no longer on the Buchananite Right, but on the peace-movement left.”

Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan endures his own purgatory abroad: “In London ... one finds Britain’s finest minds propounding, in sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents, the conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the ‘neoconservative’ (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy.”

Lawrence Kaplan of the New Republic charges that our little magazine “has been transformed into a forum for those who contend that President Bush has become a client of ... Ariel Sharon and the ‘neoconservative war party.’”

Referencing Charles Lindbergh, he accuses Paul Schroeder, Chris Matthews, Robert Novak, Georgie Anne Geyer, Jason Vest of the Nation, and Gary Hart of implying that “members of the Bush team have been doing Israel’s bidding and, by extension, exhibiting ‘dual loyalties.’” Kaplan thunders:

The real problem with such claims is not just that they are untrue. The problem is that they are toxic. Invoking the specter of dual loyalty to mute criticism and debate amounts to more than the everyday pollution of public discourse. It is the nullification of public discourse, for how can one refute accusations grounded in ethnicity? The charges are, ipso facto, impossible to disprove. And so they are meant to be.

What is going on here? Slate’s Mickey Kaus nails it in the headline of his retort: “Lawrence Kaplan Plays the Anti-Semitic Card.”

What Kaplan, Brooks, Boot, and Kagan are doing is what the Rev. Jesse Jackson does when caught with some mammoth contribution from a Fortune 500 company he has lately accused of discriminating. He plays the race card. So, too, the neoconservatives are trying to fend off critics by assassinating their character and impugning their motives.

Indeed, it is the charge of “anti-Semitism” itself that is toxic. For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.

And this time the boys have cried “wolf” once too often. It is not working. As Kaus notes, Kaplan’s own New Republic carries Harvard professor Stanley Hoffman. In writing of the four power centers in this capital that are clamoring for war, Hoffman himself describes the fourth thus:

And, finally, there is a loose collection of friends of Israel, who believe in the identity of interests between the Jewish state and the United States. … These analysts look on foreign policy through the lens of one dominant concern: Is it good or bad for Israel? Since that nation’s founding in 1948, these thinkers have never been in very good odor at the State Department, but now they are well ensconced in the Pentagon, around such strategists as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.



Above: Paul Wolfowitz.

“If Stanley Hoffman can say this,” asks Kaus, “why can’t Chris Matthews?” Kaus also notes that Kaplan somehow failed to mention the most devastating piece tying the neoconservatives to Sharon and his Likud Party.

In a Feb. 9 front-page article in the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser quotes a senior U.S. official as saying, “The Likudniks are really in charge now.” Kaiser names Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith as members of a pro-Israel network inside the administration and adds David Wurmser of the Defense Department and Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council. (Abrams is the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, editor emeritus of Commentary, whose magazine has for decades branded critics of Israel as anti-Semites.)

Noting that Sharon repeatedly claims a “special closeness” to the Bushites, Kaiser writes, “For the first time a U.S. administration and a Likud government are pursuing nearly identical policies.” And a valid question is: how did this come to be, and while it is surely in Sharon’s interest, is it in America’s interest?

This is a time for truth. For America is about to make a momentous decision: whether to launch a series of wars in the Middle East that could ignite the Clash of Civilizations against which Harvard professor Samuel Huntington has warned, a war we believe would be a tragedy and a disaster for this Republic. To avert this war, to answer the neocon smears, we ask that our readers review their agenda as stated in their words. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As Al Smith used to say, “Nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.”

We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.

Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War.

They charge us with anti-Semitism—i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a “passionate attachment” to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America.



The Neoconservatives

Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism’s long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980.

A neoconservative, wrote Kevin Phillips back then, is more likely to be a magazine editor than a bricklayer. Today, he or she is more likely to be a resident scholar at a public policy institute such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) or one of its clones like the Center for Security Policy or the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). As one wag writes, a neocon is more familiar with the inside of a think tank than an Abrams tank.

Almost none came out of the business world or military, and few if any came out of the Goldwater campaign. The heroes they invoke are Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Martin Luther King, and Democratic Senators Henry “Scoop” Jackson (Wash.) and Pat Moynihan (N.Y.).

