America’s War for Global Domination

Editor’s note: The following is the background text of Michel Chossudovsky’s public lecture at the Society for the Defense of  and Human Dignity (GBM), Berlin, 10-11 December, 2003 and Humboldt University, Berlin, 12 December 2003. On Human Rights Day, 10 December 2003, Michel Chossudovsky was awarded The 2003 Human’s Rights Prize of the Society for the Protection of  and Human Dignity (GBM). [details deutsch ] The German Text was published by Junge WeltVortrag von Michel Chossudovsky Neuordnung der Welt Der Krieg der USA um globale Hegemonie (Teil 1)

‘s War for Global Domination

by Michel Chossudovsky | Sabbah Reportwww.sabbah.biz

We are the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history.

The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

The wars on  and Iraq are part of a broader military agenda, which was launched at the end of the Cold War. The ongoing war agenda is a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War and the  led wars on Yugoslavia (1991-2001).

The post Cold War period has also been marked by numerous US covert intelligence operations within the former Soviet Union, which were instrumental in triggering civil wars in several of the former republics including Chechnya (within the Russian Federation), Georgia and Azerbaijan. In the latter, these covert operations were launched with a view to securing strategic control over oil and gas pipeline corridors.

US military and intelligence operations in the post Cold War era were led in close coordination with the „free market reforms” imposed under IMF guidance in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Balkans, which resulted in the destabilization of national economies and the impoverishment of millions of people.

The  sponsored privatization programmes in these countries enabled Western capital to acquire ownership and gain control of a large share of the economy of the former Eastern block countries. This process is also at the basis of the strategic mergers and/or takeovers of the former Soviet oil and gas industry by powerful Western conglomerates, through financial manipulation and corrupt political practices.

In other words, what is at stake in the US led war is the recolonization of a vast region extending from the Balkans into Central Asia.

The deployment of America’s war machine purports to enlarge America’s economic sphere of influence. The U.S. has established a permanent military presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military bases in several of the former Soviet republics on China’s Western frontier. In turn, since 1999, there has been a military buildup in the South China Sea.
War and Globalization go hand in hand. Militarization supports the conquest of new economic frontiers and the worldwide imposition of „free market” system.

The Next Phase of the War

The Bush administration has already identified Syria as the next stage of „the road map to war”. The bombing of presumed ‘terrorist bases’ in Syria by the Israeli Air Force in October was intended to provide a justification for subsequent pre-emptive military interventions.  launched the attacks with the approval of . (See Gordon Thomas, Global Outlook, No. 6, Winter 2004)

This planned extension of the war into Syria has serious implications. It means that Israel becomes a major military actor in the US-led war, as well as an ‘official’ member of the Anglo-American coalition.

The Pentagon views ‘territorial control’ over Syria, which constitutes a land bridge between Israel and occupied Iraq, as ‘strategic’ from a military and economic standpoint. It also constitutes a means of controlling the Iraqi border and curbing the flow of volunteer fighters, who are traveling to Baghdad to join the Iraqi resistance movement.

This enlargement of the theater of war is consistent with Ariel Sharon’s plan to build a ‘Greater Israel’ „on the ruins of Palestinian nationalism”. While Israel seeks to extend its territorial domain towards the Euphrates River, with designated areas of Jewish settlement in the Syrian heartland, Palestinians are imprisoned in Gaza and the West Bank behind an ‘ Wall’.

In the meantime, the US Congress has tightened the economic sanctions on Libya and Iran. As well, Washington is hinting at the need for a ‘regime change’ in Saudi Arabia. Political pressures are building up in Turkey.

So, the war could indeed spill over into a much broader region extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Indian sub-continent and China’s Western frontier.

The „Pre-emptive” Use of Nuclear Weapons

Washington has adopted a first strike „pre-emptive” nuclear policy, which has now received congressional approval.  are no longer a weapon of last resort as during the cold War era.

The US, Britain and Israel have a coordinated nuclear weapons policy. Israeli nuclear warheads are pointed at major cities in the Middle East. The governments of all three countries have stated quite openly, prior to the war on Iraq, that they are prepared to use nuclear weapons „if they are attacked” with so-called „weapons of mass destruction.” Israel is the fifth nuclear power in the World. Its nuclear arsenal is more advanced than that of Britain.

