Global Military Domination
THE
PERFECT ENEMY-
Terrorists who can't be caught because they don't
really exist or because they're CIA assets
Project for a New American Century
How the Empire Works: The Second
Track
US first use nuclear strategy
US Global Death Squads in
Uniform
NEW MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND
(6-26-02)
WORLDWIDE CONQUEST
HOBSON'S IMPERIALISM
CRITIQUE OF POLICIES
DOMINATION OF WORLD
IMPERIAL GUIDANCE PLANNING
ANALYSIS OF US VALUES--IDEALS AND
PRACTICE ABROAD (11-6-02)
US CHEMICAL & BIOLOGICAL
WEAPONS VS.
INTERNATIONAL LAW (10-29-02)
The CIA's
Intervention in Afghanistan in 1979
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National
Security Adviser
Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
CIA/FBI/NSA Covert Actions
A CIA MANUAL AND THE DATE OF 9-11
CIA AND PENTAGON EXPANDING COVERT
OPERATIONS
CIA AND SADDAM HUSSEIN
Bush
ORIGINS OF BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S
IMPERIAL POLICY
DOMINANT RIGHT-WING CORE IN GOVERNMENT
IMPERIAL RULER DOES NOT NEED CONGRESS
FOR WAR
SECRET WAR COUNCIL
BUSH'S SPEECH AT MOUNT
RUSHMORE
South America
SCHOOL OF AMERICAS
COUP IN VENEZUELA
Asia
Vietnam
killing spree revelations shock US
Paul Harris in New York, The Observer, Sunday October 26, 2003
Go to "Buried Secrets, Brutal Truths">
The Toledo Blade Investigation
ELLSBERG AND VIETNAM WAR
CENTRAL ASIA
CHINA THE REAL TARGET
Middle East
Mideast Crisis Links
Palestine
Iraq
CIA AND SADDAM HUSSEIN
Space
Domination of Space2
DOMINATION OF SPACE
Fighting Imperialism
A Nation Lost
EUGENE DEBS' STATEMENT AGAINST WAR
ELLSBERG AND VIETNAM WAR
Vietnam killing spree revelations
shock US
Paul Harris in New York, The Observer
Sunday October 26, 2003
Go
to "Buried Secrets, Brutal Truths">
The Toledo Blade Investigation
At the height of the Vietnam War, civilians were butchered by an army
unit and the carnage was covered up. But this was not My Lai. This bloody
massacre has only come to light in the past week - and not one of America's
elite corps of reporters can claim the credit.
It was a huge scoop. Yet the newspaper that uncovered the atrocity was
not the venerable New York Times or the Washington Post, still resting
on its Watergate laurels. Nor was it the New Yorker, famed for its in-depth
journalism. It was The Blade, a daily newspaper with a circulation of
just 150,000 that serves the Ohio city of Toledo, by Lake Erie.
For four days last week, The Blade ran its tale of the massacre of innocent
Vietnamese civilians by a US Army unit called Tiger Force. The story
was immediately hailed as the discovery of a 'new My Lai', the infamous
massacre of Vietnamese villagers that lifted the veil on wartime US
brutality.
America's larger dailies and TV networks were left scrabbling to make
up the ground - no easy task. Two Blade reporters had spent eight months
working solely on the scoop. Another had joined part-way through. Together,
they interviewed more than 100 people, tracking down former soldiers
in Tiger Force and finally travelling to Vietnam to interview survivors
and witnesses.
'The reaction has been overwhelming. The attitude of the government
for the past 36 years has been to keep this quiet,' said Ron Royhab,
a Blade executive editor.
The story began with a tip-off to the Blade's Washington bureau about
some classified documents. The information was passed back to Ohio,
where a reporter, Mike Sallah, began to dig. That process began to turn
up references to a secret investigation into Tiger Force. Requests for
army documents were repeatedly turned down, meaning The Blade's team
would have to track down witnesses and victims themselves.
The details of the scoop are harrowing, both for the Vietnamese survivors
and many of the still-living US Army soldiers.
Tiger Force operated out of control in the Vietnamese highlands for
seven months in 1967. Moving across the region, the platoon of 45 paratroops
slaughtered unarmed farmers and their wives and children. They tortured
and mutilated victims. A litany of horror has emerged - a baby decapitated
for the necklace he wore, a teenage boy for his tennis shoes. A former
Tiger Force sergeant, William Doyle, told reporters of a scalp he took
off a young nurse to decorate his rifle. The Blade investigation concluded
that hundreds probably died. 'We weren't keeping count,' Ken Kerney,
a former soldier who is now a California firefighter, told the paper.
'I knew it was wrong, but it was an acceptable practice.' Another, Rion
Causey, then a 19-year-old medic and now a nuclear physicist, talked
of how villagers were routinely shot: 'If they ran we shot them, and
if they didn't run we shot them anyway.'
The killing spree was either ignored or encouraged by army top brass,
but when an inquiry did take place it lasted for four years. No one
was charged. Details were not released to the public, and are still
classified. Bill Carpenter, a former special infantryman with Tiger
Force, believes the self-styled death squad's former commander, Lt James
Hawkins, should be held accountable. He 'thoroughly enjoyed killing'
and, now retired to Florida, still defiantly defends his platoon's wartime
activities. 'I don't regret nothing,' Hawkins has said.
But memories of the blood lust run deep in Vietnam. One farmer, Nguyen
Dam, now 66, vividly remembered being attacked. 'Our people didn't deserve
to die that way. We were farmers. We were not soldiers. We didn't hurt
anyone,' he said.
The Blade also found amazing stories from within Tiger Force itself.
One soldier, Gerald Bruner, turned on his own men and ordered them to
stop shooting civilians or he would open fire. For this, he was berated
by a commanding officer and told to see a psychiatrist.
Bruner was almost alone in resisting the killings. Yet the brutality
left its mental legacy. Barry Bowman, a Tiger Force medic, told The
Blade he is haunted by nightmares after witnessing the execution of
one elderly Vietnamese man. Others described flashbacks and many have
sought therapy to cope with their crimes. Others expressed no remorse.
Moreover, criminal charges are unlikely to be brought.
However, the series of stories about Tiger Force seems certain to put
The Blade in contention for a Pulitzer Prize this year. In fact, the
paper is no stranger to awards. The Blade is rare in modern America
in being owned by a wealthy local family, the Robinson Blocks, who have
a strong commitment to investigative journalism. That means money and
time is available for The Blade's reporters to bring in a major scoop.
'We have the resources to do this. There are no shareholders to worry
about,' said Royhab.
Another Blade investigation - into the effects of a deadly industrial
hazard - was shortlisted for the Pulitzer in 2000. 'The Toledo Blade
is not just another American newspaper. We are much greater than that,'
said John Robinson Block, the family's main representative on the paper.
The Robinson Blocks have owned the paper since 1926 and are keenly aware
that until the 1920s The Blade was a big player in the US newspaper
industry, with a national circulation. 'I suppose we have the ghosts
of that history still hanging around with us,' John Robinson Block said.
That history was revisited spectacularly last week. And, as John added:
'As long as I am around, we will continue to try to do things like this.'
DOMINATION OF SPACE
"The Imperialization of Space" by F.H. Knelman, Ph.D.
The U.S. represents a stage of super-imperialization whereby it is planning
to colonize the world from the bastions of outer space. The agenda consists
of two basic elements. Firstly it is to facilitate the universality
of capital investment based on an exclusive concern with economic growth
in isolation from all other social concerns. The second element is to
create a global enforcement system based on the militarization of space.
Behind these policies, guiding them, is an elite group of strategic
planning institutions - the National Security Council, The CIA, the
National Security Agency plus a network of corporate -based ³think tanks²,
consulting firms and bogus organizations, all guided by the above agenda.
This policy has become globalized, now operating on a planetary basis
and prepared to intervene anywhere in the world with military support
for its agenda. All of this, in effect, constitutes the force of Pax
Americana, largely unopposed in a unipolar world. And the ultimate support
for this state of organized exploitation is the strategic nuclear arsenal
of the U.S., coupled to the building of an advanced national missile
defense (NMD) system. A series of presidential directives from Reagan
through George W. Bush have consolidated the policy of preparing to
fight and win a nuclear war, including one against Russia. This is supported
by a strategic nuclear ³hit list², identifying every enemy target, known
as the Single Integrated Operational Plan or SIOP. The SIOP is an operational
nuclear plan which identifies all enemy targets of value. This is coupled
to the entrenched counterforce doctrine, i.e. to maintain a force capable
of destroying all of the Russian nuclear targets identified in the SIOP,
i.e. all its strategic nuclear weapons sites, all other launchers and
its Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence centres (CCCII),
performing nuclear lobotomy, in a single counterforce strike. It has
been calculated that 15 million Russian civilians would be killed in
such an attack, which is operationalized. (W.M. Arkin, The Bull. of
the Atomic Scientists, Sept./Oct., 2000, p.72). This is equivalent to
two holocausts, clearly an act of extreme criminality. China is also
a target of a SIOP through a presidential directive signed by Bill Clinton
(W.M. Arkin, The Bull. of the At. Sci., July/Aug., 2001, p.72). The
Pentagon also prepares Integrated Strategic Offensive Plans (ISOPs)
for Russia and China. All of this is coordinated by Strategic Command
(STRATCOM) headquarters in Omaha. The role of STRATCOM is to develop
SIOPs and ISOPs which are then codified by presidential directives.
Thus the Pentagon identifies the targets and the plan becomes codified
by the administration, a highly questionable role for a country claiming
to be a democracy, particularly when these plans are not made public
for debate and are intrinsically criminal in nature. Still other features
of the global agenda of the U.S. relate to the geopolitics of oil. This
is directed to secure the present and future sources of oil anywhere
on the planet with a focus on the Persian Gulf and an increasing interest
in the Caspian Sea region. In part this was the basis of the operation
in Kosovo, with the additional bonus of ideological cleansing. In these
respects the U.S. dominates and co-opts NATO. It is dedicated to remove
all obstacles to the absolute freedom of enterprise, including the destruction
of regions with social or socialist programs. This is a continuation
of its historical intervention in the countries of Central America.
The policy of ideological cleansing accounts for the U.S. activities
in the Balkans, including Kosovo, of course. But in a subtle way it
also accounts for the general attack on all countries with national
social programs such as health care. The case of Canada is a classic
example of the pressures exerted by the U.S. to erode our national programs,
seize our critical resources and, in general, force us to privatize
. The instruments for this are the so-called ³free trade² agreements
supported by the U.S. control of the related international bodies such
as WTO, IMF and the WB. The net result of this blind intractable support
of free enterprise is to enrich the rich and impoverish the poor. The
statistics of this deepening division are stark, with multinationals
more powerful than entire countries and a growing concentration of wealth
in the face of increasing global poverty. This trend is supported by
the lie of ³trickle-down² economics. In the case of the remaining communist
countries, aside from the deliberate isolation of Cuba, the U.S. is
using the more subtle process of capitalist seduction in its relations
with Russia and China, as well as North Korea and Viet Nam. In the case
of Russia and China it has had some success, although there is a political
backlash developing. In its military strategy vis-à-vis these two countries,
it has used a crude deception whose centrepiece is its National Missile
Defense (NMD) project. The heart of this deception is to offer some
significant reduction in strategic missiles while building a favoring
number of anti-missiles, i.e. in a ratio to neutralize offense. But
even further, the U.S. is dedicated to the policy of counterforce or
³preemptive defense², a true oxymoron, as we have earlier described.
The nuclear strategic policy was given its initial impetus under President
Ronald Reagan, who was not only a captive of a group of visceral anti-communist
advisers, but also a believer in the alleged biblical prophecy of Armageddon
(see my book, ³America, God and the Bomb: The Legacy of Ronald Reagan²,
(Vancouver: New Star Books), 1987). Every president, in turn, supported
the general thrust of this policy, but it has been given new life under
George W. Bush, not merely more right-wing than most of the last few
presidents, but an ideal dupe of his collective advisers including,
of course, Vice-President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice, a true conservative hawk, formerly with the Hoover
Foundation. George W. Bush has placed the U.S. in increased isolation
by threatening to bypass the 1972 ABM treaty, by refusing to support
the international criminal court or to sign the Biological Weapons Convention
or the Kyoto Protocol. Even his national rating is dropping as he eagerly
supports a patient¹s right to be billed and promotes misled defense.
His position on missile defence has strongly divided his NATO allies.
In the rest of the world only Israel remains the U.S.¹s staunchest supporter.
