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

„Fictitious Enemies” and „Combat Scenarios”: The Pentagon and NATO Rehearse for War against Russia?

Last month was a busy one for U.S.-NATO military exercises in the Baltic Sea. Three major multinational training exercises, including naval maneuvers, amphibious landings and preparation for deployment to Afghanistan, occurred in the region in June, in one case overlapping.

From June 10-22 the U.S. Seventh Army‘s Joint Multinational Training Command (JMTC), based in Grafenwöhr, Germany, conducted this year’s Saber Strike, the largest multinational military exercise in the area. Approximately 2,000 troops from seven NATO nations – the U.S., Britain, France, Canada, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – participated in training to „engage the enemy, as they overcome challenges in interoperability, ” according to the JMTC’s account of the drills in Estonia and Latvia.

The former Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are the rotating sites for Saber Strike exercises and „share resources and capabilities to meet the training requirements of organic units and elements, who may deploy in support of contingency operations in Afghanistan. ”

JMTC’s lead exercise planner, Tony Bonarti, said of the training: “In pursuing operational cohesiveness, these nations expect to achieve vast improvements in their respective defense and host-nation governments that allow them to be prepared to address both national and international crisis events.”

Live-fire and field training exercises were conducted at the Ādaži Training Area in Latvia and other events were held at facilities in Estonia. The scenario employed for the live-fire exercise was „defending a Forward Operating Base.” A U.S. Army Europe website report of a war game simulation held at the Tapa Training facility said: „Working cooperatively with allied partners, the Estonian forces are exercising a combat action scenario in a fictitious country that is undergoing civil unrest and facing an invasion by neighboring foreign forces sympathetic to the civil unrest.”

During an exercise in Estonia, a local brigade was joined by multinational forces from several NATO and NATO partner nations. The Ämari Air Base in Estonia, recently upgraded to accommodate NATO warplanes, hosted airmen from the Michigan Air National Guard who operated fighter and aerial refueling aircraft.

American units participating in the war games were personnel from the 21st Theater Sustainment Command, the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, the Pennsylvania Army National Guard, the Michigan Air Guard and the 4th Marine Division as well as a Joint Terminal Air Controller (in charge of directing air combat operations) team from the Washington Air Guard.

During Saber Strike 2012 the website of the JMTC, the only U.S. Army training command that regularly trains U.S. and multinational forces jointly, disclosed that its Joint Multinational Simulation Center conducts approximately 40 NATO exercises annually.

From June 1-16 the U.S.-led annual Baltic Operations (BALTOPS), the largest multinational maritime exercise held in the Baltic Sea, occurred in the territorial waters of Estonia, Lithuania, Germany and Poland. Thirty warships, as many aircraft and an estimated 1,500 marines and sailors from the U.S., Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia and Sweden participated.

For the first time in the exercise’s 40-year history a major amphibious landing operation was conducted in this year’s host nation, Lithuania (in Palanga). It involved the U.S. Marine Corps (including its Black Sea Rotational Force 12), Lithuanian Special Operations Force troops, personnel from Lithuania’s Iron Wolf Motorised Infantry Brigade, the USS Normandy guided missile cruiser, two B-52 strategic bombers, two German Pa 200 Tornado fighter jets, two Lithuanian Mi-8 helicopters, a joint battalion of the Estonian-Latvian- Lithuanian Baltic Naval Squadron (BALTRON), a Dutch diving team and two Polish Lublin class amphibious warfare ships.

The scenario used for the exercise was described as a crisis in a fictitious nation named Arcadia which „affects the entire region of the Blue Sea.” Acting on a United Nations Security Council mandate, international forces are deployed to the imaginary (or only slightly disguised) Blue Sea region which enforce an arms embargo, a blockade, a stabilization operation in Arcadia and „assistance in counter-terrorism actions.”

Though separated from the Baltic Sea by Lithuania, Belarus could well be the scenario’s Arcadia.

An amphibious landing operation was also held in Estonia on the coast of Paldiski. Estonian Defense Forces Chief of Staff Peeter Hoppe said before the event that „Paldiski’s southern harbor will have a pre-positioning exercise, where a large array of various allied military vehicles will be brought ashore.”

The exercise was observed and led by the U.S. Marine Corps’ Lieutenant General Richard Tryon, Lieutenant General Frank Panter, Jr., Brigadier General Charles G. Chiarotti and Brigadier General Roger Machut as well as Britain’s Rear Admiral Russell Harding.

Estonian Public Broadcasting published a report on June 4 which said of the exercise that „The aim is to practice bringing an over 1,000-strong battalion battle group to Estonia and readying it for combat.”

Estonia’s Hoppe further spoke specifically on his nation’s armed forces working with U.S. Marines:

„They will learn survival skills from us, as we have a special climate, wetland landscape, which cannot be found everywhere. In return, we will learn from them patrolling, an ability that we do have, but which they are extremely skilled at.”

