December 21, 2005
Paper presented at the Perdana Global Peace Forum 2005
Putra World Trade Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
14-17 December 2005
The debate regarding war and Militarization raises the broad issue of national sovereignty.
I am particularly gratified as an economist to
participate in this important event in the Nation’s capital, in
Malaysia, a country which at a critical moment in its history, namely
at the height of the 1997 Asian crisis, took the courageous stance of
confronting the Washington Consensus and the international financial
establishment.
Under the helm of Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad,
carefully designed financial measures were taken to avoid the collapse
of the ringgit, thereby foreclosing a scenario of economic dislocation,
bankruptcy and impoverishment, as occurred in Thailand, Indonesia and
South Korea.
These 1997 measures forcefully confronted the
mainstream neoliberal agenda. In retrospect, this was a momentous
decision, which will go down in the Nation’s history. It constitutes
the basis for an understanding of what is best described as "economic
and financial warfare".
Today we have come to understand that war and
macro-economic manipulation are intertwined. Militarization supports
economic warfare. Conversely, what is referred to euphemistically as
"economic reform" supports a military and geopolitical agenda
Introduction
The World is at the crossroads of the most serious
crisis in modern history. In the largest display of military might
since the Second World War, the United States and its indefectible
British ally have embarked upon a military adventure, which threatens
the future of humanity.
An understanding of the underlying historical
background is crucial. This war agenda is not the product of a distinct
neo-conservative project. From the outset of the Cold War Era, there is
a consistent thread, a continuum in US military doctrine, from the
"Truman doctrine" to Bush's "war on terrorism".
Foreign Policy adviser George F. Kennan had outlined
in a 1948 State Department brief what was later described as the
"'Truman doctrine."
What this 1948 document conveys is continuity in US
foreign policy, from "Containment" to "Pre-emptive" War. In this
regard, the Neo-conservative agenda under the Bush administration
should be viewed as the culmination of a post World War II foreign
policy framework. The latter has been marked by a succession of US
sponsored wars and military interventions in all major regions of the
World. From Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, to the CIA sponsored
military coups in Latin America and Southeast Asia, the objective has
been to ensure US military hegemony and global economic domination, as
initially formulated under the "Truman Doctrine" at the outset of the
Cold War.
Despite significant policy differences, successive
Democratic and Republican administrations, from Harry Truman to George
W. Bush have carried out this global military agenda.
Moreover, Kennan's writings pointed to the formation
of an Anglo-American alliance, which currently characterizes the close
relationship between Washington and London. This alliance responds to
powerful economic interests in the oil industry, defense and
international banking. It is, in many regards, an Anglo-American
extension of the British Empire, which was officially disbanded in the
wake of the Second World War.
The Truman doctrine also points to the inclusion of
Canada in the Anglo-American military axis. Moreover, Kennan had also
underscored the importance of preventing the development of a
continental European power that could compete with the US.
With regard to Asia, including China and India, Kennan hinted to the importance of articulating a military solution:
"The day is not far off when we are going to have to
deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by
idealistic slogans, the better"
Weakening the United Nations
From the outset of the Cold War, the objective was
to undermine and ultimately destroy the Soviet Union. Washington was
also intent upon weakening the United Nations as a genuine
international body, an objective that has largely been achieved under
the Bush administration:
The initial build-up of the UN in U.S. public
opinion was so tremendous that it is possibly true, as is frequently
alleged, that we have no choice but to make it the cornerstone of our
policy in this post-hostilities period. Occasionally, it has served a
useful purpose. But by and large it has created more problems than it
has solved, and has led to a considerable dispersal of our diplomatic
effort. And in our efforts to use the UN majority for major political
purposes we are playing with a dangerous weapon which may some day turn
against us. This is a situation, which warrants most careful study and
foresight on our part. (Kennan 1948)
The Post Cold War
The wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq are
part of the same "military road-map". Confirmed by military documents,
the US war agenda not only targets Iran, Syria and North Korea, but
also its former Cold War enemies: Russia and China.
We are dealing with a global military agenda
characterized by various forms of intervention. The latter include
covert military and intelligence operations in support of domestic
paramilitary groups and so-called liberation armies. These operations
are largely devised with a view to creating social, ethnic and
political divisions within national societies, ultimately contributing
to the destruction of entire countries, as occurred in Yugoslavia.