This is both the result of a powerful American Jewish lobby and the
U.S. need to preserve the Persian Gulf oil fields. The ultimate means
for the U.S. to impose a radical new global imperialism is the use and
control of space. Several documents and key statements are frank in
revealing this global plan. Among these are the ³Space Commission² cleared
by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. Space Command¹s ³Vision
for 2020² and a U.S. Air Force board report, ³New World Vistas: Air
and Space Power for the 21st Century². Following are some key findings
of the Space Commission: The report by the Rumsfeld ³Space Commission²
calls for U.S. ³power projection in, from and through space.² It seeks
U.S. ³superior space capabilities.² It says the U.S. president should
³have the option to deploy weapons in space.² It emphasizes that it
is ³possible to project power through and from space in response to
events anywhere in the world. Unlike weapons from aircraft, land forces
or ships, space missions initiated from earth or space could be carried
out with little transit, information or weather delay. Having this capability
would give the U.S. a much stronger deterrent and, in a conflict, an
extraordinary military advantage.² It proposes the U.S. Space Command
become the nucleus of a U.S. Space Corps, to be like the Marine Corps,
and possibly ³transition² to a fully separate Space Force or ³Space
Department² on a par with the Army, Navy and Air Force several years
hence. In addition, it proposed that ³In the coming period, the U.S.
will conduct operations to, from, in and through space in support of
its national interests both on the Earth and in space.² Star Wars is
back. However the full revelation of the U.S. plans for the imperialist
control of space can be found in the U.S. Space Command¹s ³Vision for
2020² report: ³The globalization of the world economy will also continue
with a widening between Ohaves¹ and Ohave-nots.¹² The U.S. Space Command,
set up by the Pentagon in 1985, describes itself in ³Vision 2020² this
way: ³U.S. Space Command dominating the space dimension of military
operations to protect U.S. interests and investment. Integrating Space
Forces into war fighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict.²
³Vision 2020² compares the U.S. effort to ³control space² and Earth
below to how centuries ago ³nations built navies to protect and enhance
their commercial interests², referring to the great empires of Europe
that ruled the waves and thus the Earth to maintain their imperial economics.
The ³Long Range Plan² of the U.S. Space command is candid: ³The U.S.
will remain a global power and exert global leadership.² it says. ³The
U.S. won¹t always be able to forward base its forces. Widespread communications
will highlight disparities in resources and quality of life contributing
to unrest in developing countries. The global economy will continue
to become more interdependent. Economic alliances, as well as the growth
and influence of multinational corporations, will blur security agreements.
The gap between Ohave¹ and Ohave-not¹ nations will widen, creating regional
unrest. One of the long-acknowledged and commonly understood advantages
of space-based platforms is no restriction or country clearances to
overfly a nation from space.² As ³New World Vistas: Air and Space Power
for the 21st Century², a U.S. Air Force board report, states: ³In the
next two decades, new technologies will allow the fielding of space-based
weapons of devastating effectiveness to be used to deliver energy and
mass as force projection in tactical and strategic conflict. These advances
will enable lasers with reasonable mass and cost to effect very many
kills.² But ³power limitations impose restrictions² on such-based weapons
systems making them ³relatively unfeasible². ³A natural technology to
enable high power,² it goes on, ³is nuclear power in space. Setting
the emotional issues of nuclear power aside, this technology offers
a viable alternative for large amounts of power in space.² The publicly
alleged rationale for NMD is that it is to protect the U.S. from a missile
attack by a so-called ³rogue state². This is a transparent scam, Russia
still being viewed as the ultimate and inevitable protagonist, an obstacle
to the fulfillment of a unipolar world. ³U.S. Space Command² Chief,
General Joseph Ashby, has put it bluntly: ³It¹s politically sensitive,
but it¹s going to happen. We¹re going to fight in space. We¹re going
to fight from space...that¹s why the U.S. has development programs in
directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms...We will engage terrestrial
targets some day - ships, airplanes, land targets - from space. We will
engage targets in space, from space². The motto of the Air Force¹s 50th
Space Wing is ³Master of Space². Spurgeon M. Keeny, of the conservative
U.S. Arms Control Association, has stated the case clearly: ³Russia
is the only country which threatens the existence of the U.S.² (Time,
8 May, 2000, p.19). This is the ³politically sensitive² essence of General
Ashby¹s statement. For a candid description of the U.S.¹s real purpose
for the dominance of space we need only record the statements of the
ultra right-wing Republican Senator from New Hampshire, Bob Smith: ³With
the technology that we have already developed and demonstrated, we have
the opportunity today to move forward to the comprehensive missile defense
architecture that President Reagan envisioned almost 20 years ago, more
than the marginal defense this Administration has been struggling with
for the past few months. We need to incorporate forward-deployed capabilities
like the Navy Theater Wide program and the Air Force Airborne Laser
and space-based missile-defense programs to ensure we can stop missiles
in their boost phase, dropping the debris fallout over our adversary¹s
homes, not ours. We also need to incorporate space sensors and integrate
everything together with our theater defense systems to form a comprehensive
architecture to defend this nation and our deployed troops². Smith says,
³Space is absolutely critical to future war fighting! This increasing
importance was demonstrated in the Gulf War and in the Balkans. I firmly
believe that whoever controls space will win the next war². The policy
message of the U.S. is absolutely clear. It is a description of a new
imperialism in which the entire planet becomes a colony ruled from space.
The remaining obstacles are Russia, firstly, and China secondly. The
current strategic policies of the U.S. are designed to negate these
obstacles to its hegemonic rule of the world. They are not designed
against the lesser powers which the U.S. identifies as rogue states,
as alleged. U.S. policy is thus in direct conflict with the World Court
decision on the intended use of weapons of mass destruction, since the
U.S. has operationalized the first use of nuclear weapons. In support
of this the U.S. pulled out of the attempt to devise a protocol on the
enforcement of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention arguing that it
posed risks to their national security and commercial secrets of their
biotech industry. The U.S. is determined to abrogate the 1972 ABM treaty
and, of course, violate the Outer Space treaty. But all these plans
are not without significant opposition, major opponents being not only
Russia and China but also the Democratic opposition. Not only are the
majority of Democrats opposed to the House bill on the right of patients
to be billed but recently Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee has stated, regarding the abrogation of the ABM
treaty: ³I think we have the votes to block it² (globeandmail.com, Friday,
Aug. 3, 2001). But we cannot take comfort that this will impact on the
right-wing regime of George W. Bush, with its global partners of big
business and its unipolar status. The total number of U.S. companies
with a role in the full space program includes some seventy-five, among
which are the giant multinationals - Aerojet, Lockheed Martin, Sparta,
TRW and Vista Technologies, all seeking a piece of the multi billion
space program. The wedding of corporate interests and the U.S. role
to take the ultimate high ground is a radical new stage of imperialism
that not even Lenin envisaged. Finally, the U.S. appears blind to the
consequences of initiating a radically new arms race whereby building
an anti-missile system will initiate a counter anti-missile action by
China and Russia. These countermeasures are technologically simple and
cheaper and will force the U.S. to attempt to counter the countermeasures
(³Countermeasures², Andrew M. Sessler et al., editors, (Union of Concerned
Scientists: Cambridge, Mass.) April, 2000). The early isolationism of
the American First groups of the pre-World War II period is giving way
to a self-imposed isolationism of Pax Americana in search of global
hegemony. One need no longer ask which is the greatest rogue state in
the world.
NEW MISSILE "DEFENSE" COMMAND
Pentagon Wants to Create New Missile Defense Command Web Posted
- 06/26/02 http://www.fedsources.com/elements/index/news/fed/f062602-2.asp
Article Source: The New York Times
"The Pentagon plans to create a new command that combines the military
network that warns of missile attacks with its force that can fire nuclear
or nonnuclear weapons at suspected nuclear, chemical, and biological
weapons sites around the world, administration officials said. The command
would fit neatly into the Bush administration's new doctrine of pre-emptive
action against states and terrorist groups that are trying to develop
weapons of mass destruction, officials said. "Defense Secretary Donald
H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, have briefed President Bush on the plan in recent days. Top
aides say it is near certain to be approved. Under this proposal, the
United States Space Command would merge with the United States Strategic
Command. Earlier this year, the Pentagon created a new Northern Command
to coordinate responses to terrorist attacks within the nation's borders,
and this new step is viewed as another effort to revamp the military's
structure to be more responsive to terrorist threats." ------ Adapted
from, "New Command Would Meld Missile Defense and Offense," by Eric
Schmitt, The New York Times, Monday, June 24, 2002.
WORLDWIDE CONQUEST AND CONSEQUENCES
----- Original Message ----- From: Global Network Against Weapons &
Nuclear Power in Space To: Global Network Sent: Tuesday, August 06,
2002 12:17 AM Subject: AUG 6 GAGNON SPEECH IN SANTA FE, N.M. FOR THE
SAKE OF LIFE WE MUST COME ALIVE Today we gather to remember the victims
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan that were killed by a weapon of mass
destruction by the U.S.. The U.S. is the only nation to use such a nuclear
weapon of mass destruction. And now today, we are ready to invade Iraq.
We are told that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. We are told that
Iraq is a rogue state. But who is the Bush administration fooling? And
who is the rogue state? It's really all about oil. It's about control
and domination. The New World Order. Corporate globalization. It's about
empire. What is the number one industrial export of the U.S. today?
Of course it is weapons. And what is the global marketing strategy for
the U.S. number one industrial export? Conflict, tension, chaos, war.
The U.S. is turning the world into an utter mess. Since 9-11 we are
paying attention to Central Asia. We now know that Central Asia has
some of the largest deposits of oil and natural gas in the world. We
also know that Central Asia sits on the inland border of China. We are
told by King George II that it is going to be a long, long war in Central
Asia. Permanent U.S. bases are being set up in the region. We are told
that war with Iraq is inevitable. More weapons will be produced and
used and will be paid for with U.S. tax dollars. At the same time we
are told there is no money for education, health care, environmental
clean-up, child care, public transit and social security. We know that
big oil will benefit from the war in Central Asia and the Middle East.
It's the New World Order. Star Wars is now underway too. Hundreds and
hundreds of billions of dollars will go to the aerospace industry to
create war in the heavens. It's called corporate welfare. We are told
it's about defending the American people. King George says he wants
to protect us from the rogue states like North Korea and China. China,
with its 20 nuclear missiles that can reach the U.S., while we have
over 7,000 nuclear weapons that could destroy China. And if you've been
in Wal-Mart or Kmart lately you know that the U.S. is China's best customer.
China is not going to attack the U.S. It's an absurd idea. It's really
about control and domination. The U.S. has it's boot on the necks of
the people of the world. September 11 was a response. People around
the world are getting tired of being controlled and dominated by the
U.S. The U.S. talks alot about democracy, but King George says that
we have to take out Iraq. Who do we think we are? It's not democracy
when you invade other countries. That's what Hitler did. It's not moral
to surround and starve the children of Iraq. That's what Hitler did
to the Jews. It's time for the American people to come alive. We are
more worried about our social status than what we are doing to the world.
We're more worried about what our neighbors think of us than our obligation
to take care of the poor. We're more worried about the stock market
than our obligations to educate our children. We're more worried about
our fancy cars than our obligations to take care of the sick and the
elderly. Martin Luther King said that America is a sick society. We
lecture the world about weapons of mass destruction but then at laboratories
like Los Alamos here in New Mexico they are building nuclear weapons,
chemical, and biological weapons. America is a hypocrite nation and
we are hypocritical people. We say one thing and do another. We all
know about our genocide of Native Americans and African Americans. We
all know how the white man stole native lands. Now the U.S. empire is
moving to steal the oil rich lands in the Middle East and Central Asia.
We are all responsible. It's our tax dollars at work. We watch the Democrats
and Republicans become one big war party. We say it does no good to
protest. We say we are tired and hopeless. Our communities build the
weapons. Our sons and daughters kill our so-called "enemies" and it
all benefits the big corporations. The New World Order. Corporate globalization.
People all over the world are calling on us to lift the boot off their
necks. They no longer have any respect for the U.S. They see us for
the greedy bullies that we are. When are we going to stop? Are we going
to destroy the world so that we can control and dominate everyone and
everything? For the sake of the future generations we must come alive.
For the sake of the Mother Earth we must protest. For the sake of our
own conscience we must say NO MORE! Bruce K. Gagnon Coordinator Global
Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 90083 Gainesville,
FL 32607 (352) 337-9274 http://www.space4peace.org globalnet@mindspring.com
OLD BOOK RELEVANT TODAY
J. A. Hobson, Imperialism: A Study (U of Michigan P). Republication
of a book written 100 years ago. Imperialism (today's globalization)
benefitted neither the empire nor the dependent countries, but it was
good business for certain classes and trades within the dominating country.
CRITIQUE OF US POLICIES AND PROGRAM FOR PEACE
" PEACE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT WILL RISE OR FALL TOGETHER"
By David Krieger
It is not likely that peace can be maintained in the longer term without
sustainable development. Similarly, it is unlikely that sustainable
development can take place in a climate dominated by war and the preparations
for war. In order to assess the prospects for both peace and sustainable
development, we must take into account the broad global trends of our
time: political, economic, military and cultural. I will attempt to
provide some perspective on these trends.