„The common denominator is [the] receiving of allies, cooperation between units, combined effort of civilian authorities and [the] private sector. All this strengthens Baltic cooperation with America and [other] allies. Naturally it also strengthens regional partnership in the northern region of the Baltic Sea and allows cooperation procedures to be tested.”

The integrated U.S. Navy and Marine Corps Expeditionary Strike Group Two website stated this year’s BALTOPS was „designed to promote regional cooperation and foster multinational interoperability to train for joint combat of regional and transnational threats.”

Vice Admiral Frank Pandolfe, commander of the U.S. 6th Fleet and of Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO („a rapidly deployable Maritime Headquarters to plan, command and control maritime operations including if necessary a Maritime Expanded Task Force for larger scale operations”) , stated:

“BALTOPS has one common goal – to improve maritime security in the Baltic Sea through increased interoperability and collaboration among regional allies.

“As in past years, our sailors and Marines will be working side-by-side with their colleagues from partner nations, both on land and at sea, becoming familiar with each other’s military operating procedures and practices. That partnership – that collaboration – leads to increased understanding and increased interoperability.”

On June 28 the Baltic Host 12 NATO Host Nation Support exercise began simultaneously in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania with the involvement of military personnel from Poland, Germany, the Netherlands, U.S. European Command and Naval Striking and Support Force NATO.

The fourth annual Baltic Host exercise is providing the U.S. and NATO the opportunity to increase military interoperability with the armed forces of the three Baltic nations and to prepare those nations for hosting NATO forces for assorted missions, including armed conflicts. That is, war. War close to home is the most likely prospect.

This year’s exercise will prepare for a NATO Response Force exercise codenamed Steadfast Jazz to be conducted in 2013.

The Baltic Sea region is an expanding theater for Pentagon and NATO operations. From regular ground, air and sea exercises to the training of multinational forces for deployment to Afghanistan and the beginning of the Northern Distribution Network to move supplies and equipment to that nation. From the eight-year-old NATO Baltic air patrol to the opening of a NATO cyber warfare center of excellence in Estonia and the upgrading of air bases in Estonia and Lithuania. From the deployment of Patriot Advanced Capability-3 interceptor missiles to Poland two years ago to the scheduled stationing of Standard Missile-3 interceptors there in 2018.

USS Normandy, which participated in this year’s BALTOPS, is equipped to fire Standard Missile-3s, and may well join other American guided missile cruisers and destroyers in the Baltic Sea as part of the U.S.’s global missile interception system.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31742

The Globalization of War: The „Military Roadmap” to World War III

December 2011

INTRODUCTION

[scroll down for Reader’s Table of Contents]

The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest.

The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.

The concept of the “Long War” has characterized US military doctrine since the end of World War II. The broader objective of global military dominance in support of an imperial project was first formulated under the Truman administration in the late 1940s at the outset of the Cold War.

In September 1990, some five weeks after Saddam Hussein’s Iraq invaded Kuwait, US President and Commander in Chief George Herbert Walker Bushdelivered a historical address to a joint session of the US Congress and the Senate in which he proclaimed a New World Order emerging from the rubble of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union.

Bush Senior had envisaged a world of „peaceful international co-operation”, one which was no longer locked into the confrontation between competing super powers, under the shadow of the doctrine of  „Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD) which had characterized the Cold War era.

George H Walker Bush addressed a Joint Session
of the US Congress and the Senate, September 1990

Bush declared emphatically at the outset of what became known as „the post-Cold War era” that:

“a new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times… a new world order can emerge: A new era freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony.”

Of course, speeches by American presidents are often occasions for cynical platitudes and contradictions that should not be taken at face value. After all, President Bush was holding forth on international law and justice only months after his country had invaded Panama in December 1989 causing the deaths of several thousand citizens – committing crimes comparable to what Saddam Hussein would be accused of and supposedly held to account for. Also in 1991, the US and its NATO allies went on to unleash, under a “humanitarian” mantle, a protracted war against Yugoslavia, leading to the destruction, fragmentation and impoverishment of an entire country.

Nevertheless, it is instructive to use Bush Senior’s slanted vision of a “New World Order” as a reference point for how dramatically the world has changed in the intervening 20 years of the so-called post-Cold War era, and in particular how unilaterally degenerate the contemporary international conduct of the US has become under the Clinton, G. W. Bush Junior and Obama administrations.

Bush Senior’s „promise” of world peace has opened up, in the wake of the Cold War, an age of continuous warfare accompanied by a process of economic dislocation, social devastation and environmental degradation.

In a bitter irony, this concept of peaceful international co-operation and partnership was used as a pretext to unleash The Gulf War, which consisted in  „defending the sovereignty” of Kuwait and “upholding international law” following the Iraqi 1990 invasion.