All are interventionists who regard Stakhanovite support of Israel as a defining characteristic of their breed. Among their luminaries are Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Michael Novak, and James Q. Wilson.

Their publications include the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the New Republic, National Review, and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Though few in number, they wield disproportionate power through control of the conservative foundations and magazines, through their syndicated columns, and by attaching themselves to men of power.


Beating the War Drums

When the Cold War ended, these neoconservatives began casting about for a new crusade to give meaning to their lives. On Sept. 11, their time came. They seized on that horrific atrocity to steer America’s rage into all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and Islamic “rogue states” that have resisted U.S. hegemony and loathe Israel.

The War Party’s plan, however, had been in preparation far in advance of 9/11. And when President Bush, after defeating the Taliban, was looking for a new front in the war on terror, they put their precooked meal in front of him. Bush dug into it.

Before introducing the script-writers of America’s future wars, consider the rapid and synchronized reaction of the neocons to what happened after that fateful day.

On Sept. 12, Americans were still in shock when Bill Bennett told CNN that we were in “a struggle between good and evil,” that the Congress must declare war on “militant Islam,” and that “overwhelming force” must be used. Bennett cited Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and China as targets for attack. Not, however, Afghanistan, the sanctuary of Osama’s terrorists. How did Bennett know which nations must be smashed before he had any idea who attacked us?

The Wall Street Journal immediately offered up a specific target list, calling for U.S. air strikes on “terrorist camps in Syria, Sudan, Libya, and Algeria, and perhaps even in parts of Egypt.” Yet, not one of Bennett’s six countries, nor one of these five, had anything to do with 9/11.

On Sept. 15, according to Bob Woodward’s Bush at War, “Paul Wolfowitz put forth military arguments to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan.” Why Iraq? Because, Wolfowitz argued in the War Cabinet, while “attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain … Iraq was a brittle oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable.”

On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White House instructing President Bush on how the war on terror must be conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol, and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers’ support, the president was told, he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, “will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”

Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-Chief, nine days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror. Yet, Hezbollah had nothing to do with 9/11. What had Hezbollah done? Hezbollah had humiliated Israel by driving its army out of Lebanon.

President Bush had been warned. He was to exploit the attack of 9/11 to launch a series of wars on Arab regimes, none of which had attacked us. All, however, were enemies of Israel. “Bibi” Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel, like some latter-day Citizen Genet, was ubiquitous on American television, calling for us to crush the “Empire of Terror.” The “Empire,” it turns out, consisted of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, and “the Palestinian enclave.”

Nasty as some of these regimes and groups might be, what had they done to the United States?

The War Party seemed desperate to get a Middle East war going before America had second thoughts. Tom Donnelly of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) called for an immediate invasion of Iraq. “Nor need the attack await the deployment of half a million troops. … [T]he larger challenge will be occupying Iraq after the fighting is over,” he wrote.



Donnelly was echoed by Jonah Goldberg of National Review: “The United States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense.”

Goldberg endorsed “the Ledeen Doctrine” of ex-Pentagon official Michael Ledeen, which Goldberg described thus: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business.” (When the French ambassador in London, at a dinner party, asked why we should risk World War III over some “shitty little country”—meaning Israel—Goldberg’s magazine was not amused.)

Ledeen, however, is less frivolous. In The War Against the Terror Masters, he identifies the exact regimes America must destroy:

First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with the Big Three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. And then we have to come to grips with Saudi Arabia. … Once the tyrants in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been brought down, we will remain engaged. …We have to ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution. … Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.

Rejecting stability as “an unworthy American mission,” Ledeen goes on to define America’s authentic “historic mission”:

Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. … [W]e must destroy them to advance our historic mission.

Passages like this owe more to Leon Trotsky than to Robert Taft and betray a Jacobin streak in neoconservatism that cannot be reconciled with any concept of true conservatism.