Political: In the aftermath of the Cold War, there was a breakdown
of the post World War II bipolar balance of power. The United States
emerged as the dominant global power, while the Russians have struggled
to maintain their economy and their influence. Instead of extending
a gracious hand of support to the Russians, as the United States did
for Western Europe, including the vanquished nations, and Japan after
WWII, the US has sought to extend its global reach and, in general,
forced the Russians to accept compromising positions, such as the expansion
of NATO into Eastern Europe. At the same time, the United States has
generally opposed the expansion of international law, including human
rights law, and has withdrawn its support from many key treaty commitments,
including the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty, the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Accords on Climate
Change, and the Protocol to verify the Biological Weapons Convention.
Almost daily there are reports of new US assaults on international law.
As the United States has sought to extend its power unilaterally, it
has undermined the international political process established after
World War II that operates through the United Nations. The US has withheld
economic support from the United Nations and only sought to use it when
the US perceived that its own interests could be directly advanced,
as in the cases of the Persian Gulf War and the more recent US-led war
on terrorism. In the past, new coalitions have formed to provide a check
on one country asserting global dominance. It is perhaps too early to
see clearly the shape of a new coalition that might arise in response
to US dominance, but if history is a guide there will be one. Even without
any major coalition of forces arising, however, the US will remain challenged
by terrorists seeking to avenge themselves against the US for policies
that have adversely affected their lives, cultures and countries. Economic:
The US has promoted the forces of globalization that have opened the
doors for capital to move freely to countries where the costs of labor
are cheapest and the environmental regulations are most lax. Despite
claims by Western leaders that benefits would accrue to the neediest,
this “globalization from above” has continued to shift economic benefit
from the poor to the wealthy, and has not provided substantial increased
benefit to the poor of the world. Nearly half the world’s population
continues to live in conditions of poverty, characterized by inadequate
food, water, shelter and health care. These conditions create a fertile
breeding ground for terrorists committed to the destruction of US dominance
and its imperial outreach. Further, global military expenditures are
approximately $800 billion per year. These funds are largely used to
repress and control the poor, when in actuality, for a small fraction
of these global expenditures, the conditions of poverty could be largely
eliminated. Of the $800 billion spent worldwide on military forces,
the US spends approximately one-half of the total. This trend has been
on a steady rise since the Bush administration came into power. The
rich countries of the world have done little to alleviate the crushing
burdens of poverty or to aid in redressing the indignities and inequities
still existing after long periods of colonial rule. There is much cause
for unease throughout the developing world, which is giving rise to
continued low intensity warfare as exemplified by the Palestinian struggle
against the Israelis and events such as the September 11th attacks against
the United States.
Military: In the post-Cold War period, the US has pulled far
ahead of the other nations of the world in terms of military dominance.
The US is able to control NATO policy and has used NATO as a vehicle
for its pursuit of military domination. In addition to dramatically
increasing its military budget in recent years, the US has announced
plans for high-tech developments that include missile defense systems,
more usable nuclear weapons and the weaponization of space. Despite
its push for global military dominance, however, the nature of today’s
weapons limit the possibility of any country having unilateral dominance.
Nuclear weapons, for example, are capable of destroying cities, and
there is an increased likelihood in the aftermath of the Cold War that
these weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists capable of attacking
largely, if not completely, with impunity. Thus, the most powerful weapons
that have been created have greater utility for the weak (if they can
get their hands on them) than they do for the strong (who may be reluctant
to exercise such power and also unable to if they cannot identify and
locate the source of the attack).
Cultural: The world is definitely experiencing a clash of cultures,
but not along the fault lines of civilizations as Samuel Huntington
has suggested. The opposing cultural trends that are most dominant are
between those who define the world in terms of the value of massive
accumulation and immediate use of resources (powerful individuals, corporations
and the national governments that provide a haven for them) and those
who define the world in terms of shared rights and responsibilities
for life and future generations (most of the world’s people). The former
values, reflected predominantly by the economic elites in the United
States and many other countries and constantly on display through various
forms of media, do not promote sustainable development, wreak havoc
on the poor of the world and invite retaliation. The latter values are
reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the growing
body of international human rights law that has developed since World
War II. Dominant Trends: The dominant world trends today are:
unilateralism by the United States and a downplaying of collective political
responsibility; growing and increasingly desperate economic disparity
between the world’s rich and poor; a push for military dominance by
the United States in particular and the Western states through NATO
more generally, offset by the flexibility of terrorists who may obtain
nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction; and the cultural dominance
of greed and selfishness portrayed by global media on a broad screen
for all, including the poor, to see from throughout the world. These
trends are destabilizing and unsustainable. They can change by democratic
means from within democratic states or they can continue until the world
is embroiled in conflagration. That is a choice that is available to
us for a relatively short period of time as the trends are already quite
advanced. The changes needed are: a shift to multilateralism, involving
all states, through a reformed and strengthened United Nations; implementation
of a plan to alleviate poverty and economic injustice throughout the
world; a shift from US and NATO military dominance to the implementation
of the post World War II vision of collective security; and a shift
toward implementation of international law in which all states and their
leaders are held to high standards of protecting human rights and the
dignity of the individual. The United Nations World Summit on Sustainable
Development, set to take place in Johannesburg, South Africa in August
2002, will fail dramatically unless it takes into account these dominant
trends and the need to shift them in more sustainable and peaceful directions.
David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org)
and the Deputy Chair of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists
for Global Responsibility. He can be contacted at dkrieger@napf.org.
_____________________________________ "Peace is the only battle worth
waging." --- Albert Camus To become a free on-line participating member
of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, click here: https://www.ndic.com/wagingpeace/mbrshp.html.
____________________________________ David Krieger, President Nuclear
Age Peace Foundation PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Road, Suite 1 Santa
Barbara, CA 93108-2794 dkrieger@napf.org Web site: www.wagingpeace.org
www.nuclearfiles.org _____________________________________
COUP IN VENEZUELA, US INVOLVED
also see Third World Traveler: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/US_Coup_Venezuela.html
VENEZUELA > > > I. VENEZUELA AND USA > II. BUSH AND VENEZUELA COUP >
III. VENEZUELA COUP AND US MEDIA > IV. INTELLIGENCE REPORT OF BUSH IN
COUP > V. CIA > VI. COUP GENERALS FROM SOA > VII. VICTORY FOR THE PEOPLE
> VIII. US NAVY AND OTHERS INVOLVED IX. COVERUP > >
I. : VENEZUELA AND BUSH'S USA > > > Venezuela coup linked to Bush team
> > > Specialists in the 'dirty wars' of the Eighties encouraged the
plotters > > who > > > tried to topple President Chavez > > > > > >
Saturday April 20 2002 > > > The Guardian (UK) > > > > > > The failed
coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in > > > the
US government, The Observer has established. They have long > histories
> > > in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working
in > > > Central America at that time. > > > > > > Washington's involvement
in the turbulent events that briefly > > > removed left-wing leader
Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects > > > fears about US
ambitions in the hemisphere. > > > > > > It also also deepens doubts
about policy in the region being made by > > > appointees to the Bush
administration, all of whom owe their careers to > > > serving in the
dirty wars under President Reagan. > > > > > > One of them, Elliot Abrams,
who gave a nod to the attempted > > > Venezuelan coup, has a conviction
for misleading Congress over the > > infamous > > > Iran-Contra affair.
> > > > > > The Bush administration has tried to distance itself from
the coup. > > > It immediately endorsed the new government under businessman
Pedro > > Carmona. > > > But the coup was sent dramatically into reverse
after 48 hours. > > > > > > Now officials at the Organisation of American
States and other > > > diplomatic sources, talking to The Observer,
assert that the US > > > administration was not only aware the coup
was about to take place, but > > had > > > sanctioned it, presuming
it to be destined for success. > > > > > > The visits by Venezuelans
plotting a coup, including Carmona > > > himself, began, say sources,
'several months ago', and continued until > > weeks > > > before the
putsch last weekend. The visitors were received at the White > > > House
by the man President George Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker >
> for > > > Latin America, Otto Reich. > > > > > > Reich is a right-wing
Cuban-American who, under Reagan, ran the > > > Office for Public Diplomacy.
It reported in theory to the State > > Department, > > > but Reich was
shown by congressional investigations to report directly > to > > >
Reagan's National Security Aide, Colonel Oliver North, in the White
> House. > > > > > > North was convicted and shamed for his role in
Iran-Contra, whereby > > > arms bought by busting US sanctions on Iran
were sold to the Contra > > > guerrillas and death squads, in revolt
against the Marxist government in > > > Nicaragua. > > > > > > Reich
also has close ties to Venezuela, having been made ambassador > > >
to Caracas in 1986. His appointment was contested both by Democrats
in > > > Washington and political leaders in the Latin American country.
The > > > objections were overridden as Venezuela sought access to the
US oil > > market. > > > > > > > > > Reich is said by OAS sources to
have had 'a number of meetings with > > > Carmona and other leaders
of the coup' over several months. The coup was > > > discussed in some
detail, right down to its timing and chances of > success, > > > which
were deemed to be excellent. > > > > > > On the day Carmona claimed
power, Reich summoned ambassadors from > > > Latin America and the Caribbean
to his office. He said the removal of > > Chavez > > > was not a rupture
of democra tic rule, as he had resigned and was > > > 'responsible for
his fate'. He said the US would support the Carmona > > > government.
> > > > > > But the crucial figure around the coup was Abrams, who operates
in > > > the White House as senior director of the National Security
Council for > > > 'democracy, human rights and international operations'.
He was a leading > > > theoretician of the school known as 'Hemispherism',
which put a priority > > on > > > combating Marxism in the Americas.
> > > > > > It led to the coup in Chile in 1973, and the sponsorship
of regimes > > > and death squads that followed it in Argentina, El
Salvador, Honduras, > > > Guatemala and elsewhere. During the Contras'
rampage in Nicaragua, he > > worked > > > directly to North. > > > >
> > Congressional investigations found Abrams had harvested illegal
> > > funding for the rebellion. Convicted for withholding information
from > the > > > inquiry, he was pardoned by George Bush senior. > >
> > > > A third member of the Latin American triangle in US policy-making
is > > > John Negroponte, now ambassador to the United Nations. He was
Reagan's > > > ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985 when a US-trained
death squad, > > > Battalion 3-16, tortured and murdered scores of activists.
A diplomatic > > > source said Negroponte had been 'informed that there
might be some > > movement > > > in Venezuela on Chavez' at the beginning
of the year. > > > > > > More than 100 people died in events before
and after the coup. In > > > Caracas on Friday a military judge confined
five high-ranking officers > to > > > indefinite house arrest pending
formal charges of rebellion. > > > > > > Chavez's chief ideologue -
Guillermo Garcia Ponce, director of the > > > Revolutionary Political
Command - said dissident generals, local media > and > > > anti-Chavez
groups in the US had plotted the president's removal. > > > > > > 'The
most reactionary sectors in the United States were also > > > implicated
in the conspiracy,' he said.
II. BUSH AND VENEZUELA > > The American President has a singular view
of democracy. After all, > > > look what happened in Florida > > > >
http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,687944,00.html > > >
> Terry Jones > > > Sunday April 21, 2002 > > > The Observer > > > >
> > After last weekend's shocking events in Venezuela, in which President
> > > Chavez was ousted in a free and fair democratic coup, only to
be > > > returned to office two days later on what seems to have been
little > > > more than the whim of the people, the leaders of the Free
World have > > > clearly been forced to reconsider the nature of democracy.
> > > > > > When asked whether the Bush administration now recognised
President > > > Chavez as Venezuela's legitimate President, a spokesman
for President > > > Bush conceded that although Mr Chavez 'was democratically
elected' one > > > had to bear in mind that 'legitimacy is something
that is conferred > > > not just by a majority of the voters, however'
[sic]. > > > > > > Clearly, this involves a fundamental re-evaluation
of what we > > > understand by democracy, and I offer here some thoughts
on the > > > principles - other than counting votes - which might confer
> > > legitimacy. > > > > > > Since its ground-breaking experiments
in vote-counting in Florida two > > > years ago, the United States has
been universally recognised as the > > > chief innovator in the field
of democratic principles. Therefore, one > > > of the factors that must
surely confer legitimacy on any democracy > > > would be approval by
the United States. > > > > > > It is no good people blindly voting in
any Tom, Dick or Hugo if they > > > are not acceptable to Washington.