Global Warfare

We are dealing with a global military agenda, namely “Global Warfare”. Far from a world of peaceful cooperation, we are living in a dystopian world of permanent wars – wars that are being waged in flagrant contravention of international law and against public opinion and interest.

Far from a “new era more secure in the quest for peace” we may see a world more akin to George Orwell’s 1984, dominated by perpetual conflict, insecurity, authoritarian surveillance, doublethink and public mind control.

A problem for many citizens is that “doublethink and mind control” have become so deeply embedded and disseminated by the mass media, including the so-called quality free press, such as The New York Times and The Guardian.

The Post 9/11 Era: America’s Doctrine of Pre-emptive Warfare

Allegedly sponsored by Al Qaeda, the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon played a central role in molding public opinion.  One of the main objectives of war propaganda is to „fabricate an enemy”. The „outside enemy” personified by Osama bin Laden is „threatening America”.

Pre-emptive war directed against „Islamic terrorists” is required to defend the Homeland. Realities are turned upside down: America is under attack.

In the wake of 9/11, the creation of this „outside enemy” served to obfuscate the real economic and strategic objectives behind the American-led wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. Waged on the grounds of self-defense, the pre-emptive war is upheld as a „just war” with a humanitarian mandate.

„The Outside Enemy” Osama bin Laden, portrayed by the mainstream
media

From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in the early 1980s, the US intelligence apparatus has supported the formation of the „Islamic brigades”. Propaganda purports to erase the history of Al Qaeda, drown the truth and „kill the evidence” on how this „outside enemy” was fabricated and transformed into „Enemy Number One”.

The US intelligence apparatus has created it own terrorist organizations. And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist warnings concerning the terrorist organizations which it has itself created. Meanwhile, a cohesive multibillion dollar counterterrorism program „to go after” these terrorist organizations has been put in place.

Instead of “war” or “state terrorism”, we are told of “humanitarian intervention” directed against „terrorists”.

Instead of “offence”, we are told of “defense” or “protection”.

Instead of “mass murder” we are told of “collateral damage”.

A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. The perpetrators of war are presented as the victims. Public opinion is misled: “We must fight against evil in all its forms as a means to preserving the Western way of life.”

Breaking the „Big Lie” which presents war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.

Spawning Militarism: „War is Normal”

In truth, as this new Interactive Reader from Global Research will demonstrate, we are living in an era hallmarked by “The Globalization of War” conducted by the very states that proclaim to be defenders of democratic rights and international law.

The chief protagonist of this globalized war is the United States of America. The US, along with its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Britain, France, Canada and Germany among others, as well as an array of proxies – such as the Persian Gulf Arab states – is now emboldened to strike militarily in any region of the world.

It should be noted that on a tour of the Asia-Pacific region in November 2011, US President Barack Obama’s rhetoric was laden with bellicose statements towards China, citing the latter as a military threat to the hemisphere that the United States was ready to confront. Obama’s aggressive rhetoric towards Beijing should have been widely seen as unprecedented and unacceptable. But from a reading of the Western mainstream media, the warmongering by the US president was somehow made into normal, reasonable discourse.

This spawning militarism is rationalized with a variety of seemingly palatable pretexts: securing the world against „Islamic terrorism”, as in Afghanistan; securing the world against „weapons of mass destruction”, as in Saddam’s Iraq and currently Iran; defending human rights, as in Libya; humanitarian intervention, as in Somalia; and protecting small nations, as in confronting China on behalf of Southeast Asian states, or constructing a Ballistic Missile Defense system along the Eastern European borders of Russia. And again, the Western mainstream media plays a huge role in rationalizing the irrational, normalizing the abnormal, justifying the unjustifiable – akin to the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984.

We may accept these pretexts at face value and attempt to “normalize” a world of seemingly chaotic conflicts, as the Western mainstream media would have us. Or we can choose to see the world as it really is, that is, one where such wars and war-making are correctly understood as abominations of international law and human relations.

It is our objective in this Interactive Reader to help citizens free themselves from the indoctrinated doublethink of “wars as normal”. In a global survey, we will show that the US and its allies are fulfilling an agenda of “full spectrum dominance” in which no nation deemed to be obstructing that agenda for domination by the US and its allies is tolerated, and is in fact made a target for war.

The dynamic for globalized war has deep historical roots in the imperialism of capitalist governments. Rivalry for the raw materials of capitalist economies and geopolitical control were at the root of World Wars I and II – See the essays by Jacques Pauwels on the role of corporate America in supporting both Britain and Nazi Germany. The same impetus lay behind countless invasions and proxy wars in Latin America, Asia and Africa by the US since World War II under the guise of “defending the free world from the Evil Soviet empire”.