Meanwhile, the US sponsored "democratization" agenda
consists in intervening in countries’ internal affairs, often with a
view to destabilizing national governments and imposing sweeping "free
market" reforms. In this regard, the illegal invasion of Haiti
following a US sponsored military coup, which was also supported by
Canada and France, is an integral part of Washington’s global military
agenda.
War and Globalization
War and globalization are intimately related
processes. Military and intelligence operations support the opening up
of new economic frontiers and the remolding of national economies. The
powers of Wall Street, the Anglo-American oil giants and the U.S.-U.K.
defense contractors are indelibly behind this process.
Ultimately, the purpose of America’s "War on
Terrorism" is to transform sovereign nations into open territories (or
"free trade areas"), both through "military means", as well as through
the imposition of deadly macro-economic reforms. The latter,
implemented under IMF-World Bank-WTO auspices often serve to undermine
and destroy national economies, precipitating millions of people into
abject poverty. In turn, so-called "reconstruction programs" imposed by
donors and creditors in the wake of the war contribute to a spiraling
external debt.
In a twisted logic, "war reparations" financed by
external debt are being paid to the US invader. Billions of dollars are
channeled to Western construction conglomerates such as Bechtel and
Halliburton, both of which have close links to the US Department of
Defense.
Iran and Syria: Next Phase of the War
Confirmed in national security documents, a central
objective of this war is the conquest and confiscation of Middle East
oil wealth. In this regard, the broader Middle East – Central Asian
region encompasses some 70 percent of the World’s oil and gas
resources, more than thirty times those of the US.
The Anglo-American oil giants in alliance with Wall
Street and the military-industrial complex are indelibly behind
America’s war agenda.
The next phase of this war is Iran and Syria, which have already been identified as targets.
Iran is the country with the third largest oil and
gas reserves (10%) after Saudi Arabia (25%) and Iraq (11%). The US is
seeking with the complicity of the UN Security Council to establish a
pretext for the bombing of Iran, which is presented as a threat to
world peace.
Israel is slated to play a key role in launching the military operation against Iran.
This operation is in a state of readiness. Were it
to occur, the war would extend to the entire Middle Eastern region and
beyond. At the same token, Israel would become an official member of
the Anglo-American military axis.
In early 2005, several high profile military
exercises were conducted in the Eastern Mediterranean, involving
military deployments and the testing of weapons systems. Military
planning meetings were held between the US, Israel and Turkey. There
has been a shuttle of military and government officials between
Washington, Tel Aviv and Ankara.
Intense diplomatic exchanges have been carried out
at the international level with a view to securing areas of military
cooperation and/or support for a US-Israeli led military operation
directed against Iran. The UN Security Council resolution regarding
Iran’s nuclear program provides a pretext, which the US plans to use to
justify military intervention.
Of significance is a November 2004 military
cooperation agreement between NATO and Israel. A few months later,
Israel was involved for the first time in military exercises with NATO,
which also included several Arab countries.
A massive buildup in military hardware has occurred
in preparation for a possible attack on Iran. Israel has taken delivery
from the US of some 5,000 "smart air launched weapons" including some
500 BLU 109 'bunker-buster bombs.
Nuclear Weapons in Conventional War Theaters: "Safe for Civilians"
An attack on Iran using tactical nuclear weapons
(mini-nukes) has also been contemplated. Tactical nuclear weapons with
an explosive capacity between one third to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb
have been cleared for use in conventional war theaters. .
The mini-nukes have been redefined as a defensive
weapon, which is "safe for civilians" "because the explosion is
underground". The Senate in a December 2003 decision, has authorized
their use in conventional war theaters
Air strikes against Iran could contribute to
extending the war to the broader Middle East Central Asian region.
Tehran has confirmed that it would retaliate if attacked, in the form
of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005).
These attacks could also target US military facilities in the Persian
Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military
escalation and all out war.
In recent developments, Israel’s armed forces have
been ordered by Prime minister Ariel Sharon, "to be ready by the end of
March [2006] for possible strikes" on Iran’s nuclear enrichment
facilities (The Sunday Times, 11 December 2005).
Meanwhile, Iran is building its air defense
capabilities. Russia has recently announced that it plans to sell to
Iran some 29 Tor M-1 anti-missile systems.
The planned attack on Iran should also be understood
in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon,
which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces.
The participation of Turkey in the US-UK-Israeli military operation is
also a factor, following an agreement reached between Ankara and Tel
Aviv.