If this is true of Iraq, North > > > Korea, Serbia and the UK, it is
doubly true of South America and > > > trebly true of a country that
happens to be the third largest supplier > > > of oil to the US. > >
> > > > It is also no good imagining that landslide victories are any
guide to > > > legitimacy. Just because Chavez has twice been elected
President by > > > the largest margins in Venezuela's history, and just
because his > > > government has twice the number of elected representatives
that its > > > opponents have, that does not mean it can go around passing
any > > > legislation it wants. > > > > > > According to the 'Florida
Rules', the narrower the margin of victory, > > > the greater the legitimacy.
In fact, if the victor actually has fewer > > > people voting for him
than the loser (almost half-a-million fewer in > > > the case of George
W. Bush) then that is democracy's way of awarding > > > him carte blanche
to do whatever he and his friends in the oil > > > business want. >
> > > > > Another good measure of legitimacy, according to the 'Florida
Rules', > > > is the number of interesting variations that can be introduced
into > > > the voting system. Florida led the way in the 2000 presidential
> > > elections with confusing ballot design in Palm Beach County (a
> > > confusion which favoured Bush by 10 to 1) and difficulties with
the > > > punch-card system in 26 out of the 67 counties (which probably
lost > > > Gore something in the region of 30,000 votes). Then there
was also the > > > question of setting up roadblocks to prevent black
voters getting to > > > the ballot, and the novel expedient of simply
not collecting some of > > > the ballot boxes when they did. > > > >
> > The lack of this sort of experimentation in the Venezuelan elections
> > > must do a lot to harm the legitimacy of any so-called 'President'
in > > > the eyes of the Bush administration. Especially Mr Bush's brother's
> > > eyes. > > > > > > The truth is that democracy is not really served
by having elections > > > at all. That is why the Bush administration
was so prompt to endorse > > > the presidency of Pedro Carmona Estanga,
the head of Venezuela's most > > > important business association, who
promised faithfully not to hold > > > any elections for a year. > >
> > > > One thing that certainly does not confer legitimacy on any democratic
> > > government is passing legislation to benefit its own people. Chavez
> > > reformed the corrupt system that he inherited. He tried to > >
> redistribute land to benefit the poorest farmers, granted titles to
> > > the self-built homes of the barrios, increased the minimum wage
and > > > enrolled more than a million students in school, who were
previously > > > excluded. > > > > > > Nevertheless, 'Mr Chavez's record
as President is terrible,' said one > > > American newspaper. He has
failed to end all the corruption, put his > > > supporters into government
and (at one point during the riots) blocked > > > press coverage. But,
of course, what really destr- oys any claims to > > > legitimacy Chavez
might have has been his meetings with Saddam > > > Hussein, Muammar
Gadaffi and Fidel Castro. > > > > > > In fact, far from stifling the
press and television, Mr Chavez has > > > been foolish enough to allow
it total freedom, with the result that > > > nine out of 10 newspapers
and four out of the five television stations > > > are in the hands
of vested interests who oppose his reforms. > > > > > > These television
stations played a big part in organising the > > > demonstrations of
12 April, by advertising the event every 10 minutes. > > > During the
riots, they continually showed film of Chavez supporters > > > firing
rifles, while reporting that 10 demonstrators had been killed > > >
and hundreds injured. All of which has been dutifully reported > > >
worldwide and used against Chavez by the US government. > > > > > >
However, an eye-witness report suggests that most of the dead were >
> > Chavez supporters killed by rooftop snipers belonging to the extreme
> > > Bandera Roja party, an assertion supported by the secretary of
health > > > for metropolitan Caracas, Pedro Aristimuño, who reported
that of those > > > who died 'the most serious wounds were in the cranium
and cheek... > > > they appeared to be shots from above'. > > > > >
> If democracy is to live up to the high expectations placed on it by
> > > the President of the United States and his team, it will have
to > > > conform to the principles established in Florida. In the meantime,
> > > states such as Venezuela may claim to be democracies, but their
words > > > will ring hollow in the ears of George W. > > > > > > "Behind
the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible > > > government
owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to > > > the
people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy >
> > alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first
> > > task of the statesmanship of the day." > > > -- Theodore Roosevelt,
19-Apr-06 back when > > > Republicans weren't corrupt. > > > Not dead,
in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal! > > > > >
III. US MEDIA AND COUP IN VENEZUELA > > > From: James Ketola
> > > MAINSTREAM AMERICAN MEDIA APPLAUDED VENEZUELAN COUP > > > MEDIA
ADVISORY: > > > U.S. Papers Hail Venezuelan Coup as Pro-Democracy Move
> > > > > > April 18, 2002 > > >
When elements of the Venezuelan military forced president Hugo Chavez
> > > from > > > office last week, the editorial boards of several major
U.S. > > > newspapers > > > followed the U.S. government's lead and greeted
the news with > > > enthusiasm. > > > > > > In an April 13 editorial,
the New York Times triumphantly declared > > > that > > > Chavez's "resignation"
meant that "Venezuelan democracy is no longer > > > threatened by a would-be
dictator." Conspicuously avoiding the word > > > "coup," the Times explained
that Chavez "stepped down after the > > > military > > > intervened and
handed power to a respected business leader." > > > > > > Calling Chavez
"a ruinous demagogue," the Times offered numerous > > > criticisms of
his policies and urged speedy new elections, saying > > > "Venezuela urgently
needs a leader with a strong democratic mandate." > > > A > > > casual
reader might easily have missed the Times' brief > > > acknowledgement
> > > that Chavez did actually have a democratic mandate, having > > >
been "elected > > > president in 1998." > > > > > > The paper's one nod
to the fact that military takeovers are not > > > generally > > > regarded
as democratic was to note hopefully that with "continued > > > civic >
> > participation," perhaps "further military involvement" in Venezuelan
> > > politics could be kept "to a minimum." > > > > > > Three days later,
Chavez had returned to power and the Times ran a > > > second > > > editorial
(4/16/02) half-apologizing for having gotten carried away: > > > > > >
"In his three years in office, Mr. Chavez has been such a divisive > >
> and > > > demagogic leader that his forced departure last week drew
applause at > > > home > > > and in Washington. That reaction, which we
shared, overlooked the > > > undemocratic manner in which he was removed.
Forcibly unseating a > > > democratically elected leader, no matter how
badly he has performed, > > > is > > > never something to cheer." > >
> > > > The Times stood its ground, however, on the value of a timely
> > > military > > > coup for teaching a president a lesson, saying, "We
hope Mr. Chavez > > > will > > > act as a more responsible and moderate
leader now that he seems to > > > realize > > > the anger he stirred."
> > > > > > The Chicago Tribune's editorial board seemed even more excited
by the > > > coup > > > than the New York Times'. An April 14 Tribune
editorial called Chavez > > > an > > > "elected strongman" and declared:
"It's not every day that a > > > democracy > > > benefits from the military's
intervention to force out an elected > > > president." > > > > > > Hoping
that Venezuela could now "move on to better things," the > > > Tribune
> > > expressed relief that Venezuela's president was "safely out of power
> > > and > > > under arrest." No longer would he be free to pursue his
habits of > > > "toasting Fidel Castro, flying to Baghdad to visit Saddam
Hussein, or > > > praising Osama bin Laden." > > > > > > (FAIR called
the Tribune to ask when Chavez had "praised" bin Laden. > > > Columnist
and editorial board member Steve Chapman, who wrote the > > > editorial,
said that in attempting to locate the reference for FAIR, > > > he > >
> discovered that he had "misread" his source, a Freedom House report.
> > > Chapman said that if the Tribune could find no record of Chavez
> > > praising > > > bin Laden, the paper would run a correction.) > >
> > > > The Tribune stuck unapologetically to its pro-coup line even after
> > > Chavez > > > had been restored to power. Chavez's return may have
come as "good > > > news to > > > Latin American governments that had
condemned his removal as just > > > another > > > military coup," wrote
the Tribune in an April 16 editorial, "but that > > > doesn't mean it's
good news for democracy." The paper seemed to > > > suggest > > > that
the coup would have been no bad thing if not for "the heavy- > > > handed
> > > bungling of [Chavez's] successors." > > > > > > Long Island's Newsday,
another top-circulation paper, greeted the > > > coup > > > with an April
13 editorial headlined "Chavez's Ouster Is No Great > > > Loss." > > >
Newsday offered a number of reasons why the coup wasn't so bad, > > >
including > > > Chavez's "confrontational leadership style and left-wing
populist > > > rhetoric" and the fact that he "openly flaunted his ideological
> > > differences with Washington." The most important reason, however,
was > > > Chavez's "incompetence as an executive," specifically, that
he was > > > "mismanaging the nation's vast oil wealth." > > > > > > After
the coup failed, Newsday ran a follow-up editorial (4/16/02) > > > which
> > > came to the remarkable conclusion that "if there is a winner in
all > > > this, > > > it's Latin American democracy, in principle and
practice." The > > > incident, > > > according to Newsday, was "an affirmation
of the democratic process" > > > because the coup gave "a sobering wake-up
call" to Chavez, "who was > > > on a > > > path to subverting the democratic
mandate that had put him in power > > > three > > > years ago." > > >
> > > The Los Angeles Times waited until the dust had settled (4/17/02)
to > > > run > > > its editorial on "Venezuela's Strange Days." The paper
was dismissive > > > of > > > Chavez's status as an elected leader-- saying
"it goes against the > > > grain > > > to put the name Hugo Chavez and
the word 'democracy' in the same > > > sentence"-- but pointed out that
"it's one thing to oppose policies > > > and > > > another to back a coup."
The paper stated that by not adequately > > > opposing > > > the coup,
"the White House failed to stay on the side of democracy," > > > yet >
> > still suggested that in the long run, "Venezuela will benefit" if
the > > > coup > > > teaches Chavez to reach out to the opposition "rather
than continuing > > > to > > > divide the nation along class lines." >
> > > > > The Washington Post was one of the few major U.S. papers whose
> > > initial > > > reaction was to condemn the coup outright. Though
heavily critical of > > > Chavez, the paper's April 14 editorial led with
an affirmation > > > that "any > > > interruption of democracy in Latin
America is wrong, the more so when > > > it > > > involves the military."
> > > > > > Curiously, however, the Washington Post took pains to insist
> > > that "there's > > > been no suggestion that the United States had
anything to do with > > > this > > > Latin American coup," even though
details from Venezuela were still > > > sketchy at that time. The New
York Times, too, made a point of saying > > > in > > > its April 13 editorial
that Washington's hands were clean, affirming > > > that > > > "rightly,
his removal was a purely Venezuelan affair." > > > > > > Ironically, news
articles in both the Washington Post and the New > > > York > > > Times
have since raised serious questions about whether the U.S. may > > > in
> > > fact have been involved. Neither paper, however, has returned to
the > > > question on its editorial page. > > > You can subscribe to FAIR-L
at our web site: http://www.fair.org . > > > Our subscriber list is kept
confidential. > > > FAIR (212) 633-6700 http://www.fair.org/ > > > (E-mail:
fair@fair.org > > > >
IV. INTELLIGENCE REPORT > > > Detailed intelligence report linking
the U.S. military and CIA to the > > > attempted coup in Venezuela --
former National Security Agency officer > > Wayne > > > Madsen and Richard
M. Bennett > > > > > > [Analysis from within the intelligence community,
STRATFOR is one of > > > the world's leading private providers of global
intelligence. Analysis > > > also from former National Security Agency
officer Wayne Madsen and > > > Richard M. Bennett, Counterpunch, indymedia,
and from Cuba.]
Venezuela: Rumored U.S. Involvement Could Hurt Bush Administration >
> > 14 April 2002 -- http://www.stratfor.com/country.php?ID=134 > >
> > > > Summary > > > > > > Human intelligence sources in Venezuela
and Washington told STRATFOR > > > April 14 that the Central Intelligence
Agency and the U.S. State > > > Department may have been involved separately
in the events that took > > > place in Caracas between April 5 and April
13. If the information is > > > correct, the reinstatement of President
Hugo Chavez less than 48 hours > > > after he was toppled by a civilian-military
coup could have disastrous > > > implications for the Bush administration's
policy in Latin America. > > > > > > Analysis > > > > > > Several human
sources told STRATFOR on April 14 that the U.S. State > > > Department
and the Central Intelligence Agency may have had a hand in > > > the
tumultuous events that occurred between April 5 and April 13 in > >
> Caracas, culminating in President Hugo Chavez's brief ouster and his
> > > return to power. > > > > > > Although these sources may have had
their own motivations for making > > > the allegation, it is possible
-- if the Chavez regime produces > > > convincing evidence of U.S. government
involvement in the failed coup > > > -- that it could poison Washington's
relations with governments > > > throughout Latin America. Efforts to
win regional support for increased > > > U.S. military support to Colombia,
and to other Andean ridge countries > > > battling the twin threats
of international drug trafficking and > > > nominally Marxist insurgencies,
would be set back significantly in > > > Latin America and Washington.