But with the collapse of the Soviet Union as a countervailing power, the US and its allies have become uninhibited over the past two decades to “go it alone” to assert imperial dominance. This dynamic has only been reinforced by the economic exhaustion of the capitalist powers since the onset of the financial crisis of 2008. Indeed, the rise of militarism can be seen as a compensatory corollary of their economic demise – a demise that is structural and deeply protracted beyond anything that may be deemed as the usual “end of business cycle”. We are perhaps witnessing an historic collapse in the capitalist system far greater in scope than the Great Depression. And with that, disturbingly, the rise of militarism takes on a much greater significance.

Crucial to the global control of resources are the raw materials of energy: oil and gas. Whether it is wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, or confrontation with Iran, China, Russia and Venezuela, the fundamental point of contention is control over this lifeblood of the capitalist economy. All other espoused pretexts are mere window dressing, regardless of what the mainstream media would have us believe.

World War III Scenario

The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran – which has the world’s third largest known reserves of oil behind Saudi Arabia and Iraq – has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon since 2005.

If such a war were to be launched, the entire Middle East/Central Asia region would be drawn into a conflagration. Humanity would be precipitated into a World War III scenario.

Incredibly, the very real danger of World War III is not front-page news. The mainstream media has excluded in-depth analysis and debate on the implications of these war plans. The onslaught of World War III, were it to be carried out, would be casually described as a “no-fly zone”, an operation under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) with minimal “collateral damage” or as “surgical” punitive bombings against specific military targets, all of which purport to support “global security” as well as “democracy” and human rights in the targeted country.

NATO’s „Humanitarian Intervention”
Mandate defined in an ICISS report on R2P

Public opinion is largely unaware of the grave implications of these war plans, which contemplate the use of nuclear weapons, ironically in retaliation to Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program. Moreover, 21st Century military technology combines an array of sophisticated weapons systems whose destructive power would overshadow the nuclear holocausts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Lest we forget, the United States is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians.

Militarization at the global level is instrumented through the US military’s Unified Command structure: the entire planet is divided up into geographic Combatant Commands under the control of the Pentagon. According to former NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon’s military road-map consists of a sequence of war theaters: “[The] five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.” Like a cancer, the US war unleashed in 2003 on Iraq is mutating into a global disease.

While  The New York Times and other mainstream media outlets hailed 15 December 2011 as marking the “official” end of the nearly nine-year US war in Iraq, in reality that devastated country will remain an American war theater for the foreseeable future. Pentagon military advisers and contractors will continue to reside there and the people of Iraq will for generations be left with a legacy of US-imposed conflict and barbarity. The Pentagon’s “shock and awe” campaign in Iraq may have subsided, but its repercussions and criminal precedents are still very much extant, not only in Iraq but in the wider region and, increasingly, globally.

The 2000 Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was the backbone of the NeoCon’s agenda, was predicated on “waging a war without borders”. The PNAC’s declared objectives were to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars” in different regions of the world as well as perform the so-called military “constabulary” duties “associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions”. Global constabulary implies a worldwide process of military policing and interventionism, including covert operations and “regime change”.

This diabolical military project formulated by the NeoCons was adopted and implemented from the very outset of the Obama administration. With a new team of military and foreign policy advisers, Obama has been far more effective in fostering military escalation than his White House predecessor, George Bush Junior, who has recently been condemned by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal for “Crimes against the Peace”.

This continuum of the military agenda testifies to the fact that the two governing parties in the US, Democrat and Republican, are but two sides of a centrally planned military-industrial complex that is impregnable to the opinions, desires and interests of the American electorate.

Military Escalation and Preview of this Book

Contrary to the myth of “the good war”, we show in this Interactive Reader that the US entry into World War II was a deliberate strategy for self-serving imperialist gains. While the men and women who fought that war may have had moral convictions, the planners in Washington were operating on calculations of geopolitical control that had little to do with morals or legal principles – see the essays by Jacques Pauwels. The dropping of atomic bombs on Japan by the US in August 1945, obliterating hundreds of thousands of civilians, was an act of heinous barbarity that reflected the callousness of America’s imperial design. The nuclear holocaust also set the nefarious parameters of the subsequent Cold War that gripped the world for nearly five decades following World War II. Essays by Brian Willson, Alfred McCoy and Michel Chossudovsky illustrate how the Pentagon’s genocidal wars in Asia were a continuation of America’s imperialist design – albeit under the cover of the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

Hiroshima mushroom cloud. By executive order of President
Harry S. Truman, the U.S. dropped the nuclear bomb „Little Boy”
on Hiroshima, Monday, August 6, 1945

Nagasaki, August 9, 1945

Survivors: August 1945. In the wake of Hiroshima

The fall of the Soviet Union may have brought an end to the Cold War, but soon the US would find new pretexts for waging war on the world and asserting hegemony on behalf of its capitalist allies. These new pretexts included “upholding international law” as in the First Gulf War against Iraq that Bush Senior embarked on in 1990, presaging the Second Gulf War that Bush Junior would reprise in 2003. And the US planners innovated the “humanitarian” pretext for the invasion of Somalia in 1991 and NATO’s war on Yugoslavia – see the essay by Sean Gervasi among others. In many ways, the “humanitarian war” in Yugoslavia served as the prototype for NATO’s 2011 military attack on Libya and what appears to be an imminent onslaught against Syria – see essays by Rick Rozoff and Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya.