Global Military Agenda
The war in the Middle East is part of a carefully
defined military agenda. Formulated in September 2000, a few months
before the accession of George W. Bush to the White House, 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 objectives are:
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who now
heads the World Bank, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice
President Dick Cheney, had commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior to the
2000 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 Empire, Global Outlook, No. 6, 2003)
Distinct from theater wars, the so-called
"constabulary functions" imply a form of global military policing using
various instruments of military intervention including punitive
bombings, covert intelligence operations and the sending in of US
Special Forces, etc.
New Weapons Systems
The PNAC’s "revolution in military affairs" (meaning
the development of new weapons systems) consists of the "Strategic
Defense Initiative", the concurrent weaponization of space and the
development of a new generation of nuclear weapons:
"While it has long been a U.S. policy to use nuclear
weapons in order to respond to a nuclear attack… the new policy allows
the U.S. to use nuclear weapons against states that do not have nuclear
weapons and for a host of new reasons, including rapid termination of a
conflict on U.S. terms or to ensure success of the U.S. forces."
(statement of Jorge Hirsh, see Global Research,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MCD20051101&articleId=1173
The National Defense Strategy
Since
2000, the basic premises of the PNAC have been reasserted in a number
of national security documents. In March 2005, The Pentagon released
its National Defense Strategy document. While the latter follows in the
footsteps of the administration's "preemptive" war doctrine as detailed
by the Project of the New American Century (PNAC), it goes much further
in setting the contours of Washington's global military agenda.
It calls for a more "proactive" approach to warfare,
beyond the weaker notion of "preemptive" and defensive actions, where
military operations are launched against a "declared enemy" with a view
to "preserving the peace" and "defending America".
The document explicitly acknowledges America's
global military mandate, beyond regional war theaters. This mandate
also includes military operations directed against countries, which are
not hostile to America, but which are considered strategic from the
point of view of US interests. Whereas the preemptive war doctrine
envisages military action as a means of "self defense" against
countries categorized as "hostile" to the US, the new Pentagon doctrine
envisages the possibility of military intervention against countries,
which do not visibly constitute a threat to the security of the
American homeland.
The document outlines "four major threats to the United States":
- "Traditional challenges" are posed by well known and recognized military powers using "well-understood' forms of war."
- "Irregular threats" come from forces using so-called "unconventional' methods to counter stronger power."
- "The catastrophic challenge" pertains to the "use of weapons of mass destruction by an enemy."
(See Michel Chossudovsky, From "Rogue States" to "Unstable Nations": America's New National Security Doctrine,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO504A.html)
Mammoth Defense Budget
This military blueprint outlines the contours of a
project of global military hegemony. It is predicated on a massive
increase in defense spending. The underlying objective consists in
overshadowing, in terms of defense outlays, any other nation on earth
including America's European allies.
The United States military this year [2005] will be
larger than the next 25 countries put together.... So, you know,
essentially if spending patterns hold, which is to say European defense
spending is declining, American is rising, in about five years, the
United States will be spending more money than the rest of the world
put together on defense." (Council on Foreign Relations, Annual
Corporate conference, 10 March 2005).
The defense budget estimated at 401.7 billion
dollars (FY 2005) does not include the "emergency supplemental defense
budget" earmarked for ongoing military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Neither is the DoD participation's in the "war on
terrorism" included in the defense budget. (See
http://64.177.207.201/static/budget/annual/fy05/) Nor does it include
another 40 billion dollars allocated to America's intelligence
apparatus, headed by John Negroponte. Approximately 80 percent of the
intelligence budget, including America's system of spy satellite's,
directly supports US military initiatives.
Extensive War Crimes
The economic and strategic objectives behind this
war are rarely mentioned. This military project is presented to public
opinion as part of the "global war on terrorism" in which Al Qaeda is
unequivocally upheld, as the aggressor. The crimes of war including the
torture of civilians are casually presented as "collateral damage".
In this regard, the military occupation of Iraq has
resulted in the deaths of more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians (according
to the Lancet, John Hopkins School of Public health study).
The routine application of torture, the setting up
of numerous concentration camps is now fully documented, not to mention
the kidnapping of civilians including children, who are dispatched to
the Guantanamo concentration camp in Cuba.
Killing the messenger: US forces have
also targeted and killing of independent journalists in Iraq, who do
not report the lies and fabrications of the Anglo-American military
axis.