The Bush administration's efforts to > > > pursue more free trade agreements
in the region also would be > > > undermined. > > > > > > Chavez could
strengthen his own political base in Venezuela if he can > > > quickly
prove U.S. involvement in attempts to topple his 3-year-old > > > regime.
This also would give a tremendous boost to Chavez's leadership > > >
status and credibility with populist and nationalist groups across >
> > Latin America that view the United States as a threat and that oppose
> > > U.S.-style capitalist democracy. > > > > > > The U.S. government
has a long history of interfering with Latin > > > American regimes
viewed as unfriendly or dangerous to U.S. national > > > security interests
in the region. Although the Bush administration > > > tried very hard
in the past week to distance itself from the chaos in > > > Venezuela,
many governments in Latin America, Europe, the Middle East > > > and
Asia viewed Washington's cautious silence on Venezuela with > > > considerable
skepticism. > > > > > > However, if STRATFOR's sources are correct,
the skepticism may have > > > been justified. > > > > > > Our sources
in Venezuela and the United States report that the CIA had > > > knowledge
of, and possibly even supported, the ultra-conservative > > > civilians
and military officials who tried unsuccessfully to hijack > > > interim
President Pedro Carmona Estanga's administration. Sources in > > > Venezuela
identified this group as including members of the extremely > > > conservative
Catholic Opus Dei society and military officers loyal to > > > retired
Gen. Ruben Rojas, who also is a son-in-law of former President > > >
Rafael Caldera. Caldera, who governed from 1969 to 1973 and from 1994
> > > to 1998, founded the Christian Democratic Copei party. > > > >
> > STRATFOR's sources say this ultra-conservative group planned to
launch > > > a coup against the Chavez regime on Feb. 27, but the action
was aborted > > > at the last minute as a result of strong pressure
from the Bush > > > administration, which warned publicly that it would
not support or > > > recognize any undemocratic efforts to oust Chavez.
> > > > > > Separately, STRATFOR's sources report, the State Department
was quietly > > > supporting the moderate center-right civilian-military
coalition that > > > sought Chavez's resignation by confronting his
increasingly > > > authoritarian regime with unarmed, peaceful people
power. The April 11 > > > protest by nearly 350,000 Venezuelans was
the largest march against any > > > government in Venezuela's history,
and even without violence the > > > momentum likely would have continued
building in subsequent days. U.S. > > > policymakers who supported the
civic groups seeking Chavez's departure > > > believed their numbers
eventually would reach a sufficiently large > > > critical mass to force
a change in Chavez's policies or even trigger a > > > regime change.
> > > > > > However, the violence that killed 15 people and injured
350 -- > > > including 157 who suffered gunshot wounds inflicted by
pro-Chavez > > > government security forces and civilian militia members
-- united the > > > previously leaderless and disarticulated center-right
opposition and > > > gave moderates in the armed forces (FAN) what they
perceived as a > > > legitimate reason to oust Chavez immediately. Sources
in this center- > > > right group tell STRATFOR that the videotapes
of pro-Chavez gunmen > > > firing indiscriminately into the front ranks
of marching protesters > > > were "more than enough" to legally justify
a regime change. > > > > > > The conservative civilian-military group
timed its coup-within-a -coup > > > perfectly, using Carmona's swearing-in
ceremony as the platform from > > > which to hijack what was supposed
to be a moderate center-right > > > transition government -- a government
that would reach out to the > > > moderate left that is led by former
Interior and Justice Minister Luis > > > Miquilena. STRATFOR's sources
inside this group report that 23 members > > > of the president's Fifth
Republic Movement (MVR) block in the National > > > Assembly had committed
late April 11, after the violence, to vote for > > > Chavez's removal
from power. > > > > > > Additionally, given that Vice President Diosdado
Cabello was > > > responsible for organizing and coordinating the Bolivarian
Circles from > > > Miraflores presidential palace, it was felt that
he and other senior > > > Chavez regime officials could have been removed
legally from the > > > government with the help of Miquilena's votes
in the National Assembly > > > and his strong influence over the Supreme
Court. > > > > > > However, Carmona Estanga destroyed that possibility
and irreparably > > > fractured the center-right coalition that named
him to the presidency > > > when he announced the dissolution of the
National Assembly, fired the > > > entire Supreme Court and sacked the
attorney general, comptroller > > > general and the public defender,
who were appointed by Chavez. > > > > > > The dissolution of the National
Assembly was repudiated unanimously by > > > every political and civic
organization in the country. The powerful > > > Venezuelan Workers Confederation
(CTV) promptly withdrew its support > > > from Carmona without making
any announcements in that regard, STRATFOR > > > sources said, and the
tenuous anti-Chavez coalition within the FAN > > > collapsed almost
immediately. > > > > > > Moreover, tensions between the moderate and
mainly army faction led by > > > Gen. Efrain Vasquez Velasco and the
ultra-conservatives flared rapidly > > > as the right-wingers, through
the new interim defense minister, sought > > > to break up Vasquez Velasco's
base of support within the army by > > > transferring some his key associates
to other commands. > > > > > > The picture painted by STRATFOR's sources
in Venezuela and the United > > > States is of two parallel U.S. operations
that were executed separately > > > by the State Department and CIA.
While the State Department sought > > > discreetly and quasi-officially
to support the anti-Chavez moderates in > > > an effort to build a viable
political center, the CIA was at least > > > aware of the ultra-conservative
plot to hijack Carmona's short-lived > > > presidency. > > > > > > If
the sources are correct, the Bush administration's carefully laid >
> > plans soon may backfire. > > > > > > [STRATFOR is one of the world's
leading private providers of global > > > intelligence. Our in-house
experts furnish top business leaders and > > > government officials
with real-time intelligence, analysis, and > > > forecasting on geopolitical,
security, and economic affairs including > > > confidential consulting
on existing or potential competitive and > > > security threats that
global companies and/or nation-states may face in > > > specific markets
or regions.] >
US returns to bad old ways in Venezuela > > > > > > Former National
Security Agency officer Wayne Madsen and Richard M. > > > Bennett have
filed this detailed intelligence report linking the U.S. > > > military
and CIA to the attempted coup in Venezuela: > > > > > > US returns to
bad old ways in Venezuela > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> The one important thing to be learnt from the Venezuelan coup is that
the United States has not changed its view that only Governments acceptable
to Washington can be allowed to survive in Latin America and > > > that,
like it or not, the United States will undermine and help > > > overthrow
even legally elected administrations if it so chooses. This > > > became
obvious when Pentagon sources gleefully revealed that the United > >
> States provided critical military and intelligence support to the
> > > Venezuelan military coup against President Hugo Chavez on Friday
12th > > > April. > > > > > > Under the cover of the COMPTUEX and a
Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX) > > > training exercises in the Caribbean
the US Navy provided signals > > > intelligence and communications jamming
support to the Venezuelan > > > military. Particular focus by US Navy
SIGINT vessels was on > > > communications to and from the Cuban, Libyan,
Iranian, and Iraqi > > > diplomatic missions in Caracas. All four countries
had expressed > > > support for Chavez and the plans for US military
and intelligence > > > support for the coup d'etat were brought up to
date following President > > > Bush's visit to Peru and El Salvador
in March 2002. The National > > > Security Agency (NSA) supported the
coup using personnel attached to > > > the US Southern Command's Joint
Interagency Task Force East (JIATF-E) > > > in Key West, Florida. NSA's
Spanish-language linguists and signals > > > interception operators
in Key West; Sabana Seca on Puerto Rico and the > > > Regional Security
Operating Centre (RSOC) in Medina, Texas also > > > assisted in providing
communications intelligence to US military and > > > national command
authorities on the progress of the coup d'etat. > > > > > > >From eastern
Colombia, CIA and US contract military personnel, > > > ostensibly used
for counter-narcotics operations, stood by to provide > > > logistics
support for the leading members of the coup. Their > > > activities
were centered at the Marandua airfield and along the border > > > with
Venezuela. Patrol aircraft operating from the US Forward > > > Operating
Location (FOL) in Manta, Ecuador also provided intelligence > > > support
for the military move against Chavez. Additional USN vessels on > >
> a training exercise in the Outer Range of the US Navy's Southern Puerto
> > > Rican Operating Area also stood by in the event the coup against
> > > Chavez faltered, thus requiring a military evacuation of US citizens
in > > > Venezuela. The ships included the aircraft carrier USS George
> > > Washington and the destroyers USS Barry, Laboon, Mahan, and Arthur
W. > > > Radford. Some of the latter vessels reportedly had NSA Direct
Support > > > Units aboard to provide additional signals intelligence
support to US > > > Special Operations and intelligence personnel deployed
on the ground in > > > close co-operation with the Venezuelan Army and
along the Colombian > > > side of the border. > > > > > > CIA relearn
the rules of clandestine operations For its part, the CIA > > > provided
Special Operations Group personnel, headed by a lieutenant > > > colonel
on loan from the US Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, > > >
North Carolina, to help organize the coup against Chavez. They had been
> > > in the country since the summer of 2001 and consisted of US Special
> > > Operations Intelligence Support Activity (ISA) personnel. The
group > > > reportedly made contact with senior, pro-US military officers,
> > > including armed forces chief Gen. Lucas Rincon, Deputy Security
> > > minister Gen. Luis Camacho Kairuz, and business and union leaders,
> > > especially those with the state-owned oil company, PDVSA, and
the > > > Venezuelan Workers' Confederation (CTV). Last summer, the
CIA > > > lieutenant colonel began meeting with corporate and labour
leaders at > > > the PDVSA refinery in Maracaibo to lay plans for the
coup against > > > Chavez. One of those recruited early on by the CIA
was the new interim > > > Venezuelan President, Pedro Carmona, the head
of the Fedecamaras > > > business syndicate. > > > > > > The coup was
also supported by Special Operations psychological warfare > > > (PSYOPs)
personnel deployed from Fort Bragg, North Carolina. They put > > > together
Spanish-language television announcements, purportedly from > > > Venezuelan
political and business leaders and aired by Venezuelan > > > television
and radio stations, saying Chavez "provoked" the crisis by > > > ordering
his supporters to fire on peaceful protestors in Caracas. US > > > electronic
warfare technicians also helped to jam cell phone and radio > > > frequencies
in Caracas and other major cities in co-operation with the > > > Intelligence
Battalion "GRAL. DE BRIGADA ANDRES IBARRA" of the > > > Venezuelan Army
High Command. > > > > > > This report can be viewed at: > > > > > > > > > > >
V. The CIA and the Venezuela Coup -- Hugo Chavez: A Servant Not Knowing
> > > His Place by William Blum > > > > > > COUNTERPUNCH -- April 14,
2002 > > > > > > http://www.counterpunch.org/ > > > > > > > > >
How do we know that the CIA was behind the coup that overthrew Hugo
> > > Chavez? > > > > > > Same way we know that the sun will rise tomorrow
morning. That's what > > > it's always done and there's no reason to
think that tomorrow morning > > > will be any different. > > > > > >
Consider Chavez's crimes: > > > > > > Branding the US attacks on Afghanistan
as "fighting terrorism with > > > terrorism", he demanded an end to
"the slaughter of innocents"; holding > > > up photographs of children
killed in the American bombing attacks, he > > > said their deaths had
"no justification, just as the attacks in New > > > York did not, either."
In response, the Bush administration temporarily > > > withdrew its
ambassador. > > > > > > Being very friendly with Fidel Castro and selling
oil to Cuba at > > > discount rates. > > > > > > His defense minister
asking the permanent US military mission in > > > Venezuela to vacate
its offices in the military headquarters in > > > Caracas, saying its
presence was an anachronism from the cold war. > > > > > > Not cooperating
to Washington's satisfaction with the US war against > > > the Colombian
guerrillas. > > > > > > Denying Venezuelan airspace to US counter-drug
flights. > > > > > > Refusing to provide US intelligence agencies with
information on > > > Venezuela's large Arab community. > > > > > > Questioning
the sanctity of globalization. > > > > > > Promoting a regional free-trade
bloc and united Latin American > > > petroleum operations as a way to
break free from US economic dominance. > > > > > > Visiting Sadaam Hussein
in Iraq and Moammar Gaddafy in Libya. > > > > > > And more in the same
vein which the Washington aristocracy is > > > unaccustomed to encountering
from the servant class. > > > > > > The United States has endeavored
to topple numerous governments for a > > > whole lot less. > > > > >
> The Washington Post reported from Venezuela on April 13: "Members
of > > > the country's diverse opposition had been visiting the U.S.
Embassy > > > here in recent weeks, hoping to enlist U.S. help in toppling
Chavez. > > > The visitors included active and retired members of the
military, media > > > leaders and opposition politicians. > > > > >
> "The opposition has been coming in with an assortment of 'what ifs',"
> > > said a U.S. official familiar with the effort. "What if this happened?