Barely a few weeks following the entry of the US Marines into Baghdad, the US Senate Armed Services Committee gave the green light to the Pentagon to develop a new tactical nuclear bomb, to be used in conventional war theaters, „with a yield [of up to] six times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb”.

Following the Senate decision, the Pentagon redefined the details of its nuclear agenda in a secret meeting with senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex held at Central Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. The meeting was held on August 6, the day the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, 58 years ago.

The new nuclear policy explicitly involves the large defense contractors in decision-making. It is tantamount to the „privatization” of nuclear war. Corporations not only reap multibillion dollar profits from the production of nuclear bombs, they also have a direct voice in setting the agenda regarding the use and deployment of nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon has unleashed a major propaganda and public relations campaign with a view to upholding the use nuclear weapons for the „defense of the American Homeland.”

Fully endorsed by the US Congress, the mini- are considered to be „safe for civilians”.

This new generation of nuclear weapons is slated to be used in the next phase of this war, in „conventional war theatres” (e.g. in the Middle East and Central Asia) alongside conventional weapons.

In December 2003, the US Congress allocated $6.3 billion solely for 2004, to develop this new generation of „defensive” nuclear weapons.

The overall annual defense budget is of the order of 400 billion dollars, roughly of the same order of magnitude as the entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the Russian Federation.

While there is no firm evidence of the use of mini-nukes in the Iraqi and Afghan war theatres, tests conducted by Canada’s Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC), in Afghanistan confirm that recorded toxic radiation was not attributable to ‘heavy metal’ depleted uranium ammunition (DU), but to another unidentified form of uranium contamination:

„some form of uranium weapon had been used (…) The results were astounding: the donors presented concentrations of toxic and radioactive uranium isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater than in the Gulf War veterans tested in 1999.” www.umrc.net

The Planning of War

The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least since the mid-1990s.

A 1995 National Security document of the Clinton administration stated quite clearly that the objective of the war is oil. „to protect the United States’ uninterrupted, secure U.S. access to oil.

In September 2000, a few months before the accession of  to the , the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published its blueprint for global domination under the title: „Rebuilding America’s Defenses.”

The PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank linked to the Defense-Intelligence establishment, the Republican Party and the powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which plays a behind-the-scenes role in the formulation of US foreign policy.

The PNAC’s declared objective is quite simple – to:

„Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars”.

This statement indicates that the US plans to be involved simultaneously in several war theaters in different regions of the World.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President  had commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior to the presidential elections.

The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for „the direct imposition of U.S. „forward bases” throughout Central Asia and the Middle East „with a view to ensuring economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential „rival” or any viable alternative to America’s vision of a ‘free market’ economy” (See Chris Floyd, Bush’s Crusade for , Global Outlook, No. 6, 2003)

The Role of „Massive Casualty Producing Events”

The PNAC blueprint also outlines a consistent framework of war propaganda. One year before 9/11, the PNAC called for „some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor,” which would serve to galvanize US public opinion in support of a war agenda. (See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html )

The PNAC architects seem to have anticipated with cynical accuracy, the use of the September 11 attacks as „a war pretext incident.”

The PNAC’s reference to a „catastrophic and catalyzing event” echoes a similar statement by  to the United Nations Business Council in 1994:

„We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

Similarly, in the words  in his book, The Grand Chessboard:

 „…it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Adviser to President  was one of the key architects of the Al Qaeda network, created by the  at the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan war (1979-1989).

The „catastrophic and catalyzing event” as stated by the PNAC is an integral part of US military-intelligence planning. General Franks, who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003) to the role of a „massive casualty-producing event” to muster support for the imposition of military rule in America. (See  calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html ).

Franks identifies the precise scenario whereby military rule will be established:

„a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event.” (Ibid)

This statement from an individual, who was actively involved in military and intelligence planning at the highest levels, suggests that the „militarisation of our country” is an ongoing operational assumption. It is part of the broader „Washington consensus”. It identifies the Bush administration’s „roadmap” of war and „Homeland Defense.” Needless to say, it is also an integral part of the neoliberal agenda.

The „terrorist massive casualty-producing event” is presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil are intended to facilitate a major shift in US political, social and institutional structures.

General Franks’ statement reflects a consensus within the US Military as to how events ought to unfold. The „war on terrorism” is to provide a justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to „preserving civil liberties.”