To the Weekly Standard, Ledeen’s enemies list was too restrictive. We must not only declare war on terror networks and states that harbor terrorists, said the Standard, we should launch wars on “any group or government inclined to support or sustain others like them in the future.”

Robert Kagan and William Kristol were giddy with excitement at the prospect of Armageddon. The coming war “is going to spread and engulf a number of countries. … It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. … [I]t is possible that the demise of some ‘moderate’ Arab regimes may be just round the corner.”

Norman Podhoretz in Commentary even outdid Kristol’s Standard, rhapsodizing that we should embrace a war of civilizations, as it is George W. Bush’s mission “to fight World War IV—the war against militant Islam.” By his count, the regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ‘“friends” of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority. Bush must reject the “timorous counsels” of the “incorrigibly cautious Colin Powell,” wrote Podhoretz, and “find the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated” Islamic world. As the war against al-Qaeda required that we destroy the Taliban, Podhoretz wrote,

We may willy-nilly find ourselves forced … to topple five or six or seven more tyrannies in the Islamic world (including that other sponsor of terrorism, Yasir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority). I can even [imagine] the turmoil of this war leading to some new species of an imperial mission for America, whose purpose would be to oversee the emergence of successor governments in the region more amenable to reform and modernization than the despotisms now in place. … I can also envisage the establishment of some kind of American protectorate over the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, as we more and more come to wonder why 7,000 princes should go on being permitted to exert so much leverage over us and everyone else.

Podhoretz credits Eliot Cohen with the phrase “World War IV.” Bush was shortly thereafter seen carrying about a gift copy of Cohen’s book that celebrates civilian mastery of the military in times of war, as exhibited by such leaders as Winston Churchill and David Ben Gurion.

A list of the Middle East regimes that Podhoretz, Bennett, Ledeen, Netanyahu, and the Wall Street Journal regard as targets for destruction thus includes Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and “militant Islam.”

Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?

Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.

Indeed, Sharon has been everywhere the echo of his acolytes in America. In February 2003, Sharon told a delegation of Congressmen that, after Saddam’s regime is destroyed, it is of “vital importance” that the United States disarm Iran, Syria, and Libya.

“We have a great interest in shaping the Middle East the day after” the war on Iraq, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the Conference of Major American Jewish Organizations. After U.S. troops enter Baghdad, the United States must generate “political, economic, diplomatic pressure” on Tehran, Mofaz admonished the American Jews.

Are the neoconservatives concerned about a war on Iraq bringing down friendly Arab governments? Not at all. They would welcome it.

“Mubarak is no great shakes,” says Richard Perle of the President of Egypt. “Surely we can do better than Mubarak.” Asked about the possibility that a war on Iraq—which he predicted would be a “cakewalk”—might upend governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, former UN ambassador Ken Adelman told Joshua Micah Marshall of Washington Monthly, “All the better if you ask me.”

On July 10, 2002, Perle invited a former aide to Lyndon LaRouche named Laurent Murawiec to address the Defense Policy Board. In a briefing that startled Henry Kissinger, Murawiec named Saudi Arabia as “the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent” of the United States.

Washington should give Riyadh an ultimatum, he said. Either you Saudis “prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain, including the Saudi intelligence services,” and end all propaganda against Israel, or we invade your country, seize your oil fields, and occupy Mecca.

In closing his PowerPoint presentation, Murawiec offered a “Grand Strategy for the Middle East.” “Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot, Egypt the prize.” Leaked reports of Murawiec’s briefing did not indicate if anyone raised the question of how the Islamic world might respond to U.S. troops tramping around the grounds of the Great Mosque.

What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it.

Washington Times editor at large Arnaud de Borchgrave calls this the “Bush-Sharon Doctrine.” “Washington’s ‘Likudniks,’” he writes, “have been in charge of U.S. policy in the Middle East since Bush was sworn into office.”

The neocons seek American empire, and Sharonites seek hegemony over the Middle East. The two agendas coincide precisely. And though neocons insist that it was Sept. 11 that made the case for war on Iraq and militant Islam, the origins of their war plans go back far before.