> > > What if that happened? What if you held it up and looked at it
> > > sideways? To every scenario we say no. We know what a coup looks
like, > > > and we won't support it." > > > > > > Right. They won't
support a coup. So what happens when a coup occurs > > > which they
want to support? Simple. They don't call it a coup. They > > > call
it a "change of government" and say that Chavez was ousted "as a > >
> result of the message of the Venezuelan people." Veritable grass-roots
> > > democracy it was. > > > > > > Opposition legislators were also
brought to Washington in recent > > > months, including at least one
delegation sponsored by the > > > International Republican Institute,
an integral part of the National > > > Endowment for Democracy, long
used by the CIA for covert operations > > > abroad. > > > > > > Overthrowing
a man such as Hugo Chavez, guilty of such transgressions, > > > was
a duty so "natural" for the CIA that the only reason it might not >
> > have been intimately involved in the operation would be that the
Agency > > > had been secretly disbanded. > > > > > > [William Blum
is the author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA > > > Interventions
Since World War II and "Rogue State: A Guide to the > > > World's Only
Superpower" Blum can be reached at: BBlum6@aol.com ] > > > > > > =============================
> > >
VI. COUP GENERALS FROM SOA > > > Venezuelan Generals Backing Interim
President are SOA Grads > > > > > > Army Commander in Chief Efrain Vasquez
and General Ramirez Poveda, two > > > of the major military backers
of a transitional government, received > > > training at the notorious
US Army School of the Americas (SOA). > > > Vasquez attended the school
from January 23rd to December 2nd, 1988, > > > taking a course called
"Command and General Staff Officer Training". > > > General Ramirez
took a course called "Auto Maintenance Officer > > > Training" from
May 8th to August 11th, 1972. > > > > > > With military backing, Pedro
Carmona, president of business leaders > > > association Fedecameras,
has assumed the position of interim president. > > > > > > The SOA,
renamed in 2001 the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security > > >
Cooperation (WHISC), is a combat training school for Latin American
> > > soldiers, located at Fort Benning, Georgia. SOA graduates are
> > > consistently involved in human rights abuses and atrocities throughout
> > > Latin America. > > > > > > SOA Watch is still researching, with
concern, the events in Venezuela. > > > The involvement of SOA trained
militaries follows a clear pattern in > > > Latin America. Former Congressperson
Joseph Kennedy, stated "the US > > > Army School of the Americas...is
a school that has run more dictators > > > than any other school in
the history of the world." In total, the > > > school has produced at
least eleven Latin American dictators. Its > > > graduates include,
among others, Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, > > > Major General
Guillermo Rodriguez (who overthrew Ecuador's elected > > > government
and became dictator), Major General Juan Velasco (who did > > > the
same in Peru), Lieutenant General Roberto Viola and Lieutenant > > >
General Leopoldo Galtieri (responsible for Argentina's "Dirty War"),
> > > Bolivian General Hugo Banzer Suarez (who despite murdering labor
> > > leaders and opposition politicians and sheltering a Nazi war criminal,
> > > was honored as a member of the SOA Hall of Fame in 1988), Major
General > > > Guido Vildoso (military dictator of Bolivia), Brigadier
General Juan > > > Melgar Castro (military dictator of Honduras), and
José Efraín Montt > > > (dictator of Guatemala). > > > > > > In an attempt
to diffuse public criticism and to disassociate the > > > school from
its reputation the Pentagon renamed the SOA in 2001 the > > > Western
Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. SOA Watch > > > maintains
that the underlying purpose of the school, to control the > > > economic
and political systems of Latin America through aiding and > > > influencing
Latin American militaries, remains the same. > > > > > > SOA Watch,
founded in 1990, is a national, grassroots conscience-based > > > group
committed to human rights and the promotion of democracy. With > > >
offices in Columbus, GA, Washington DC and chapters in communities and
> > > on campuses around the country, our goal is to work in solidarity
with > > > the people of Latin America and to close the SOA/WHISC. >
> > > > > ### > > > > > > For background information about the situation
in Venezuela visit: > > > > > http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=170970&group=webcast > >
> > > ============================= > > VII. The victory of the people
of Venezuela still in the news > > > > > > Round Table Informative Broadcast
[from Havana] > > > National News Agency CUBA (AIN) > > > > > > http://www.ain.cubaweb.cu/english/abr1602cbginebra.htm
> > > > > > The power and the role of the people , and the value of
ideas are the > > > most important lesson of these days in Venezuela,
it was highlighted > > > during the Round Table Informative Broadcast
that continued today > > > reviewing the events in that South American
nation. > > > > > > The panel of journalist shared with the public opinion
last minute news > > > about the gradual return to normality in Venezuela,
after the fascist > > > and counterrevolutionary coup. > > > > > > Randy
Alonso, the moderator of the Round Table described the coup as > > >
"lasting less than a meringue at a school entrance", a colloquial >
> > Spanish language term for something of very short duration . > >
> > > > In a telephone interview with Aristobulo Isturiz, the Venezuelan
> > > minister of education, it was learned that the majority of that
> > > nation's schools opened on Monday and that some privately owned
schools > > > didn't open. > > > > > > It was also learned that the
Army Command will be taken by General > > > Julio Garcia > > > > > >
Montoya, who prepared the counter-coup that forced the resignation of
> > > the de-facto government and also lead the operation to rescue
the > > > legitimate President of the Republic of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez
> > > Frias.General Garcia Montoya replaces in that important position
> > > General Efrain Vazquez Velasco, as part of the necessary restructuring
> > > of the commands after the coup attempt by an alliance formed by
> > > powerful business executives, the workers aristocracy , the traitor
> > > generals and the privately owned mass Communications media. >
> > > > > Other news items informed about the press conference by President
> > > ChavezAnd the announcement that Tuesday will see the start up
of the > > > FederalCouncil of Government , to be the center of the
Round Tables of > > > national dialogue in search of a consensus in
matters related to the > > > economic, political and social issues.Vice-President
Diosdado Cabello > > > Rondon assured that the coup that took place
last Thursday was a > > > planned activity , and not the result of an
spontaneous civilian- > > > military movement, and the best proof of
this statement was the > > > presidential honor band , made in Spain,
with enough time before, that > > > the perpetrators of the coup left
behind when they ran away from the > > > Miraflores Palace. > > > >
> > The presidential band and the presidency both were too big for Pedro
> > > "the short lived" Carmona, one of the members of the panel stated.
> > > > > > During the Round Table Informative Broadcast it was also
informed that > > > an investigation is in progress regarding a private
aircraft with > > > United States of America tail number registration
that landed at Orchila > > > Island > > > to try to take President Chavez
away from his country. > > > > > > Among the many moving moments of
the program was the dialogue with > > > Maria Gabriela Chavez, daughter
of the President , during which she > > > gave thanks to Cuba for its
solidarity . > > > > > > Maria Gabriela was a key element in denouncing
to the world the fact > > > that President Chavez was kidnapped and
had not resigned to his post, > > > although she very modestly said
that her role was not that important. > > > > > > She also told Randy
Alonso that the reaction of the people and the > > > honest military
was more important than me talking to you , and assured > > > that her
father is happy , with a lot of enthusiasm to work , the > > > family
now is reunited and we all are sending to the Cubans a message > > >
with a lot of love. > > > > > > The Cuban TV studio where the Round
Table Broadcast took place was full > > > of young Venezuelan students
that are attending school here under a > > > full scholarship program.
> > > > > > Freddy Bernal , the major of the Libertador municipality
of Caracas > > > assured than far from being lost, the Bolivarina Revolution
continues > > > to advance with winning steps. > > > > > > Study, learn
from the Cuban experience and trust your people that knows > > > that
our two nations are the hope for Latin America, Bernal told to his >
> > young compatriots that are studying in Cuba.The Round Table also
> > > insisted in the role played by the "the rabble media" both inside
and > > > outside of Venezuela , before, during and after the coup,
something that > > > is now demonstrated as several of the media involved
are involved in a > > > campaign about journalist requesting political
asylum in embassies out > > > of fear of reprisals that have no basis.
> > > > > > Meanwhile some of those that instigated the coup like Carlos
Ortega, > > > president of the questioned executive of the trade union
organization > > > CTV and under the orders of Carlos Andres Perez,
are now trying to > > > remove themselves from their Involvement and
is assuring that he > > > opposed to the repressive actions of the coup
Junta. > > > > > > Meanwhile the United States of America the self proclaimed
champion of > > > democracy is now condemning the coup, and is showing
its stupor, and > > > now is not loosing time in talking about the respect
of human rights. > > > > > > The US national security advisor, Condoleezza
Rice says that Chavez > > > should take advantage of this opportunity
to take the right course and > > > abstain from punishing those that
attempted to subvert the > > > institutional order in Venezuela.Among
those that were left with the > > > desires the so called Cuban American
National Foundation couldn't be > > > missing , who in a communiqué
made public on the 13th of April was > > > already counting with the
sure vote of Venezuela in favor the anti- > > > Cuban resolution during
the ongoing meeting of the UN Human Rights > > > Commission. > > > >
> > Some things are now becoming clear, like the fact that the US >
> > government was fully aware of what was been organized in Venezuela
> > > several months ago, by means of its embassy in Caracas.The last
> > > segment of the broadcast was devoted to reviewing the position
assumed > > > specifically by the Latin American governments , reactions
that the > > > panel described as weak and ambiguous, when not shameful,
like in the > > > case of Uruguay or surprising like in the case of
Argentina that > > > actually condemned the coup attempt. > > > > >
> The statement by the Rio Group was ambiguous, because it condemned
the > > > coup for the breaking of the constitutional order and advocated
for > > > the prompt call to elections , but said nothing about returning
power > > > to the legitimate government. > > > > > > And as regards
to the famous Democratic Clause, approved by the OAS on > > > the 12th
of September of 2001 , it simply did not worked, just at the > > > moment
when its veracity of its wording was under test, because it > > > looks
like it is only applicable when a popular movement reaches power. >
> > > > > ======================= > > > portside (the left side in nautical
parlance) is a > > > news, discussion and debate service of the Committees
> > > of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It > > > aims to
provide varied material of interest to people > > > on the left. > >
> ====================================================================
> > > -- > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Joseph T. Miller National Office > > > USN, 1961-1968 Vietnam
Veterans Against the War, Inc. > > > National Co-Coordinator PO Box
408594 > > > Member, VVAW C-U Chapter Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 327-5756
> > > (217) 328-2444 e-mail: vvaw@prairienet.org > > > http://www.vvaw.org
> > > *********************************************************************
> > > > > > > > VIII. > > Venezuela coup linked to Bush team > > Specialists
in the 'dirty wars' of the Eighties encouraged the plotters > who >
> tried to topple President Chavez > > > > Saturday April 20 2002 >
> The Guardian (UK) > > > > The failed coup in Venezuela was closely
tied to senior officials in > > the US government, The Observer has
established. They have long histories > > in the 'dirty wars' of the
1980s, and links to death squads working in > > Central America at that
time. > > > > Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that
briefly > > removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend
resurrects > > fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere. > > > > It
also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by >
> appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers
to > > serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan. > > > > One
of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted > > Venezuelan
coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the > infamous >
> Iran-Contra affair. > > > > The Bush administration has tried to distance
itself from the coup. > > It immediately endorsed the new government
under businessman Pedro > Carmona. > > But the coup was sent dramatically
into reverse after 48 hours. > > > > Now officials at the Organisation
of American States and other > > diplomatic sources, talking to The
Observer, assert that the US > > administration was not only aware the
coup was about to take place, but > had > > sanctioned it, presuming
it to be destined for success. > > > > The visits by Venezuelans plotting
a coup, including Carmona > > himself, began, say sources, 'several
months ago', and continued until > weeks > > before the putsch last
weekend. The visitors were received at the White > > House by the man
President George Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker > for > > Latin
America, Otto Reich. > > > > Reich is a right-wing Cuban-American who,
under Reagan, ran the > > Office for Public Diplomacy. It reported in
theory to the State > Department, > > but Reich was shown by congressional
investigations to report directly to > > Reagan's National Security
Aide, Colonel Oliver North, in the White House. > > > > North was convicted
and shamed for his role in Iran-Contra, whereby > > arms bought by busting
US sanctions on Iran were sold to the Contra > > guerrillas and death
squads, in revolt against the Marxist government in > > Nicaragua. >
> > > Reich also has close ties to Venezuela, having been made ambassador
> > to Caracas in 1986. His appointment was contested both by Democrats
in > > Washington and political leaders in the Latin American country.
The > > objections were overridden as Venezuela sought access to the
US oil > market. > > > > > > Reich is said by OAS sources to have had
'a number of meetings with > > Carmona and other leaders of the coup'
over several months. The coup was > > discussed in some detail, right
down to its timing and chances of success, > > which were deemed to
be excellent. > > > > On the day Carmona claimed power, Reich summoned
ambassadors from > > Latin America and the Caribbean to his office.