While the international community focuses on Iran
and North Korea’s nuclear program, the evidence suggests that the US
led military coalition is routinely using prohibited weapons. It also
plans to use nuclear weapons in the next phase of this war.
Napalm and white phosphorous bombs have been used in
Iraq against civilians in densely populated urban areas. The Western
media (specifically the BBC) has attempted to camouflage the use of
these weapons systems.
Torture
Torture is an official US government policy. The
orders to torture POWs in Iraq and Guantanamo emanated from the highest
levels of the Bush Administration. Prison guards, interrogators in the
US military and the CIA were responding to precise guidelines.
The US President had directly authorized the use of
torture including "sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of
military dogs, and sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc."
(See ACLU at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ACL412A.html ).
The secret CIA torture chambers and detention
centers set up in a number of countries including the European Union
are consistent with the Pentagon’s guidelines on the use of torture.
While torture is now accepted by the Bush
administration, the controversy in the US pertains not to torture per
se but to whether the information obtained from suspected terrorists
through the application of torture can be used in a court of law to
indict an alleged "terrorist".
The Criminalization of Justice
Despite the public outrage, the tendency is towards
acquiescence and acceptance of the US torture agenda. The legitimacy of
the war criminals in high office, who formally ordered these crimes is
not questioned. "Legal opinions" drafted on the behest of war criminals
are being used to "legalize" torture and redefine Justice.
War criminals legitimately occupy positions of
authority, which enable them to redefine the contours of the judicial
system and the process of law enforcement.
It provides them with a mandate to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are the criminals.
In other words, what we are dealing with is the
criminalization of the State and its various institutions including the
criminalization of Justice.
The truth is twisted and turned upside down. State
propaganda builds a consensus within the Executive, the US Congress and
the Military. This consensus is then ratified by the Judicial, through
a process of outright legal manipulation.
Media disinformation instills within the
consciousness of Americans that somehow the use of torture, the
existence of concentration camps, extra judicial assassinations of
"rogue enemies", all of which are happening, are "under certain
circumstances" "acceptable" and perfectly "legal" because the Justice
department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), says "it's legit".
The existence of an illusive outside enemy who is
threatening the Homeland is the cornerstone of the propaganda campaign.
The latter consists in galvanizing US citizens not only in favor of
"the war on terrorism", but in support of a social order which upholds
the legitimate use of torture, directed against "terrorists", as a
justifiable means to preserving human rights, democracy, freedom, etc.
Racism and the Anti-Terrorist Legislation
Meanwhile, a wave of racism and xenophobia directed
against Muslims has been unleashed throughout the western world. The
arbitrary arrests and detention of Muslims on trumped up charges has
become common practice.
"Anti-terrorist" legislation has been adopted in a
number of western countries which allows for the arrest and detention
without charge of alleged terrorists, including leaders of so-called
'domestic radical groups" (meaning antiwar activists), who are now
categorized as a threat to Homeland Security.
While "expressing concern" regarding human rights
violations, the so-called international community has nonetheless
accepted the legitimacy of "the war on terrorism". Moreover, in the
wake of 9/11, a significant section of the antiwar movement, while
condemning the US-led war, continues to uphold the legitimacy of the
"war on terrorism".
In turn, the UN has endorsed the "war on terrorism".
Under the disguise of peacekeeping, the United Nations, in violation of
its own charter and the Nuremberg jurisprudence on war crimes, is
collaborating with the US led military coalition.
War Propaganda
The underlying objective of the media disinformation
campaign is provide a humanitarian mandate to the US led war, while
galvanizing public opinion in support of America's "war on terrorism"
agenda. Racism and Xenophobia, including the arbitrary arrest of
alleged terrorists, are an integral part war propaganda.
One of the main objectives of war propaganda is to
"fabricate an enemy". As anti-war sentiment grows and the political
legitimacy the Bush Administration falters, doubts regarding the
existence of this illusive "outside enemy" must be dispelled.
Propaganda purports not only to drown the truth but
also to "kill the evidence" on how this "outside enemy", namely Osama
bin Laden’s Al Qaeda was fabricated and transformed into "Enemy Number
One". The entire National Security doctrine centers on the existence of
an "outside enemy" which is threatening the Homeland.
Possessing a "just cause" for waging war is central
to the Bush administration's justification for invading and occupying
both Afghanistan and Iraq.
The "war on terrorism" and the notion of
"preemption" are predicated on the right to "self defense." They define
"when it is permissible to wage war": jus ad bellum.