To the Pentagon’s silo of propaganda justifying “wars without borders” we have the additional pretexts of  the “global war on terrorism”  and “pre-emptive strikes against weapons of mass destruction”. Fittingly, as Washington’s wars multiply, so too it seems have the phony pretexts for these wars, as the essays on Iraq and Afghanistan by Felicity Arbuthnot and Jack Smith reveal.

Permanent Belligerence: The Globalization of War

In Part VII, which also serves as the title of this Online Interactive E-Reader, The Globalization of War, we show how American-led imperialism has evolved from bloody bouts of episodic militarism over several decades to the present day state of permanent belligerence, with wars or war-making stretching from North and East Africa into the Middle East and Central Asia and beyond to Eurasia (Russia), the Far East (China) and Arctic (Russia again) – See the essays by James Petras, Rick Rozoff,  Peter Dale Scott, F. William Engdahl, Finian Cunningham, the interview with Fidel Castro, Michel Chossudovsky and Jules Dufour.

Of most immediate concern are the ongoing American-led war plans within the broader Middle East/Central Asian region involving coordinated actions against Iran, Syria and Pakistan – see essays by Michel Chossudovsky, Tom Burghardt, Rick Rozoff and Mahdi Nazemroaya.

 

Were these war plans to be carried out, this would lead to an extended regional war theater. The three existing and distinct war theaters (Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine) would merge into a broad regional war extending from the Lebanese-Syrian East Mediterranean coastline to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with Western China. Israel, Lebanon and Turkey would be engulfed in a conflict that would herald World War III.   

Building an Effective Antiwar Movement

Meanwhile, the antiwar movement is in crisis: civil society organizations are misinformed, manipulated or co-opted. A large segment of “progressive” opinion is supportive of NATO’s R2P “humanitarian” mandate to the extent that these war plans are being carried out with the “rubber stamp” of civil society.

There is an urgent need to rebuild the antiwar movement on entirely new premises.

The holding of mass demonstrations and antiwar protests is not enough. What is required is the development of a broad and well-organized grassroots antiwar network, across the land, nationally and internationally, which challenges the structures of power and authority. People must mobilize not only against the military agenda – the authority of the state and its officials must also be challenged.

Challenging and defeating the US/NATO global war agenda is profoundly predicated on the mass of people in Western countries asserting democratic governance and the genuine “rule of the people”. It will involve the mass of people breaking out of the two-party charade that hitherto passes for “democracy” – not only in the US but also in other Western states ­– to form new political organizations that truly represent the needs and interests of the majority of people. War-making, as with servile abeyance to corporate and financial elites, is endemic to the dominant political parties. It must be realized that voting for these same parties has become futile as a means to effect democratic change.

One practical way forward is for citizens to empower themselves legally. It should be understood that whatever its justification, war is a “Crime against the Peace” under Nuremberg. George Walker Bush and former British Prime Minister Anthony L. Blair have been condemned by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal for waging a criminal war of aggression against Iraq. They are war criminals and citizens’ initiatives that are growing across the world for the arraignment of Bush and Blair are one practical step towards mobilizing a popular challenge to the war system.

War crimes, however, are not limited to the former US president and British prime minister. There are „New War Criminals on the Block„. They include the current president of the United States, Barack Obama, among others. The acting heads of state and heads of government who support US-NATO-Israel wars of aggression are also war criminals under international law. This proposition, which consists in unseating the war criminals in high office, is central to the waging of an effective antiwar movement.

It is also our intention to show citizens that the root cause of war lies in the prevailing, but failing, global capitalist economic system – the very system that is not only destroying lives in foreign countries but which is destroying the material and moral foundations of Western society.

We hope that this Interactive Reader, The Globalisation of War, will empower citizens to mount an all-encompassing social movement against this diabolical military agenda and for the establishment of real democracy.

Michel Chossudovsky and Finian Cunningham, December 2011

In the face of blatant media disinformation, a „Re-Learning Process” must be launched.

It is our hope that the Interactive Reader Series will become a useful tool for high school, college and university students.


NEW RELEASE IN PAPERBACK
Towards a World War III Scenario
by Michel Chossudovsky



TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I.  THE HISTORY OF WAR: FROM WORLD WAR II TO THE COLD WAR ERA

 

Fall 1941: Pearl Harbor and The Wars of Corporate America

– by Jacques R. Pauwels – 2011-12-11
Why World War II ended with Mushroom Clouds

65 years ago, August 6 and 9, 1945: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
– by Jacques R. Pauwels – 2010-08-06
The unspoken objective of the atomic bomb was US Hegemony in Asia and the Pacific
Korea and the „Axis of Evil”

– by Brian S. Willson – 2006-10-12

„Over a period of three years or so we killed off – what – twenty percent of the population [of North Korea]” (General Curtis Lemay)
From Vietnam to Afghanistan: America and the Dictators

– by Prof. Alfred W. McCoy – 2010-04-18
Who won the Vietnam War?

– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2005-04-26
Vietnam never received war reparations payments from the U.S. for the massive loss of life and destruction, yet an agreement reached in Paris in 1993 required Hanoi to recognize the debts of the defunct Saigon regime. This agreement is in many regards tantamount to obliging Vietnam to compensate Washington for the costs of war.

PART II. NATO’S WAR IN THE BALKANS

Why Is NATO In Yugoslavia?

– by Sean Gervasi – 2010-09-12
The late Sean Gervasi had tremendous foresight. He understood NATO enlargement several years before it actually unfolded into a formidable military force.
NATO’s Reign of Terror in Kosovo

– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2008-02-25
State Terrorism in Kosovo is an integral part of NATO’s design
NATO’s Kosovo War, 11 Years Later

– by James Bissett – 2010-03-24

PART III.  THE POST 9/11 ERA: AMERICA’S „WAR ON TERRORISM”

Al Qaeda and the „War on Terrorism”

– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2008-01-20
Ironically, Al Qaeda –the „outside enemy of America”– is a creation of the CIA.
The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush’s National Security Doctrine

„Revealing the Lies” on 9/11 Perpetuates the „Big Lie”
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-07-12
9/11 Paved the Way for America’s Permanent Wars of Aggression

– by Finian Cunningham – 2011-09-11

PART IV. IRAQ AND THE AF-PAK WARS

America’s Endless Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

– by Jack A. Smith – 2011-10-25
The illusion of military success…
US Afghan Strategy: Senseless and Merciless

– by Rick Rozoff – 2011-07-22
U.S. And NATO Escalate World’s Deadliest War On Both Sides Of Afghan-Pakistani Border

– by Rick Rozoff – 2011-03-01
Drone missile attacks conducted by the CIA killed in the neighborhood of 1,000 people in Pakistan last year
The War on Iraq : Five US Presidents, Five British Prime Ministers, Thirty Years of Duplicity, and Counting….

– by Felicity Arbuthnot – 2010-08-06
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. He had walked into possibly the biggest trap in modern history
US-NATO Military Agenda: The Destabilization of Pakistan

– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2009-04-17

PART V. THE CONQUEST OF AFRICA

America’s War in the Horn of Africa: “Drone Alley” – a Harbinger of Western Power across the African Continent

US Military Confirms Washington’s Secret New War in Somalia Despite Official Denials
– by Finian Cunningham – 2011-10-29
US Military Confirms Washington’s Secret New War in Somalia Despite Official Denials
Israel and Libya: Preparing Africa for the “Clash of Civilizations”

Introduction by Cynthia McKinney
– by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-10-11
„An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway.”

PART VI. US NATO-ISRAELI THREATS: PRE-EMPTIVE WAR AGAINST IRAN AND SYRIA 

World War III: The Launching of a Preemptive Nuclear War against Iran

– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-12-04
World War III is not front-page news. The mainstream media has excluded in-depth analysis and debate on the implications of these war plans.
U.S. Arms Persian Gulf Allies For Conflict With Iran

– by Rick Rozoff – 2011-11-18
THE CLOCK IS TICKING: „Shadow War” Heating Up. War With Iran: A Provocation Away?

– by Tom Burghardt – 2011-12-05
Amid conflicting reports that a huge explosion at Iran’s uranium conversion facility in Isfahan occurred last week, speculation was rife that Israel and the US were stepping-up covert attacks against defense and nuclear installations
Using Fake Intelligence to Justify War on Iran

– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-11-09
Iran: „Regime Change” or All Out War?

– by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-06-
America’s Next War Theater: Syria and Lebanon?

– by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-06-10

PART VII. THE GLOBALIZATION OF WAR

Obama Raises the Military Stakes: Confrontation on the Borders with China and Russia

– by Prof. James Petras – 2011-12-10
Obama has embraced a policy of encirclement and provocations against China, the world’s second largest economy and the US’s most important creditor, and Russia, the European Union’s principle oil and gas provider and the world’s second most powerful nuclear weapons power.
Conversations with Fidel Castro: The Dangers of a Nuclear War

– by Fidel Castro Ruz, Michel Chossudovsky – 2010-11-13
If a war breaks out in Iran, it will inevitably become a nuclear war and a global war.
The Real Grand Chessboard and the Profiteers of War

– by Prof. Peter Dale Scott – 2009-08-11
The provision of private entrepreneurial violence and intelligence
Why Moscow does not Trust Washington on Missile Defense. Towards a Pre-emptive Nuclear War?