He said the removal of > Chavez > > was not a rupture of democra tic
rule, as he had resigned and was > > 'responsible for his fate'. He
said the US would support the Carmona > > government. > > > > But the
crucial figure around the coup was Abrams, who operates in > > the White
House as senior director of the National Security Council for > > 'democracy,
human rights and international operations'. He was a leading > > theoretician
of the school known as 'Hemispherism', which put a priority > on > >
combating Marxism in the Americas. > > > > It led to the coup in Chile
in 1973, and the sponsorship of regimes > > and death squads that followed
it in Argentina, El Salvador, Honduras, > > Guatemala and elsewhere.
During the Contras' rampage in Nicaragua, he > worked > > directly to
North. > > > > Congressional investigations found Abrams had harvested
illegal > > funding for the rebellion. Convicted for withholding information
from the > > inquiry, he was pardoned by George Bush senior. > > > >
A third member of the Latin American triangle in US policy-making is
> > John Negroponte, now ambassador to the United Nations. He was Reagan's
> > ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985 when a US-trained death
squad, > > Battalion 3-16, tortured and murdered scores of activists.
A diplomatic > > source said Negroponte had been 'informed that there
might be some > movement > > in Venezuela on Chavez' at the beginning
of the year. > > > > More than 100 people died in events before and
after the coup. In > > Caracas on Friday a military judge confined five
high-ranking officers to > > indefinite house arrest pending formal
charges of rebellion. > > > > Chavez's chief ideologue - Guillermo Garcia
Ponce, director of the > > Revolutionary Political Command - said dissident
generals, local media and > > anti-Chavez groups in the US had plotted
the president's removal. > > > > 'The most reactionary sectors in the
United States were also > > implicated in the conspiracy,' he said.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The American President has a singular view of
democracy. After all, > > look what happened in Florida > > > > http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,687944,00.html
> > > > Observer Worldview > > > > Terry Jones > > Sunday April 21,
2002 > > The Observer > > > > After last weekend's shocking events in
Venezuela, in which President > > Chavez was ousted in a free and fair
democratic coup, only to be > > returned to office two days later on
what seems to have been little > > more than the whim of the people,
the leaders of the Free World have > > clearly been forced to reconsider
the nature of democracy. > > > > When asked whether the Bush administration
now recognised President > > Chavez as Venezuela's legitimate President,
a spokesman for President > > Bush conceded that although Mr Chavez
'was democratically elected' one > > had to bear in mind that 'legitimacy
is something that is conferred > > not just by a majority of the voters,
however' [sic]. > > > > Clearly, this involves a fundamental re-evaluation
of what we > > understand by democracy, and I offer here some thoughts
on the > > principles - other than counting votes - which might confer
> > legitimacy. > > > > Since its ground-breaking experiments in vote-counting
in Florida two > > years ago, the United States has been universally
recognised as the > > chief innovator in the field of democratic principles.
Therefore, one > > of the factors that must surely confer legitimacy
on any democracy > > would be approval by the United States. > > > >
It is no good people blindly voting in any Tom, Dick or Hugo if they
> > are not acceptable to Washington. If this is true of Iraq, North
> > Korea, Serbia and the UK, it is doubly true of South America and
> > trebly true of a country that happens to be the third largest supplier
> > of oil to the US. > > > > It is also no good imagining that landslide
victories are any guide to > > legitimacy. Just because Chavez has twice
been elected President by > > the largest margins in Venezuela's history,
and just because his > > government has twice the number of elected
representatives that its > > opponents have, that does not mean it can
go around passing any > > legislation it wants. > > > > According to
the 'Florida Rules', the narrower the margin of victory, > > the greater
the legitimacy. In fact, if the victor actually has fewer > > people
voting for him than the loser (almost half-a-million fewer in > > the
case of George W. Bush) then that is democracy's way of awarding > >
him carte blanche to do whatever he and his friends in the oil > > business
want. > > > > Another good measure of legitimacy, according to the 'Florida
Rules', > > is the number of interesting variations that can be introduced
into > > the voting system. Florida led the way in the 2000 presidential
> > elections with confusing ballot design in Palm Beach County (a >
> confusion which favoured Bush by 10 to 1) and difficulties with the
> > punch-card system in 26 out of the 67 counties (which probably lost
> > Gore something in the region of 30,000 votes). Then there was also
the > > question of setting up roadblocks to prevent black voters getting
to > > the ballot, and the novel expedient of simply not collecting
some of > > the ballot boxes when they did. > > > > The lack of this
sort of experimentation in the Venezuelan elections > > must do a lot
to harm the legitimacy of any so-called 'President' in > > the eyes
of the Bush administration. Especially Mr Bush's brother's > > eyes.
> > > > The truth is that democracy is not really served by having elections
> > at all. That is why the Bush administration was so prompt to endorse
> > the presidency of Pedro Carmona Estanga, the head of Venezuela's
most > > important business association, who promised faithfully not
to hold > > any elections for a year. > > > > One thing that certainly
does not confer legitimacy on any democratic > > government is passing
legislation to benefit its own people. Chavez > > reformed the corrupt
system that he inherited. He tried to > > redistribute land to benefit
the poorest farmers, granted titles to > > the self-built homes of the
barrios, increased the minimum wage and > > enrolled more than a million
students in school, who were previously > > excluded. > > > > Nevertheless,
'Mr Chavez's record as President is terrible,' said one > > American
newspaper. He has failed to end all the corruption, put his > > supporters
into government and (at one point during the riots) blocked > > press
coverage. But, of course, what really destr- oys any claims to > > legitimacy
Chavez might have has been his meetings with Saddam > > Hussein, Muammar
Gadaffi and Fidel Castro. > > > > In fact, far from stifling the press
and television, Mr Chavez has > > been foolish enough to allow it total
freedom, with the result that > > nine out of 10 newspapers and four
out of the five television stations > > are in the hands of vested interests
who oppose his reforms. > > > > These television stations played a big
part in organising the > > demonstrations of 12 April, by advertising
the event every 10 minutes. > > During the riots, they continually showed
film of Chavez supporters > > firing rifles, while reporting that 10
demonstrators had been killed > > and hundreds injured. All of which
has been dutifully reported > > worldwide and used against Chavez by
the US government. > > > > However, an eye-witness report suggests that
most of the dead were > > Chavez supporters killed by rooftop snipers
belonging to the extreme > > Bandera Roja party, an assertion supported
by the secretary of health > > for metropolitan Caracas, Pedro Aristimuño,
who reported that of those > > who died 'the most serious wounds were
in the cranium and cheek... > > they appeared to be shots from above'.
> > > > If democracy is to live up to the high expectations placed on
it by > > the President of the United States and his team, it will have
to > > conform to the principles established in Florida. In the meantime,
> > states such as Venezuela may claim to be democracies, but their
words > > will ring hollow in the ears of George W. > > > > "Behind
the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible > > government
owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to > > the people.
To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy > > alliance
between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first > > task
of the statesmanship of the day." > > -- Theodore Roosevelt, 19-Apr-06
back when > > Republicans weren't corrupt. > > Not dead, in jail or
a slave? Thank a liberal! > > > > From: James Ketola
> > MAINSTREAM AMERICAN MEDIA APPLAUDED VENEZUELAN COUP > > MEDIA ADVISORY:
> > U.S. Papers Hail Venezuelan Coup as Pro-Democracy Move > > > > April
18, 2002 > > When elements of the Venezuelan military forced president
Hugo Chavez > > from > > office last week, the editorial boards of several
major U.S. > > newspapers > > followed the U.S. government's lead and
greeted the news with > > enthusiasm. > > > > In an April 13 editorial,
the New York Times triumphantly declared > > that > > Chavez's "resignation"
meant that "Venezuelan democracy is no longer > > threatened by a would-be
dictator." Conspicuously avoiding the word > > "coup," the Times explained
that Chavez "stepped down after the > > military > > intervened and
handed power to a respected business leader." > > > > Calling Chavez
"a ruinous demagogue," the Times offered numerous > > criticisms of
his policies and urged speedy new elections, saying > > "Venezuela urgently
needs a leader with a strong democratic mandate." > > A > > casual reader
might easily have missed the Times' brief > > acknowledgement > > that
Chavez did actually have a democratic mandate, having > > been "elected
> > president in 1998." > > > > The paper's one nod to the fact that
military takeovers are not > > generally > > regarded as democratic
was to note hopefully that with "continued > > civic > > participation,"
perhaps "further military involvement" in Venezuelan > > politics could
be kept "to a minimum." > > > > Three days later, Chavez had returned
to power and the Times ran a > > second > > editorial (4/16/02) half-apologizing
for having gotten carried away: > > > > "In his three years in office,
Mr. Chavez has been such a divisive > > and > > demagogic leader that
his forced departure last week drew applause at > > home > > and in
Washington. That reaction, which we shared, overlooked the > > undemocratic
manner in which he was removed. Forcibly unseating a > > democratically
elected leader, no matter how badly he has performed, > > is > > never
something to cheer." > > > > The Times stood its ground, however, on
the value of a timely > > military > > coup for teaching a president
a lesson, saying, "We hope Mr. Chavez > > will > > act as a more responsible
and moderate leader now that he seems to > > realize > > the anger he
stirred." > > > > The Chicago Tribune's editorial board seemed even
more excited by the > > coup > > than the New York Times'. An April
14 Tribune editorial called Chavez > > an > > "elected strongman" and
declared: "It's not every day that a > > democracy > > benefits from
the military's intervention to force out an elected > > president."
> > > > Hoping that Venezuela could now "move on to better things,"
the > > Tribune > > expressed relief that Venezuela's president was
"safely out of power > > and > > under arrest." No longer would he be
free to pursue his habits of > > "toasting Fidel Castro, flying to Baghdad
to visit Saddam Hussein, or > > praising Osama bin Laden." > > > > (FAIR
called the Tribune to ask when Chavez had "praised" bin Laden. > > Columnist
and editorial board member Steve Chapman, who wrote the > > editorial,
said that in attempting to locate the reference for FAIR, > > he > >
discovered that he had "misread" his source, a Freedom House report.
> > Chapman said that if the Tribune could find no record of Chavez
> > praising > > bin Laden, the paper would run a correction.) > > >
> The Tribune stuck unapologetically to its pro-coup line even after
> > Chavez > > had been restored to power. Chavez's return may have
come as "good > > news to > > Latin American governments that had condemned
his removal as just > > another > > military coup," wrote the Tribune
in an April 16 editorial, "but that > > doesn't mean it's good news
for democracy." The paper seemed to > > suggest > > that the coup would
have been no bad thing if not for "the heavy- > > handed > > bungling
of [Chavez's] successors." > > > > Long Island's Newsday, another top-circulation
paper, greeted the > > coup > > with an April 13 editorial headlined
"Chavez's Ouster Is No Great > > Loss." > > Newsday offered a number
of reasons why the coup wasn't so bad, > > including > > Chavez's "confrontational
leadership style and left-wing populist > > rhetoric" and the fact that
he "openly flaunted his ideological > > differences with Washington."
The most important reason, however, was > > Chavez's "incompetence as
an executive," specifically, that he was > > "mismanaging the nation's
vast oil wealth." > > > > After the coup failed, Newsday ran a follow-up
editorial (4/16/02) > > which > > came to the remarkable conclusion
that "if there is a winner in all > > this, > > it's Latin American
democracy, in principle and practice." The > > incident, > > according
to Newsday, was "an affirmation of the democratic process" > > because
the coup gave "a sobering wake-up call" to Chavez, "who was > > on a
> > path to subverting the democratic mandate that had put him in power
> > three > > years ago." > > > > The Los Angeles Times waited until
the dust had settled (4/17/02) to > > run > > its editorial on "Venezuela's
Strange Days." The paper was dismissive > > of > > Chavez's status as
an elected leader-- saying "it goes against the > > grain > > to put
the name Hugo Chavez and the word 'democracy' in the same > > sentence"--
but pointed out that "it's one thing to oppose policies > > and > >
another to back a coup." The paper stated that by not adequately > >
opposing > > the coup, "the White House failed to stay on the side of
democracy," > > yet > > still suggested that in the long run, "Venezuela
will benefit" if the > > coup > > teaches Chavez to reach out to the
opposition "rather than continuing > > to > > divide the nation along
class lines." > > > > The Washington Post was one of the few major U.S.
papers whose > > initial > > reaction was to condemn the coup outright.