Franks’ interview suggests that an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack will be used as a „trigger mechanism” for a military coup d’état in America. The PNAC’s „Pearl Harbor type event” would be used as a justification for declaring a State of emergency, leading to the establishment of a military government.

In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in the US is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy.

War Propaganda

In the wake of the September attacks on the , Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created to the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or „Office of ” as it was labeled by its critics:

„The  said they needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant stories that were false in foreign countries – as an effort to influence public opinion across the world. (Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002.)

And, all of a sudden, the OSI was formally disbanded following political pressures and „troublesome” media stories that „its purpose was to deliberately lie to advance American interests.” (Air Force Magazine, January 2003, italics added) „Rumsfeld backed off and said this is embarrassing.” (Adubato, op. cit. italics added) Yet despite this apparent about-turn, the Pentagon’s Orwellian disinformation campaign remains functionally intact: „[T]he secretary of defense is not being particularly candid here. Disinformation in military propaganda is part of war.”(Ibid)

Rumsfeld later confirmed in a press interview that while the OSI no longer exists in name, the „Office’s intended functions are being carried out”. (Quoted in Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Secrecy News, http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/11/112702.html , Rumsfeld’s press interview can be consulted at:http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/11/dod111802.html ).

A number of government agencies and intelligence units –with links to the Pentagon-remain actively involved in various components of the propaganda campaign. Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as „humanitarian interventions” geared towards „regime change” and „the restoration of democracy”. Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as „peace-keeping”. The derogation of civil liberties –in the context of the so-called „anti-terrorist legislation”– is portrayed as a means to providing „domestic security” and upholding civil liberties.

The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush’s National Security Doctrine

Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive „defensive war” doctrine and the „war on terrorism” against Al Qaeda constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon’s propaganda campaign.

The objective is to present „preemptive military action” –meaning war as an act of „self-defense” against two categories of enemies, „rogue States” and „Islamic terrorists”:

„The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. …America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.

…Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction (…)

The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, (…). To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.”12 (National Security Strategy, White House, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html )

To justify pre-emptive military actions, the National Security Doctrine requires the „fabrication” of a terrorist threat, –ie. „an outside enemy.” It also needs to link these terrorist threats to „State sponsorship” by the so-called „rogue states.”

But it also means that the various „massive casualty-producing events” allegedly by Al Qaeda (the fabricated enemy) are part of the National Security agenda.

In the months building up to the invasion of Iraq, covert ‘dirty tricks’ operations were launched to produce misleading intelligence pertaining to both Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Al Qaeda, which was then fed into the news chain.

In the wake of the war, while the WMD threat has been toned down, Al Qaeda threats to ‘the Homeland’ continue to be repeated ad nauseam in official statements, commented on network TV and pasted on a daily basis across the news tabloids.

And underlying these manipulated realties, „Osama bin Laden” terrorist occurrences are being upheld as a justification for the next phase of this war. The latter hinges in a very direct way:

1) the effectiveness of the Pentagon-CIA propaganda campaign, which is fed into the news chain.
2) The actual occurrence of „massive casualty producing events” as outlined in the PNAC

What this means is that actual („massive casualty producing”) terrorist events are part and parcel of military planning.

Actual Terrorist Attacks

Ads

In other words, to be „effective” the fear and disinformation campaign cannot solely rely on unsubstantiated „warnings” of future attacks, it also requires „real” terrorist occurrences or „incidents”, which provide credibility to the Washington’s war plans. These terrorist events are used to justify the implementation of „emergency measures” as well as „retaliatory military actions”. They are required, in the present context, to create the illusion of „an outside enemy” that is threatening the American Homeland.

The triggering of „war pretext incidents” is part of the Pentagon’s assumptions. In fact it is an integral part of US military history.(See Richard Sanders, War Pretext Incidents, How to Start a War, Global Outlook, published in two parts, Issues 2 and 3, 2002-2003).

In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled „Operation Northwoods”, to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to justify the invasion of Cuba:

„We could blow up a U.S. ship in  and blame Cuba,” „We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington” „casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.” (See the declassified Top Secret 1962 document titled „Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba”16 (See Operation Northwoods at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html ).

There is no evidence that the Pentagon or the CIA played a direct role in recent terrorist attacks, including those in Indonesia (2002), India (2001), Turkey (2003) and Saudi Arabia (2003).