Jus ad bellum also serves to build a consensus
within the Armed Forces command structures. It also serves to convince
the troops that they are fighting for a "just cause". More generally,
the Just War theory in its modern day version is an integral part of
war propaganda and media disinformation, applied to gain public support
for a war agenda.
In October 2001, when Afghanistan was bombed and
later invaded, several "Progressives" largely upheld the
Administration's "just cause" military doctrine. The "self-defense"
argument was accepted at face value as a legitimate response to 9/11,
without examining the fact that the US administration had not only
supported the "Islamic terror network", it was also instrumental in the
installation of the Taliban government in 1995-96. Moreover, the
invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of September
11, 2001.
In the wake of 9/11, the antiwar movement against
the illegal invasion of Afghanistan was isolated. The trade unions,
civil society organizations had swallowed the media lies and government
propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution against Al Qaeda and
the Taliban.
Media disinformation prevailed. People were misled
as to the nature and objectives underlying the invasion of Afghanistan.
Osama bin Laden and the Taliban were identified as the prime suspects
of the 9/11 attacks, without a shred of evidence and without addressing
the historical relationship between Al Qaeda and the US intelligence
apparatus. In this regard, understanding 9/11 is crucial in formulating
a consistent antiwar position.
The "war on terrorism" is the cornerstone of the
America’s propaganda and media disinformation campaign. In an utterly
absurd logic Al Qaeda is presented as an upcoming super-power, capable
of waging a nuclear attack against the US.
The "War on Terrorism"
Amply documented, the war on terrorism is a
fabrication. Al Qaeda is a US sponsored "intelligence asset".
Saudi-born Osama bin Laden is a creation of U.S. foreign policy. He was
recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically under the auspices
of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders." During the Cold War, but also in
its aftermath, the CIA — using Pakistan’s Military Intelligence
apparatus as a go-between —played a key role in training the
Mujahideen.
With the active encouragement of the CIA and
Pakistan’s ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the
Afghan Jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the
Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries
joined Afghanistan’s fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands
more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000
foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.
(Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs,
November-December 1999)
Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have
supported the so-called "Militant Islamic Base", including Osama bin
Laden’s Al Qaeda, as part of their military-intelligence agenda. The
links between Osama bin Laden and the Clinton administration in Bosnia
and Kosovo are well documented by congressional records.
Ironically, the U.S. Administration’s undercover
military-intelligence operations in Bosnia were fully documented by the
Republican Party. A lengthy Congressional report by the Republican
Party Committee (RPC) published in 1997 accused the Clinton
administration of having "helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic
base" leading to the recruitment, through the so-called "Militant
Islamic Network", of thousands of Mujahideen from the Muslim world:
The Clinton administration’s 'hands-on’ involvement
with the Islamic network’s arms pipeline included inspections of
missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials … the Third World
Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization …
has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia. … TWRA is
believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror
network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the
1993 World Trade Centre bombing) and Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi
émigré believed to bankroll numerous militant groups. (Congressional
Press Release, Republican, Party Committee (RPC), U.S. Congress,
Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant
Islamic Base, Washington DC, 16 January 1997. The original document is
on the website of the U.S. Senate Republican Party Committee (Senator
Larry Craig), at
http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm; emphasis added.
Counter-Terrorism
The CIA has created it own terrorist organizations including "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" which is led by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi.
And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist
warnings concerning the terrorist organizations, which it has itself
created. In turn, it has developed a cohesive multibillion dollar
counterterrorism program "to go after" these terrorist organizations.
Counterterrorism and war propaganda are intertwined.
The propaganda apparatus feeds disinformation into the news chain. The
terror warnings must appear to be "genuine". The objective is to
present the terror groups as "enemies of America."
The underlying objective is to galvanize public opinion in support of America's war on terrorism" agenda.
The "war on terrorism" requires a humanitarian
mandate. The war on terrorism is presented as a "Just War", which is to
be fought on moral grounds "to redress a wrong suffered."
To reach its foreign policy objectives, the images
of terrorism must remain vivid in the minds of the citizens, who are
constantly reminded of the terrorist threat.
The propaganda campaign presents the portraits of
the leaders behind the terror network. In other words, at the level of
what constitutes an "advertising" campaign, "it gives a face to
terror."
Fabricating Intelligence
The propaganda campaign has been supported by an extensive fabrication of intelligence.