“Securing the Realm”

The principal draftsman is Richard Perle, an aide to Sen. Scoop Jackson, who, in 1970, was overheard on a federal wiretap discussing classified information from the National Security Council with the Israeli Embassy. In Jews and American Politics, published in 1974, Stephen D. Isaacs wrote, “Richard Perle and Morris Amitay command a tiny army of Semitophiles on Capitol Hill and direct Jewish power in behalf of Jewish interests.” In 1983, the New York Times reported that Perle had taken substantial payments from an Israeli weapons manufacturer.

In 1996, with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, Perle wrote “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” for Prime Minister Netanyahu. In it, Perle, Feith, and Wurmser urged Bibi to ditch the Oslo Accords of the assassinated Yitzak Rabin and adopt a new aggressive strategy:

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.

In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel’s enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad. Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish “the principle of preemption,” has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States.

In his own 1997 paper, “A Strategy for Israel,” Feith pressed Israel to re-occupy “the areas under Palestinian Authority control,” though “the price in blood would be high.”

Wurmser, as a resident scholar at AEI, drafted joint war plans for Israel and the United States “to fatally strike the centers of radicalism in the Middle East. Israel and the United States should … broaden the conflict to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers of radicalism in the region—the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza. That would establish the recognition that fighting either the United States or Israel is suicidal.”

He urged both nations to be on the lookout for a crisis, for as he wrote, “Crises can be opportunities.” Wurmser published his U.S.-Israeli war plan on Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9/11.

About the Perle-Feith-Wurmser cabal, author Michael Lind writes:

The radical Zionist right to which Perle and Feith belong is small in number but it has become a significant force in Republican policy-making circles. It is a recent phenomenon, dating back to the late 1970s and 1980s, when many formerly Democratic Jewish intellectuals joined the broad Reagan coalition. While many of these hawks speak in public about global crusades for democracy, the chief concern of many such “neo-conservatives” is the power and reputation of Israel.

Right down the smokestack.

Perle today chairs the Defense Policy Board, Feith is an Undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser is special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, John Bolton, who dutifully echoes the Perle-Sharon line. According to the Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz, in late February,

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials … that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards.

On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to use his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime the “aim of American foreign policy” and to use military action because “diplomacy is failing.” Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they would “offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.” Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons had Baghdad on their minds.



The Wolfowitz Doctrine

In 1992, a startling document was leaked from the office of Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. Barton Gellman of the Washington Post called it a “classified blueprint intended to help ‘set the nation’s direction for the next century.’” The Wolfowitz Memo called for a permanent U.S. military presence on six continents to deter all “potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” Containment, the victorious strategy of the Cold War, was to give way to an ambitious new strategy designed to “establish and protect a new order.”

Though the Wolfowitz Memo was denounced and dismissed in 1992, it became American policy in the 33-page National Security Strategy (NSS) issued by President Bush on Sept. 21, 2002. Washington Post reporter Tim Reich describes it as a “watershed in U.S. foreign policy” that “reverses the fundamental principles that have guided successive Presidents for more than 50 years: containment and deterrence.”

Andrew Bacevich, a professor at Boston University, writes of the NSS that he marvels at “its fusion of breathtaking utopianism with barely disguised machtpolitik. It reads as if it were the product not of sober, ostensibly conservative Republicans but of an unlikely collaboration between Woodrow Wilson and the elder Field Marshal von Moltke.”

In confronting America’s adversaries, the paper declares, “We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively.” It warns any nation that seeks to acquire power to rival the United States that it will be courting war with the United States:

[T]he president has no intention of allowing any nation to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago. … Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing or equaling the power of the United States.

America must reconcile herself to an era of “nation-building on a grand scale, and with no exit strategy,” Robert Kagan instructs. But this Pax Americana the neocons envision bids fair to usher us into a time of what Harry Elmer Barnes called “permanent war for permanent peace.”