According to the reports, the attacks were undertaken by organizations (or cells of these organizations), which operate quite independently, with a certain degree of autonomy. This independence is in the very nature of a covert intelligence operation. The «intelligence asset» is not in direct contact with its covert sponsors. It is not necessarily cognizant of the role it plays on behalf of its intelligence sponsors.

The fundamental question is who is behind them? Through what sources are they being financed? What is the underlying network of ties?

For instance, in the case of the 2002 Bali bomb attack, the alleged terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiah had links to Indonesia’s military intelligence (BIN), which in turn has links to the CIA and Australian intelligence.

The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament –which contributed to pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war– were allegedly conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba („Army of the Pure”) and Jaish-e-Muhammad („Army of Mohammed”), both of which according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) are supported by Pakistan’s ISI. (Council on Foreign Relations at http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html , Washington 2002).

What the CFR fails to acknowledge is the crucial relationship between the ISI and the CIA and the fact that the ISI continues to support Lashkar, Jaish and the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen (JKHM), while also collaborating with the CIA. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Fabricating an Enemy, March 2003,http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301B.html )

A 2002 classified outbrief drafted to guide the Pentagon „calls for the creation of a so-called ‘Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations Group’  (P2OG), to launch secret operations aimed at „stimulating reactions” among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction – that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to ‘quick-response’ attacks by U.S. forces.” (William Arkin, The Secret War, The Los Angeles Times, 27 October 2002)

The P2OG initiative is nothing new. It essentially extends an existing apparatus of covert operations. Amply documented, the CIA has supported terrorist groups since the Cold War era. This  „prodding of terrorist cells” under covert intelligence operations often requires the infiltration and training of the radical groups linked to Al Qaeda.

In this regard, covert support by the US military and intelligence apparatus has been channeled to various Islamic terrorist organizations through a complex network of intermediaries and intelligence proxies. In the course of the 1990s, agencies of the US government have collaborated with Al Qaeda in a number of covert operations, as confirmed by a 1997 report of the Republican Party Committee of the US Congress. (See US Congress, 16 January 1997, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html ). In fact during the war in  US weapons inspectors were working with Al Qaeda operatives, bringing in large amounts of weapons for the Bosnian Muslim Army.

In other words, the Clinton Administration was „harboring terrorists”. Moreover, official statements and intelligence reports confirm links between US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda operatives, as occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and Macedonia (2001).(See See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalisation, The Truth behind September 11, Global Outlook, 2003, Chapter 3, http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html )

The Bush Administration and NATO had links to Al Qaeda in Macedonia. And this happened barely a few weeks before September 11, 2001, Senior U.S. military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on contract to the Pentagon, were fighting alongside Mujahideen in the terrorist attacks on the Macedonian Security forces. This is documented by the Macedonian press and statements made by the Macedonian authorities. (See Michel Chossudovsky, op cit). The U.S. government and the Islamic Militant Network were working hand in glove in supporting and financing the National Liberation Army (NLA), which was involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia.

In other words, the US military was collaborating directly with Al Qaeda barely a few weeks before 9/11.

Al Qaeda and Pakistan’s  (ISI)

It is indeed revealing that in virtually all post 9/11 terrorist occurrences, the terrorist organization is reported (by the media and in official statements) as having „ties to Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda”. This in itself is a crucial piece of information. Of course, the fact that Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA is neither mentioned in the press reports nor is it considered relevant to an understanding of these terrorist occurrences.

The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to Pakistan’s military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have links to Pakistan’s ISI, without identifying the nature of these links. Needless to say, this information is crucial in identifying the sponsors of these terrorist attacks. In other words, the ISI is said to support these terrorist organizations, while at same time maintaining close ties to the CIA.

September 11

While  –without supporting evidence-pointed in his February 2003 UN address to „the sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network”, official documents, press and intelligence reports confirm that successive US administrations have supported and abetted the Islamic militant network. This relationship is an established fact, corroborated by numerous studies, acknowledged by Washington’s mainstream think tanks.

Both Colin Powell and his Deputy , who in the months leading up to the war casually accused Baghdad and other foreign governments of „harboring” Al Qaeda, played a direct role, at different points in their careers, in supporting terrorist organizations.