Revelations regarding the controversial Downing
Street Memorandum and the forged Niger uranium dossier are but the tip
of the iceberg.
Known and documented prior to the invasion of Iraq,
the substance of Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN Security Council
was not only fabricated, it was actually based, in what constitutes a
clear case of plagiarism, on a student’s text which had been "lifted"
(copy and paste) from the internet:
A close textual analysis of the British Intelligence
report quoted by Colin Powell in his [February 5, 2003] UN Address
suggests that its UK authors had little access to first-hand
intelligence sources and instead based their work on academic papers,
which they selectively distorted.
The authors of the dossier are members of Tony
Blair's Press Relations Office at Whitehall. Britain's Secret Service
(MI6), either was not consulted, or more likely, provided an assessment
that did not fit in with the politicians' argument. In essence, spin
was being sold off as intelligence.
The bulk of the 19-page document (pp.6-16) had been
directly copied without acknowledgement from an article in last [2002]
September's Middle East Review of International Affairs entitled
"Iraq's Security and Intelligence Network: A Guide and Analysis". The
author of the piece is Ibrahim al-Marashi, a postgraduate student at
the Monterey Institute of International Studies. He has confirmed to me
that his permission was not sought by MI6; in fact, he didn't even know about the British document until I mentioned it to him.
Concluding remarks
The so-called "War on Terrorism" is a lie.
Amply documented, the pretext to wage this war is totally fabricated.
Realities have been turned upside down. Acts of war
are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards restoring
'democracy’.
Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping operations."
The derogation of civil liberties under the
so-called "anti-terrorist legislation" is portrayed as a means to
providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties.
Meanwhile, the civilian economy is precipitated into
crisis; expenditures on health and education are curtailed to finance
the military-industrial complex and the police state.
Under the American Empire, millions of people around
the world are being driven into abysmal poverty, and countries are
transformed into open territories.
U.S. protectorates are installed with the blessing
of the so-called "international community." "Interim governments" are
formed. Political puppets designated by America’s oil giants are
casually endorsed by the United Nations, which increasingly performs
the role of a rubber-stamp for the U.S. Administration.
Reversing the tide of war can not be limited to a
critique of the US war agenda. Ultimately what is at stake is the
legitimacy of the political and military actors and the economic power
structures, which ultimately control the formulation, and direction of
US foreign policy.
While the Bush administration implements a "war on
terrorism", the evidence (including mountains of official documents)
amply confirms that successive U.S. administrations have supported,
abetted and harbored international terrorism.
This fact, in itself, must be suppressed because if
it ever trickles down to the broader public, the legitimacy of the
so-called "war on terrorism" collapses "like a deck of cards." And in
the process, the legitimacy of the main actors behind this system would
be threatened.
How does one effectively break the war and police
state agendas? Essentially by refuting the "war on terrorism" which
constitutes the very foundations of the US national security doctrine.
A war agenda is not disarmed through antiwar
sentiment. One does not reverse the tide by asking President Bush:
"please abide by the Geneva Convention" and the Nuremberg Charter.
Ultimately a consistent antiwar agenda requires unseating the war
criminals in high office as first step towards disarming the
institutions and corporate structure of the New World Order.
To break the Inquisition, we must also break its
propaganda, its fear and intimidation campaign, which galvanizes public
opinion into accepting the "war on terrorism".
Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the
international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in
eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of
Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization which
hosts the critically acclaimed website: www.globalresearch.ca . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
His most recent book is entitled: America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005., http://www.globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html
Appendix A
There is vast body of documentary evidence on the
role of al Qaeda, There is growing evidence from a number of recent
disclosures that the US sponsored intelligence apparatus is behind the
terrorists.
1. Operation Able Danger
Official Pentagon documents reveal that the 9/11
ringleader Mohammed Atta and 3 other hijackers were under close
surveillance as part of a secret Pentagon operation more than a year
prior to 9/11.
These documents largely refute the official US government narrative as presented by the 9/11 Commission.
For the past four years, we have been told by the
administration of George Bush and by the official 9/11 Commission
report of Chairman Thomas Kean and Executive Director Philip Zelikow
that Egyptian extremist Mohammed Atta was the key player in the 11
September 2001 terrorist attacks. Atta, according to the Kean report,
was the "tactical leader of the 9/11 plot". He was the pilot who on
that dreadful morning flew the first plane, American Airlines 11, into
the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York. It was Atta’s
face, on television and in newspapers across the world, that became the
symbol of Islamic terrorism. And it was Atta’s name - not the names of
any of the 18 other hijackers allegedly lead by Atta on that day - that
was cited by international security researchers. Atta was, as the Kean
report stresses, "the tactical commander of the operation in the United
States". According to both the Bush administration and the official
9/11 Commission report, he was working on the orders of Osama Bin Laden
who, from remote Afghanistan, controlled the entire operation.