The Munich Card

As President Bush was warned on Sept. 20, 2001, that he will be indicted for “a decisive surrender” in the war on terror should he fail to attack Iraq, he is also on notice that pressure on Israel is forbidden. For as the neoconservatives have played the anti-Semitic card, they will not hesitate to play the Munich card as well. A year ago, when Bush called on Sharon to pull out of the West Bank, Sharon fired back that he would not let anyone do to Israel what Neville Chamberlain had done to the Czechs. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy immediately backed up Ariel Sharon:

With each passing day, Washington appears to view its principal Middle Eastern ally’s conduct as inconvenient—in much the same way London and Paris came to see Czechoslovakia’s resistance to Hitler’s offers of peace in exchange for Czech lands.

When former U.S. NATO commander Gen. George Jouwlan said the United States may have to impose a peace on Israel and the Palestinians, he, too, faced the charge of appeasement. Wrote Gaffney,

They would, presumably, go beyond Britain and France’s sell-out of an ally at Munich in 1938. The “impose a peace” school is apparently prepared to have us play the role of Hitler’s Wehrmacht as well, seizing and turning over to Yasser Arafat the contemporary Sudetenland: the West Bank and Gaza Strip and perhaps part of Jerusalem as well.

Podhoretz agreed Sharon was right in the substance of what he said but called it politically unwise to use the Munich analogy.

President Bush is on notice: Should he pressure Israel to trade land for peace, the Oslo formula in which his father and Yitzak Rabin believed, he will, as was his father, be denounced as an anti-Semite and a Munich-style appeaser by both Israelis and their neoconservatives allies inside his own Big Tent.

Yet, if Bush cannot deliver Sharon there can be no peace. And if there is no peace in the Mideast there is no security for us, ever—for there will be no end to terror. As most every diplomat and journalist who travels to the region will relate, America’s failure to be even-handed, our failure to rein in Sharon, our failure to condemn Israel’s excesses, and our moral complicity in Israel’s looting of Palestinian lands and denial of their right to self-determination sustains the anti-Americanism in the Islamic world in which terrorists and terrorism breed.

Let us conclude. The Israeli people are America’s friends and have a right to peace and secure borders. We should help them secure these rights. As a nation, we have made a moral commitment, endorsed by half a dozen presidents, which Americans wish to honor, not to permit these people who have suffered much to see their country overrun and destroyed. And we must honor this commitment.

But U.S. and Israeli interests are not identical. They often collide, and when they do, U.S. interests must prevail. Moreover, we do not view the Sharon regime as “America’s best friend.”

Since the time of Ben Gurion, the behavior of the Israeli regime has been Jekyll and Hyde. In the 1950s, its intelligence service, the Mossad, had agents in Egypt blow up U.S. installations to make it appear the work of Cairo, to destroy U.S. relations with the new Nasser government. During the Six Day War, Israel ordered repeated attacks on the undefended USS Liberty that killed 34 American sailors and wounded 171 and included the machine-gunning of life rafts. This massacre was neither investigated nor punished by the U.S. government in an act of national cravenness.

Though we have given Israel $20,000 for every Jewish citizen, Israel refuses to stop building the settlements that are the cause of the Palestinian intifada. Likud has dragged our good name through the mud and blood of Ramallah, ignored Bush’s requests to restrain itself, and sold U.S. weapons technology to China, including the Patriot, the Phoenix air-to-air missile, and the Lavi fighter, which is based on F-16 technology. Only direct U.S. intervention blocked Israel’s sale of our AWACS system.

Israel suborned Jonathan Pollard to loot our secrets and refuses to return the documents, which would establish whether or not they were sold to Moscow. When Clinton tried to broker an agreement at Wye Plantation between Israel and Arafat, Bibi Netanyahu attempted to extort, as his price for signing, release of Pollard, so he could take this treasonous snake back to Israel as a national hero.

Do the Brits, our closest allies, behave like this?

Though we have said repeatedly that we admire much of what this president has done, he will not deserve re-election if he does not jettison the neoconservatives’ agenda of endless wars on the Islamic world that serve only the interests of a country other than the one he was elected to preserve and protect.

March 24, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative


Source




.