Both men were implicated –operating behind the scenes– in the Irangate Contra scandal during the Reagan Administration, which involved the illegal sale of weapons to Iran to finance the Nicaraguan Contra paramilitary army and the . (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, Expose the Links between Al Qaeda and the Bush Administration,http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html )

Moreover, both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell played a role in the 9/11 cover-up. The investigations and research conducted in the last two years, including official documents, testimonies and intelligence reports, indicate that September 11 was an carefully planned intelligence operation, rather than a act conducted by a terrorist organization. (For further details, see Centre for Research on Globalization, 24 Key articles, September 2003)

The FBI confirmed in a report made public late September 2001 the role of Pakistan’s Military Intelligence. According to the report, the alleged 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from sources out of Pakistan. A subsequent intelligence report confirmed that the then head of the ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad had transferred money to Mohammed Atta. (See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization, op.cit.)

Moreover, press reports and official statements confirm that the head of the ISI, was an official visit to the US from the 4th to 13th of September 2001. In other words, the head of Pakistan’s ISI, who allegedly transferred money to the terrorists also had a close personal relationship with a number of senior Bush Administration officials, including Colin Powell, CIA Director  and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage, whom he met in the course of his visit to Washington. (Ibid)

The Antiwar Movement

A cohesive antiwar movement cannot be based solely on the mobilization of antiwar sentiment. It must ultimately unseat the war criminals and question their right to rule.

A necessary condition for bringing down the rulers is to weaken and eventually dismantle their propaganda campaign.

The momentum of the large anti-war rallies in the US, the  and around the world, should lay the foundations of a permanent network composed of tens of thousands of local level anti-war committees in neighborhoods, work places, parishes, schools, universities, etc. It is ultimately through this network that the legitimacy of those who „rule in our name” will be challenged.

To shunt the Bush Administration’s war plans and disable its propaganda machine, we must reach out to our fellow citizens across the land, in the US, Europe and around the world, to the millions of ordinary people who have been misled on the causes and consequences of this war.

This also implies fully uncovering the  behind the „war on terrorism” and revealing the political complicity of the Bush administration in the events of 9/11.

September 11 is a hoax. It’s the biggest lie in US history.

Needless to say, the use of „massive casualty producing events” as pretext to wage war is a criminal act. In the words of Andreas van Buelow, former German Minister of Technology and author of The CIA and September 11:

„If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars.”

Yet it is not sufficient to remove George W. Bush or Tony Blair, who are mere puppets. We must also address the role of the global banks, corporations and financial institutions, which indelibly stand behind the military and political actors.

Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than the State Department, the White House and the US Congress) is calling the shots on US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Texas oil giants, the defense contractors, Wall Street and the powerful media giants, operating discreetly behind the scenes, are pulling the strings. If politicians become a source of major embarrassment, they can themselves be discredited by the media, discarded and a new team of political puppets can be brought to office.

Criminalization of the State

The „Criminalization of the State”, is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide „who are the criminals”, when in fact they are criminals.

In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda and there are war criminals in both parties. Both parties are complicit in the 9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world domination. All the evidence points to what is best described as „the criminalisation of the State”, which includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan corridors of the US Congress. .

Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military, the US Congress and the Judiciary have been granted the authority not only to commit criminal acts, but also to designate those in the antiwar movement who are opposed to these criminal acts as „enemies of the State.”

More generally, the US military and security apparatus endorses and supports dominant economic and financial interests – i.e. the build-up, as well as the exercise, of military might enforces „free trade”. The Pentagon is an arm of Wall Street; NATO coordinates its military operations with the World Bank and the IMF’s policy interventions, and vice versa. Consistently, the security and defense bodies of the Western military alliance, together with the various civilian governmental and intergovernmental bureaucracies (e.g. IMF, World Bank, WTO) share a common understanding, ideological consensus and commitment to the New World Order.

To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems like WMDs) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled. More generally we must reverse the „free market” reforms, dismantle the institutions of global capitalism and disarm financial markets.
The struggle must be broad-based and democratic encompassing all sectors of society at all levels, in all countries, uniting in a major thrust: workers, farmers, independent producers, small businesses, professionals, artists, civil servants, members of the clergy, students and intellectuals.

The antiwar and anti-globalisation movements must be integrated into a single worldwide movement. People must be united across sectors, „single issue” groups must join hands in a common and collective understanding on how the New World Order destroys and impoverishes.