Now, almost exactly four years after 9/11, the facts
appear to have been turned upside down. We now learn that Atta was also
connected to a top secret operation of the Pentagon’s Special
Operations Command (SOCOM) in the US. According to Army reserve
Lieutenant-Colonel Anthony Shaffer, a top secret Pentagon project
code-named Able Danger had identified Atta and three other 9/11
hijackers as members of an al-Qaida cell more than a year before the
attacks.
Able Danger was an 18-month highly classified
operation tasked, according to Shaffer, with "developing targeting
information for al-Qaida on a global scale", and used data-mining
techniques to look for "patterns, associations, and linkages". He said
he himself had first encountered the names of the four hijackers in
mid-2000.
(see Daniele Ganser, Able Danger adds twist to 9/11, 9/11 Ringleader connected to secret Pentagon operation,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050827&articleId=867
2. The Bali 2002 Bombing: Recent Disclosure
In a recent interview, former president of Indonesia
Abdurrahman Wahid admitted that the Indonesian military and police
played a complicit role in the 2002 Bali bombing.
(See http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20051014&articleId=1085)
Other reports point to links between Indonesian intelligence (BIN) and the alleged terrorist organization Jemiah Islami (JI).
Asked who he thought planted the second bomb, Mr Wahid said: "Maybe the police ... or the armed forces."
"The orders to do this or that came from within our armed forces, not from the fundamentalist people," he says.
The [Australian SBS's Dateline] program also claims
a key figure behind the formation of terror group Jemaah Islamiah was
an Indonesian spy.
Former terrorist Umar Abduh, who is now a researcher
and writer, told Dateline Indonesian authorities had a hand in many
terror groups.
"There is not a single Islamic group either in the
movement or the political groups that is not controlled by (Indonesian)
intelligence," he said. (see the Australian, 12 October 2005)
3. The Basra September 2005 British Covert Operation
Two British undercover "soldiers" wearing wigs and
dressed in Arab clothing, were driving a car loaded with weapons and
ammunition, towards the center of Basra.
The two SAS Special Forces agents were arrested by
the Iraqi police authorities They were subsequently "rescued" by
British forces, in a major military assault on the building where they
were being detained:
"British forces used up to 10 tanks " supported by
helicopters " to smash through the walls of the jail and free the two
British servicemen."
The incident, which resulted in numerous civilian and police casualties, has caused "political embarrassment".
Several media reports and eyewitness accounts
suggested that the SAS operatives were disguised as Al Qaeda
"terrorists" and were planning to set off the bombs in Basra's central
square during a major religious event.
The citizens of Basra witnessed the arrest.
Civilians were killed and injured when British forces under the command
of Brig Lorimer led the military assault on the prison. Al Jazeera
reported the circumstances of the arrest in an interview with Fattah
al-Shaykh, member of the Iraqi National Assembly:
If you really want to look for truth, then we should
resort to the Iraqi justice away from the British provocations against
the sons of Basra, particularly what happened today when the sons of
Basra caught two non-Iraqis, who seem to be Britons and were in a car
of the Cressida type. It was a booby-trapped car laden with ammunition
and was meant to explode in the center of the city of Basra in the
popular market. However, the sons of the city of Basra arrested them.
They [the two non-Iraqis] then fired at the people there and killed
some of them. The two arrested persons are now at the Intelligence
Department in Basra, and they were held by the National Guard force,
but the British occupation forces are still surrounding this department
in an attempt to absolve them of the crime. (Al Jazeera TV 20 Sept
2005).