– by F. William Engdahl – 2011-12-02
Most in the civilized world are blissfully unaware that we are marching ineluctably towards an increasingly likely pre-emptive nuclear war…
„War Without Borders”: Washington Intensifies Push Into Central Asia

– by Rick Rozoff – 2011-01-30
The U.S. and NATO have over 150,000 troops planted directly south of three Central Asian nations.
Asia-Pacific: US Ramps Up Global War Agenda

– by Finian Cunningham – 2011-11-17
China’s “military advances” are prompting US concerns…Washington is the one beating the war drums.
North American Integration and the Militarization of the Arctic

– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-08-20
The Battle for the Arctic is part of a global military agenda of conquest and territorial control, a New Cold War between Russia and America.
Review Article: The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases

The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel
– by Prof. Jules Dufour – 2007-07-01
The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel

Could Trigger World War III

 

By Paul Scicchitano and Kathleen Walter via Newsmax

(Kasey’s Note: The Muslim Brotherhood is threatening to bring Sharia law to Egypt since we helped depose Mubarak, Libya is in chaos and facing rule by radical Muslims since the death of dictator Moammar Gadhafi, Iraq is home to jihadis and terrorists since we ousted Saddam Hussein, and Iran has been building nukes to kill us since the Ayatollah took power decades ago.  Our interventions seem to have done more harm than good and we need to learn from these past mistakes.  However, I will support Israel in whatever methods they choose!)

Amid pressure for the United States and other western countries to intervene in Syria’s bloody 14-month uprising, Florida Congressman and retired U.S. Army officer Allen West warns in an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV that the troubled nation represents a smoldering powder keg that could trigger World War III.

International outrage over Syria has continued to mount since forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were blamed for last week’s massacre in the town of Houla, which resulted in the deaths of 108 people, including many women, children, and families — most of whom had been shot at close range.

West said that Assad’s father, Hafez, who ruled the country for decades before his son took power in 2000 upon his death, had been blamed for a similar massacre in another Syrian town.

Watch our exclusive interview.

“That’s how they do business, and so if we’re going to go in there, we need to go in with very clear rules of engagement if we’re going to get Bashar al-Assad out of there,” warned West, who had been posted in several combat zones.

“But understand, you’ll be starting World War III.”

While diplomatic sanctions do not appear to be effective, there is also not a clear alternative to Assad’s government. The Syrian freedom fighters are widely considered by Middle East experts to be fractured and disorganized.

“On one side you have the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Russia and also Bashar al-Assad,” West explained. “On the other side, you have freedom fighters. You have al-Qaida and radical Islamists. And also you have the backing of the state of Turkey.”

He pointed to recent experiences with Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood, is now threatening to bring Sharia law to the country, and Libya, which has been plunged into chaos since the death of dictator Moammar Gadhafi late last year.

“If you start to interject yourself in a means other than diplomatic who’s side are you on? We don’t need to put our military in a situation where they’re caught in a cross-fire,” insisted West.

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney favors arming the rebel forces while Arizona Sen. John McCain, the party’s 2008 nominee, would like the U.S. to conduct air strikes against Assad’s forces.

“I think that we should be listening to our greatest ally in the Middle East — Israel — as far as what are their concerns, and what would they like to see happen because they share that border with Syria,” said West.

While he does not favor military intervention in Syria — at least not for the time being — West said that time may be running out to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons in the region’s other hot spot.

“The longer we allow them to have time, it works on their side, not ours,” he explained. “They continue to go forward with their nuclear program. They continue to harden the facilities, which . . . can protect their nuclear program.”

The Congressman, who was elected in 2010, and is a member of the House Tea Party Caucus, said that the U.S. will be forced to act at some point to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

He criticizes President Obama’s handling of the Middle East.

“I know that he is very good with his little own personal target list, which reminds me of Lyndon Johnson approving bombing targets during the Vietnam War,” charged West. “That is not the business of the president. He is supposed to be more strategically minded.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: West: Syrian Intervention Could Trigger World War III

Related articles

Russian Move Against US Called “First Shot” Of World War III

A grim Ministry of Finance report prepared for Prime Minister Putin is warning today that the decision by Iran to cease taking US Dollars for its oil could very be the “first shot” fired in World War III, and one which Russia will be blamed for by the Obama regime.

According to this report, Iran swiftly countered planed US sanctions against its Central Bank yesterday by announcingthat it will no longer accept the US Dollar as payment for its oil shipments to India, Japan and China, and further announced that bilateral trade between itself and Russia will, also, break from the US Dollar for settlement in favor of the Iranian Rial and Russian Rubles.