The globalization of this struggle is fundamental, requiring a degree of solidarity and internationalism unprecedented in world history. This global economic system feeds on social divisiveness between and within countries. Unity of purpose and worldwide coordination among diverse groups and social movements is crucial. A major thrust is required which brings together social movements in all major regions of the world in a common pursuit and commitment to the elimination of poverty and a lasting world peace.


The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original CRG articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text and title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca .  The active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article and the author’s copyright note must be clearly displayed. (For articles from other news sources, check with the original copyright holder, where applicable.) For publication of CRG articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: editor@globalresearch.ca .
© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky 2003  For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement.
www.globalresearch.ca 15 December 2003
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO312A.html

What To Expect, When You’re Expecting War

stop war

By 

It looks like war is is coming upon us once again. Aside from the recent eruptions in the Far East and, I say this because of three basic observations:

  1. The financial problems of the major governments are not going away; rather, they are getting worse. That leaves the operators of these systems with a choice: They can either find a foreign devil to blame, or they can take the blame themselves.
  2. The people of the modern world have no real purpose in their lives. They live according to scripts promulgated by others and get all their thrills vicariously.  will fill a huge gap in their lives by giving them a ‘noble’ cause.
  3. Big media in the West is the obedient hand-maiden of the state. This has been true for a long time (look up Operation Mockingbird), but never so much as now. Real news is available on the Internet, but the large mass of people still get their news from controlled sources.

These last two points suggest that the rulers can go to war with majority support, provided that the events are scripted well. And since big media is under their control, they can create and insert whatever narratives they like.

And perhaps I should add a fourth point: Lots of people make big money on war… people who are in the habit of employing politicians to secure and increase their profits.

It certainly looks like motive, means and opportunity are all coming together.

To cement the point that it is easy for rulers to stir up War Fever, let me give you a few quotes from people who have famously done so in the past:

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
~ Hermann Göring

If there were no , we would have to invent them.
~ Hermann Göring

The cult of xenophobia is the cheapest and surest method of obtaining from the masses the ignorant and savage patriotism, which puts the blame for every political folly or social misfortune upon the foreigner.
~ Mao Zedong

People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be.
~ Vladimir Lenin

WHEN IT COMES

When war hits big, we will be confronted with the same old stupidity, the same old death, dismemberment, pain and suffering, and the same old mind-bending nationalistic crap. Bloodlust and will storm into vogue, under the flag of righteous indignation. All that is required are a few horrible video streams and some emotional words. The talking heads will fall in line with the state’s propaganda, as they always do.

These things are exciting, after all, and that matters in a world where almost everyone lives mundane lives.

The people who do the loudest cheering, of course, will be insulated from actual bleeding and dying.

There is a very powerful psychological trick behind these things – a trick that makes people feel potent and righteous:

By making the enemy purely evil, we make ourselves purely good.

Reason, of course, would kill the trick. That’s why reason dies so famously at such times. The bottom line is this:

Because there is no moral clarity in normal life, people run to it when it becomes available during times of war.

This is what we can expect, if and when war really cranks up. And it will not be pretty.

WHAT SHALL WE DO?

The forces behind war are huge, and they have a long pedigree. You are not going to stop them. But if you want to help yourself and others, try some of these things:

  • Opt out of the main culture and start building your own, new culture. Turn off the TV and start talking about other things. Let people think you’re weird.
  • Start doing business differently. Separate from the rigged system. We already have the tools we need; we need only to start using them.
  • Be different. Let people see that you are different. Our way is a better way. Stop hiding and start living.
  • Spend your time with others who are also different.
  • Stay away from politics in all its forms.
  • Be polite, but don’t try to convert people who are in the grip of War Fever. Let those whose eyes crack open come to you.
  • Stay ready to adapt in any way necessary. I don’t really expect the big weapons to come out, but if they appear, do not delay – act and keep acting to survive. Do whatever it takes, promptly.
  • Remember that wars can spread wildly. You may have to use violence at some point, if you wish to survive. Start getting used to the idea. Yeah, it’s ugly as hell, but it’s also among the clearest lessons of history.

War appears to be coming. Do something about it now.

Paul Rosenberg [p.rosenberg@cryptohippie.com] is the author of Free-Man’s Perspective, a monthly dispatch on virtue, courage, science, art, history, philosophy and personal growth.