Nobody in Basra believes that the two arrested SAS men were "working undercover against militants linked to Iran":
"The Iraqi police stopped a car with two foreigners
dressed as Arabs, and full of weapons and explosives," he said. "There
have been terrorist attacks and explosions in Basra - of course the
police wanted to investigate.".... Mr Hakim dismissed as "propaganda"
reports that the soldiers were working undercover against militants
linked to Iran. Officials in Basra have called for an espionage trial
for the two in an Iraqi court. British soldiers' legal immunity "does
not apply when they are out of uniform", Mr Hakim said. (Mr. Hakim is a
leading official in Iraq's largest Shia Muslim party, quoted in the
Financial Times, 29 Sept 2005)
Thwarting the Investigation
In his capacity of Commanding Officer of the Special
Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police in Basra, Captain Ken
Masters was responsible for investigating the circumstances of the
arrest of two undercover elite SAS men, wearing Arab clothing, by Iraqi
police in Basra. The investigation was not completed. Ken Masters died
in unusual circumstances three weeks later.
Captain Ken Masters had a mandate to cooperate in
his investigations, with the civilian Iraqi authorities. As part of his
mandate he was to investigate "into allegations that British soldiers
killed or mistreated Iraqi civilians". Specifically in this case, the
inquiry pertained to the circumstances of the British assault on the
prison on 19 September. The press reports and official statements
suggest that the assault on the prison was authorized by the Ministry
of Defense.
Was the British military blocking Captain Masters police investigation?
There were apparent disagreements between British
military commanding officers and the military police officials
dispatched to the war theater in charge of investigating the actions
and behavior of military personnel. (The Independent 17 Oct 2005).
Was pressure put to bear on Captain Masters by the
Ministry of Defense? According to Michael Keefer, the British Army led
by Brig Lorimer was determined
"to remove these men from any danger of
interrogation by their own supposed allies in the government the
British are propping up—even when their rescue entailed the destruction
of an Iraqi prison and the release of a large number of prisoners,
gun-battles with Iraqi police and with Al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia, a
large popular mobilization against the British occupying force, and a
subsequent withdrawal of any cooperation on the part of the regional
government—tends, if anything, to support the view that this episode
involved something much darker and more serious than a mere flare-up of
bad tempers at a check-point."
(See Michael Keefer, Were British Special Forces Soldiers Planting Bombs in Basra? 25 September 2005,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KEE20050925&articleId=994 )
Selected References
This text is intended to provide an overview of the
key issues underlying the US war agenda. Selected references and
supporting documentation are indicated below.
A comprehensive archive of articles on different
dimensions of the US War is available at the website of the Centre for
Research on Globalization at www.globalresearch.ca
Niloufer Bhagwat, The Security Council
Resolution on Syria is a pretext for the bombing and occupation of
Syria, by, November 2, 2005, GlobalResearch.ca
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BHA20051102&articleId=1175
Michel Chossudovsky, America’s "War on Terrorism", Second edition, Global Research, 2005, 387 p.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html
Michel Chossudovsky, Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, May 1, 2005, GlobalResearch.ca,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20050501&articleId=66
Michel Chossudovsky, Al Qaeda and the Iraqi Resistance Movement, September 18, 2005, GlobalResearch.ca,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20050918&articleId=967
CIA Uses German Bases to Transport Terrorists, Deutsche Welle, 27 november 2005
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20051127&articleId=1332
Thomas Eley, Did Big Oil participate in planning invasion of Iraq? December 11, 2005, wsws.org,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ELE20051211&articleId=1444
Chris Floyd, Sacred Terror: The Global Death Squad of George W. Bush, December 10, 2005,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FLO20051210&articleId=1434
Max Fuller, Crying Wolf: Media Disinformation and Death Squads in Occupied Iraq, November 10, 2005, GlobalResearch.ca
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FUL20051110&articleId=1230
Daniele Ganser, Able Danger adds twist to 9/11,
9/11 Ringleader connected to secret Pentagon operation,
GlobalResearch.ca, 27 August 2005
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050827&articleId=867
Seymour Hersh, Where is the Iraq war headed next? December 10, 2005, The New Yorker,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HER20051210&articleId=1436
Michael Keefer, Were British Special Forces
Soldiers Planting Bombs in Basra? Suspicions Strengthened by Earlier
Reports, Globalresearch.ca, 25 September 2005
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KEE20050925&articleId=994 )
Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter, Israel Readies Force to Strike on Nuclear Iran, December 11, 2005 , Sunday Times
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAH20051211&articleId=1446
Serendepity, Torture and the CIA, December 10, 2005, GlobalResearch.ca.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SER20051210&articleId=1441
Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil, December 14, 2004, GlobalResearch.ca,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WAD20041214&articleId=311
Mike Whitney, Why Iran will lead to World War 3, GlobalResearch.ca, 9 August 2005
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WHI20050809&articleId=825