Sure to enrage the Obama regime, this report continues, was that the proposal to switch to the Ruble and the Rial was raised by President Medvedev at a meeting with his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in Astana, Kazakhstan, of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Though Iran had previously announced in 2008 that it had stopped trading its oil for US Dollars (Ahmadinejad called the depreciating US Dollar a “worthless piece of paper”) India, Japan and China were made exempt due to their large holdings of American currency and fears of wreaking further chaos on the global economic collapse that had just begun.

Important to note, this report reminds us, is that a similar move by Iraq’s former leader Saddam Hussein in not accepting US Dollars for oil in 2000 brought about the invasion of his country by the Americans and their European allies resulting in his eventual execution and causing the vast wealth of Iraqi oil and gas fields to be turned over to the Western oil giants.

Likewise, this report says, former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi earned the same fate as Hussein after he, in the months leading up to the US-NATO military attack on his country, called on African and Muslim nations to join together to create a new currency that would rival the US Dollar and Euro and saying that Libya would only sell oil and other resources around the world only for gold dinars.

Most oil sales throughout the world are denominated in US Dollars, and according to proponents of the petrodollar warfare hypothesis, because most countries rely on oil imports, they are forced to maintain large stockpiles of Dollars in order to continue imports.

This creates a consistent demand for US Dollars and upwards pressure on its value, regardless of economic conditions in the United States. This in turn allows the US government to gain revenues through seignorage and by issuing bonds at lower interest rates than they otherwise would be able to. As a result the US government can run higher budget deficits at a more sustainable level than can most other countries.

But, this report reminds us, the current budget deficit of the US has now reached the staggering amount of $15.23 trillion which is the size of its entire economy, and with the Federal Reserve preparing to being another round of massive printing this coming summer the loss of Iran’s oil customers needing US Dollars could very well signal the collapse of the entire American economy.

Though the Obama regime has sent its Treasury Secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, to China and Japan today in an effort to persuade them to cut back on Iranian oil this effort appears doomed from start as the Chinese have outright rejectedthis move and Japan has, likewise, expressed its concerns.

As is always the case in these type of dire matters, reports from the US show its mainstream propaganda media organs are not reporting on this potentially catastrophic turn of events leading to yet another circumstance where the American people will be taken by complete surprise when this cold war suddenly turns hot.

In order to prepare itself for what is to come, however, a vast Russian naval fleet arrived in Syria yesterday in an attempt to forestall US-NATO action against its Middle East allycurrently under attack by the CIA-backed terrorist group known as al-Qaida.

Most shocking in this report are some Russian economists stating that the Obama regime is actually anticipating the collapse of the US Dollar as a “solution” to their being able to implement drastic socialistic change such as was done during the Great Depression under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and which the grim statistics being reported from the US show they are, indeed, nearing total economic collapse and include:

1. A staggering 48 percent of all Americans are either considered to be “low income” or are living in poverty.

2. Approximately 57 percent of all children in the United States are living in homes that are either considered to be “low income” or impoverished.

3. If the number of Americans that “wanted jobs” was the same today as it was back in 2007, the “official” unemployment rate put out by the U.S. government would be up to 11 percent.

4. The average amount of time that a worker stays unemployed in the United States is now over 40 weeks.

5. One recent survey found that 77 percent of all U.S. small businesses do not plan to hire any more workers.

6. There are fewer payroll jobs in the United States today than there were back in 2000 even though we have added 30 million extra people to the population since then.

7. Since December 2007, median household income in the United States has declined by a total of 6.8 percent once you account for inflation.

8. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 16.6 million Americans were self-employed back in December 2006. Today, that number has shrunk to 14.5 million.

9. A Gallup poll from earlier this year found that approximately one out of every five Americans that do have a job consider themselves to be underemployed.

10. According to author Paul Osterman, about 20 percent of all U.S. adults are currently working jobs that pay poverty-level wages.

As the buildup for war between the US and Iran continues to escalate, UN Chief Ban ki Moon’s call for the easing of tensions has gone unheeded as the Obama regimes call for the “dogs of war” to be unleashed on the Iranian people shows no sign of abatement.

To what the final outcome may be in all of these events wasdetailed by Professor Igor Panarin of the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs who has long warned the United States is in a state of economic collapse which will see America being divided up into 6 regions [Map bottom right] due to a “vulnerable political setup,” “lack of unified national laws,” and “divisions among the elite, which have become clear in these crisis conditions.”

Interesting to note about Professor Panarin’s prediction of the United States splintering into different regions are new reports coming from the United States showing that the Obama regime has recently called for the staffing of what are called FEMA Concentration Camps in not just 6, but 10 different regions of their country.

Professor Panarin further warned that “a secret agreement was reached between Canada, Mexico and the US on a common Amero currency as a new monetary unit” and said that “this could signal preparations to replace the dollar.”

When asked how Russia should react to his vision of the future, Professor Panarin said: “Develop the ruble as a regional currency. Create a fully functioning oil exchange, trading in rubles… We must break the strings tying us to the financial Titanic, which in my view will soon sink.”

Source