(This is, of course, why we should never give politicians the ability to start wars. But, that is another subject, for another day.)

WAR FEVER

The perversions of war affect everyone in a culture, to whatever extent they are in that culture. Willful blindness, chanted slogans, the glorification of generals and the lauding of soldiers (who are among the worst victims)… all are common in the time of war. Reason is quickly pushed away and the basest „us versus them” mentality rules.

The sterile existence of the ‘good citizen’ falls immediately away once the excitement of war appears. Here, to illustrate, is a passage from War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, by :

The invasion transformed the country. Reality was replaced with a wild and self-serving fiction… All that was noble and good was embodied, like some unique gene, in the Argentine people. Stories of the heroism of the Argentine military – whose singular recent accomplishment was the savage repression of its own people – filled the airwaves.

Friends of mine, who a few days earlier had excoriated the , now bragged about the prowess of Argentine commanders. One general, during a dispute with Chile, flew his helicopter over the Chilean border to piss on Chilean soil. This story was repeated with evident pride. Cars raced through the city streets honking horns and waving the blue and white Argentine flag. Argentines burst into the national anthem and ecstatic cheering at sporting events.

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2012/09/20/what-to-expect-when-youre-expecting-war/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SabbahsBlog+%28Sabbah+Report%29

West Attempts to Trigger Clash of Civilizations

Al Qaeda & Islamophobic bigots working in tandem exploiting fear and ignorance. 
by Tony Cartalucci 

September 19, 2012 – In France where people are sent to jail for “Holocaust denial,” considered by law a religious hate crime, it seems strange then that well timed, raunchy cartoons designed solely to insult and inflame hate against and amongst Muslims worldwide would be defended vigorously by French politicians who claim, according to the Christian Science Monitor, that “freedom of the press should not be infringed.”

With Neo-Conservative warmongers behind a recent inflammatory film titled, “The Innocence of Muslims,” and their counterparts amongst radical sectarian extremists leading violent protests across the Middle East and North Africa, it would almost seem as if the publication of insulting cartoons by a French paper, “Charlie Hebdo,” was part of a grander strategy to create a manufactured conflict between Islam and the West, setting the stage for more overt military operations to take over faltering covert operations in Syria and beyond.  

France (and the West) Are Playing Both Sides 

It is a fact that France itself has provided state sponsorship of terrorism from Libya to Syria, arming, funding, and politically backing the very groups taking to the streets, burning Western consulates, and killing bystanders, diplomats, and security forces alike. France had armedtrained, funded, and provided air support for the UN-listed terrorist outfit, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) last year in Libya, in their bid to overthrow the government of Muammar Qaddafi.

Image: Libyan Mahdi al-Harati of the US State DepartmentUnited Nations, and the UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf)-listed terrorist organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), addressing fellow terrorists in Syria. Harati is now commanding a Libyan brigade operating inside of Syria attempting to destroy the Syrian government and subjugate the Syrian population. Traditionally, this is known as “foreign invasion.” France is one of a handful of nations currently leading state-sponsorship of terrorist groups like LIFG in Syria. 

….

LIFG had merged officially with Al Qaeda, according to a US Army West Point Combating Terrorism Center report in 2007, long before the French knowingly aided and abetted these terrorists in their bid to overthrow and overrun Libya. Currently, the government of France is funding and arming these very same terrorists, who promptly transferred weapons, cash, and fighters to Syria to begin terror operations there.

The report titled, “Al-Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighters in Iraq” stated specifically: 

The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to Iraq may be linked the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s (LIFG) increasingly cooperative relationship with al‐Qa’ida, which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al‐Qa’ida on November 3, 2007. (page 9, .pdf)

France had recently announced its intentions to overtly arm these terror groups operating in Syria, now exposed by Human Rights Watch as carrying out systematic and widespread atrocities against the Syrian population.

The Hindu, in their article, “France to fund opposition in Syria,” reported:  

“Reuters quoted a “diplomatic source” as saying France had started supporting parts of Syria that are apparently being controlled by the armed opposition. More alarmingly, the report pointed out that Paris was considering supplying heavy artillery to anti-government fighters — a move that would harden the possibility of a full-blown civil war in the country.”

Now France, through its media, and the complicity of its politicians’ tacit support, is providing their new terrorist allies with something else – a causus belli for confrontation with the West to reinsert in the public’s mind the adversarial plot device needed to introduce more direct military intervention where the covert support of listed-terrorist groups has now seemingly failed. 

The Lie We Are Expected to Believe 

What we are now expected to believe is that France, the US, UK, and other nations were benevolently, and unwittingly helping these groups into power, only to be betrayed by extremists.

In reality, the nature of these militant groups was known years in advance, these groups specifically chosen to lead the violent subversion of Western targets across the Arab World – with the possibility of sectarian genocide and significant blowback acknowledged as an acceptable risk.

In 2007, an article by Seymour Hersh published in the New Yorker titled, “The Redirection” admitted that:  

“To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.” –The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)

Hersh’s report would also include:  

“the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations.” –The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)

Clearly the West, including the complicit regimes of Nicolas Sarkozy and now François Hollande, knowingly funded terrorists. Hersh’s report admits that all parties involved even in 2007 knew full well the potential dangers involved in funding terrorist groups but believed these forces could be controlled: 

“…[Saudi Arabia’s] Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.” –The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)

For the West to feign that evidence Al Qaeda is now overrunning the Middle East is somehow an unintended consequence, when officials in 2007 were on record already implementing such a policy is indeed a bold lie. To help sell that lie, the West is calling on its Neo-Conservative factions, and in particular, dusting off their Islamophobia brigades led by the likes of Daniel Pipes, a member of the Bush administration, a Project for a New American Century (PNAC) signatory, and a chief proponent for war with Syria and Iran, as well as lesser demagogues such as Robert Spencer, Pamella Geller, and David Horowitz.

The creation of a sectarian extremist front to undermine and destroy the governments of Syria and Iran began under Bush in 2007 – Syria and Iran being the specific targets Neo-Cons like Pipes have ceaselessly advocated war with. That Pipes and his compatriots are now claiming the rise of this terrorist front they themselves helped create  is somehow the result of a “pro-Islam Obama” is immense propaganda designed for the most impressionable minds. 

The Plan: Flip the Script (Again) 

In reality, Obama provided left-cover for a singular corporate-financier driven agenda, decided upon decades ago, and part of the reoccurring patterns and themes that define all empires past and present

It appears that the public is becoming increasingly aware that the US has just handed the nation of Libya over to sectarian extremists and is backing brigades of these same terrorists, now operating in Syria. The operation in Syria seems to have reached a stalemate, with the further arming and backing of increasingly visible terrorist forces a politically untenable option.

It appears that the alternative plan is to flip the script once more, turning Al Qaeda – who began as celebrated freedom fighters battling Soviets in the mountains of Afghanistan, to reviled terrorists waging a decade of war on America in Iraq and Afghanistan, to freedom fighters seeking to oust Qaddafi and President Bashar al-Assad, to once again back to reviled, embassy attacking, ambassador-killing thugs.

Seemingly fully committed to tipping off a “clash of civilizations,” the ground is being prepared for false flag attacks and preparing public opinion for more direct military intervention in places like Syria and Iran. The failures of the last four years of corporate-financier driven policy is being compartmentalized around Obama and will be flushed with his presidency either in 2012, or 2016 with the hopes that the agenda itself will survive and carry on.

An Obama win in 2012 would allow the West to continue funding terrorists more openly worldwide against the governments of Syria, Iran, and even Russia and China – blaming it all on “Pro-Islam Obama.” A Romney victory would allow more aggressive, direct military intervention. Either way, the nations of Syria, Iran, Russia, and China will continue to find themselves in the firing line of both covert and overt foreign military aggression. 

The overall agenda is global corporate-financier hegemony, the destruction of the nation-state, and the primacy of Wall Street-London dictated “international law” for an “international order” corporate-financier think-tank policy maker Robert Kagan concedes ”serves the needs of the United States and its allies, which constructed it.” 

By recognizing the singular agenda front-men like Bush, Obama, and Romney cover for, we can expose the corporate-financier special interests truly dictating Western policy. By understanding that it is corporate-financier interests, not politicians, that drive these nefarious, overarching agendas, we can formulate solutions based upon undermining and replacing their power and influence, rather than becoming absorbed in short-sighted political battles that ultimately change only the front-men, not the agenda itself.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ro/2012/09/west-attempts-to-trigger-clash-of.html