Though heavily critical of > > Chavez, the paper's April 14 editorial
led with an affirmation > > that "any > > interruption of democracy
in Latin America is wrong, the more so when > > it > > involves the
military." > > > > Curiously, however, the Washington Post took pains
to insist > > that "there's > > been no suggestion that the United States
had anything to do with > > this > > Latin American coup," even though
details from Venezuela were still > > sketchy at that time. The New
York Times, too, made a point of saying > > in > > its April 13 editorial
that Washington's hands were clean, affirming > > that > > "rightly,
his removal was a purely Venezuelan affair." > > > > Ironically, news
articles in both the Washington Post and the New > > York > > Times
have since raised serious questions about whether the U.S. may > > in
> > fact have been involved. Neither paper, however, has returned to
the > > question on its editorial page. > > You can subscribe to FAIR-L
at our web site: http://www.fair.org . > > Our subscriber list is kept
confidential. > > FAIR (212) 633-6700 http://www.fair.org/ > > (E-mail:
fair@fair.org > > > > > > > > =====================================================================
> > Forwarded from VVAW National Co-Coordinator Joe Miller to VVAWNET:
> > > > Detailed intelligence report linking the U.S. military and CIA
to the > > attempted coup in Venezuela -- former National Security Agency
officer > Wayne > > Madsen and Richard M. Bennett > > > > [Analysis
from within the intelligence community, STRATFOR is one of > > the world's
leading private providers of global intelligence. Analysis > > also
from former National Security Agency officer Wayne Madsen and > > Richard
M. Bennett, Counterpunch, indymedia, and from Cuba.] > > > > =============================
> > > > Venezuela: Rumored U.S. Involvement Could Hurt Bush Administration
> > 14 April 2002 -- http://www.stratfor.com/country.php?ID=134 > >
> > Summary > > > > Human intelligence sources in Venezuela and Washington
told STRATFOR > > April 14 that the Central Intelligence Agency and
the U.S. State > > Department may have been involved separately in the
events that took > > place in Caracas between April 5 and April 13.
If the information is > > correct, the reinstatement of President Hugo
Chavez less than 48 hours > > after he was toppled by a civilian-military
coup could have disastrous > > implications for the Bush administration's
policy in Latin America. > > > > Analysis > > > > Several human sources
told STRATFOR on April 14 that the U.S. State > > Department and the
Central Intelligence Agency may have had a hand in > > the tumultuous
events that occurred between April 5 and April 13 in > > Caracas, culminating
in President Hugo Chavez's brief ouster and his > > return to power.
> > > > Although these sources may have had their own motivations for
making > > the allegation, it is possible -- if the Chavez regime produces
> > convincing evidence of U.S. government involvement in the failed
coup > > -- that it could poison Washington's relations with governments
> > throughout Latin America. Efforts to win regional support for increased
> > U.S. military support to Colombia, and to other Andean ridge countries
> > battling the twin threats of international drug trafficking and
> > nominally Marxist insurgencies, would be set back significantly
in > > Latin America and Washington. The Bush administration's efforts
to > > pursue more free trade agreements in the region also would be
> > undermined. > > > > Chavez could strengthen his own political base
in Venezuela if he can > > quickly prove U.S. involvement in attempts
to topple his 3-year-old > > regime. This also would give a tremendous
boost to Chavez's leadership > > status and credibility with populist
and nationalist groups across > > Latin America that view the United
States as a threat and that oppose > > U.S.-style capitalist democracy.
> > > > The U.S. government has a long history of interfering with Latin
> > American regimes viewed as unfriendly or dangerous to U.S. national
> > security interests in the region. Although the Bush administration
> > tried very hard in the past week to distance itself from the chaos
in > > Venezuela, many governments in Latin America, Europe, the Middle
East > > and Asia viewed Washington's cautious silence on Venezuela
with > > considerable skepticism. > > > > However, if STRATFOR's sources
are correct, the skepticism may have > > been justified. > > > > Our
sources in Venezuela and the United States report that the CIA had >
> knowledge of, and possibly even supported, the ultra-conservative
> > civilians and military officials who tried unsuccessfully to hijack
> > interim President Pedro Carmona Estanga's administration. Sources
in > > Venezuela identified this group as including members of the extremely
> > conservative Catholic Opus Dei society and military officers loyal
to > > retired Gen. Ruben Rojas, who also is a son-in-law of former
President > > Rafael Caldera. Caldera, who governed from 1969 to 1973
and from 1994 > > to 1998, founded the Christian Democratic Copei party.
> > > > STRATFOR's sources say this ultra-conservative group planned
to launch > > a coup against the Chavez regime on Feb. 27, but the action
was aborted > > at the last minute as a result of strong pressure from
the Bush > > administration, which warned publicly that it would not
support or > > recognize any undemocratic efforts to oust Chavez. >
> > > Separately, STRATFOR's sources report, the State Department was
quietly > > supporting the moderate center-right civilian-military coalition
that > > sought Chavez's resignation by confronting his increasingly
> > authoritarian regime with unarmed, peaceful people power. The April
11 > > protest by nearly 350,000 Venezuelans was the largest march against
any > > government in Venezuela's history, and even without violence
the > > momentum likely would have continued building in subsequent
days. U.S. > > policymakers who supported the civic groups seeking Chavez's
departure > > believed their numbers eventually would reach a sufficiently
large > > critical mass to force a change in Chavez's policies or even
trigger a > > regime change. > > > > However, the violence that killed
15 people and injured 350 -- > > including 157 who suffered gunshot
wounds inflicted by pro-Chavez > > government security forces and civilian
militia members -- united the > > previously leaderless and disarticulated
center-right opposition and > > gave moderates in the armed forces (FAN)
what they perceived as a > > legitimate reason to oust Chavez immediately.
Sources in this center- > > right group tell STRATFOR that the videotapes
of pro-Chavez gunmen > > firing indiscriminately into the front ranks
of marching protesters > > were "more than enough" to legally justify
a regime change. > > > > The conservative civilian-military group timed
its coup-within-a -coup > > perfectly, using Carmona's swearing-in ceremony
as the platform from > > which to hijack what was supposed to be a moderate
center-right > > transition government -- a government that would reach
out to the > > moderate left that is led by former Interior and Justice
Minister Luis > > Miquilena. STRATFOR's sources inside this group report
that 23 members > > of the president's Fifth Republic Movement (MVR)
block in the National > > Assembly had committed late April 11, after
the violence, to vote for > > Chavez's removal from power. > > > > Additionally,
given that Vice President Diosdado Cabello was > > responsible for organizing
and coordinating the Bolivarian Circles from > > Miraflores presidential
palace, it was felt that he and other senior > > Chavez regime officials
could have been removed legally from the > > government with the help
of Miquilena's votes in the National Assembly > > and his strong influence
over the Supreme Court. > > > > However, Carmona Estanga destroyed that
possibility and irreparably > > fractured the center-right coalition
that named him to the presidency > > when he announced the dissolution
of the National Assembly, fired the > > entire Supreme Court and sacked
the attorney general, comptroller > > general and the public defender,
who were appointed by Chavez. > > > > The dissolution of the National
Assembly was repudiated unanimously by > > every political and civic
organization in the country. The powerful > > Venezuelan Workers Confederation
(CTV) promptly withdrew its support > > from Carmona without making
any announcements in that regard, STRATFOR > > sources said, and the
tenuous anti-Chavez coalition within the FAN > > collapsed almost immediately.
> > > > Moreover, tensions between the moderate and mainly army faction
led by > > Gen. Efrain Vasquez Velasco and the ultra-conservatives flared
rapidly > > as the right-wingers, through the new interim defense minister,
sought > > to break up Vasquez Velasco's base of support within the
army by > > transferring some his key associates to other commands.
> > > > The picture painted by STRATFOR's sources in Venezuela and the
United > > States is of two parallel U.S. operations that were executed
separately > > by the State Department and CIA. While the State Department
sought > > discreetly and quasi-officially to support the anti-Chavez
moderates in > > an effort to build a viable political center, the CIA
was at least > > aware of the ultra-conservative plot to hijack Carmona's
short-lived > > presidency. > > > > If the sources are correct, the
Bush administration's carefully laid > > plans soon may backfire. >
> > > [STRATFOR is one of the world's leading private providers of global
> > intelligence. Our in-house experts furnish top business leaders
and > > government officials with real-time intelligence, analysis,
and > > forecasting on geopolitical, security, and economic affairs
including > > confidential consulting on existing or potential competitive
and > > security threats that global companies and/or nation-states
may face in > > specific markets or regions.] > > > > =============================
> > > > US returns to bad old ways in Venezuela > > > > Former National
Security Agency officer Wayne Madsen and Richard M. > > Bennett have
filed this detailed intelligence report linking the U.S. > > military
and CIA to the attempted coup in Venezuela: > > > > US returns to bad
old ways in Venezuela > > > > > > > > > The one important thing to be learnt from the Venezuelan coup is that
> > the United States has not changed its view that only Governments
> > acceptable to Washington can be allowed to survive in Latin America
and > > that, like it or not, the United States will undermine and help
> > overthrow even legally elected administrations if it so chooses.
This > > became obvious when Pentagon sources gleefully revealed that
the United > > States provided critical military and intelligence support
to the > > Venezuelan military coup against President Hugo Chavez on
Friday 12th > > April. > > > > Under the cover of the COMPTUEX and a
Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX) > > training exercises in the Caribbean
the US Navy provided signals > > intelligence and communications jamming
support to the Venezuelan > > military. Particular focus by US Navy
SIGINT vessels was on > > communications to and from the Cuban, Libyan,
Iranian, and Iraqi > > diplomatic missions in Caracas. All four countries
had expressed > > support for Chavez and the plans for US military and
intelligence > > support for the coup d'etat were brought up to date
following President > > Bush's visit to Peru and El Salvador in March
2002. The National > > Security Agency (NSA) supported the coup using
personnel attached to > > the US Southern Command's Joint Interagency
Task Force East (JIATF-E) > > in Key West, Florida. NSA's Spanish-language
linguists and signals > > interception operators in Key West; Sabana
Seca on Puerto Rico and the > > Regional Security Operating Centre (RSOC)
in Medina, Texas also > > assisted in providing communications intelligence
to US military and > > national command authorities on the progress
of the coup d'etat. > > > > >From eastern Colombia, CIA and US contract
military personnel, > > ostensibly used for counter-narcotics operations,
stood by to provide > > logistics support for the leading members of
the coup. Their > > activities were centered at the Marandua airfield
and along the border > > with Venezuela. Patrol aircraft operating from
the US Forward > > Operating Location (FOL) in Manta, Ecuador also provided
intelligence > > support for the military move against Chavez. Additional
USN vessels on > > a training exercise in the Outer Range of the US
Navy's Southern Puerto > > Rican Operating Area also stood by in the
event the coup against > > Chavez faltered, thus requiring a military
evacuation of US citizens in > > Venezuela. The ships included the aircraft
carrier USS George > > Washington and the destroyers USS Barry, Laboon,
Mahan, and Arthur W. > > Radford. Some of the latter vessels reportedly
had NSA Direct Support > > Units aboard to provide additional signals
intelligence support to US > > Special Operations and intelligence personnel
deployed on the ground in > > close co-operation with the Venezuelan
Army and along the Colombian > > side of the border. > > > > CIA relearn
the rules of clandestine operations For its part, the CIA > > provided
Special Operations Group personnel, headed by a lieutenant > > colonel
on loan from the US Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, > > North
Carolina, to help organize the coup against Chavez. They had been >
> in the country since the summer of 2001 and consisted of US Special
> > Operations Intelligence Support Activity (ISA) personnel. The group
> > reportedly made contact with senior, pro-US military officers, >
> including armed forces chief Gen. Lucas Rincon, Deputy Security >
> minister Gen. Luis Camacho Kairuz, and business and union leaders,
> > especially those with the state-owned oil company, PDVSA, and the
> > Venezuelan Workers' Confederation (CTV). Last summer, the CIA >
> lieutenant colonel began meeting with corporate and labour leaders
at > > the PDVSA refinery in Maracaibo to lay plans for the coup against
> > Chavez. One of those recruited early on by the CIA was the new interim
> > Venezuelan President, Pedro Carmona, the head of the Fedecamaras
> > business syndicate. > > > > The coup was also supported by Special
Operations psychological warfare > > (PSYOPs) personnel deployed from
Fort Bragg, North Carolina. They put > > together Spanish-language television
announcements, purportedly from > > Venezuelan political and business
leaders and aired by Venezuelan > > television and radio stations, saying
Chavez "provoked" the crisis by > > ordering his supporters to fire
on peaceful protestors in Caracas. US > > electronic warfare technicians
also helped to jam cell phone and radio > > frequencies in Caracas and
other major cities in co-operation with the > > Intelligence Battalion
"GRAL. DE BRIGADA ANDRES IBARRA" of the > > Venezuelan Army High Command.
> > > > This report can be viewed at: > > > > > > > ============================= > > > > The CIA and the Venezuela Coup
-- Hugo Chavez: A Servant Not Knowing > > His Place by William Blum
> > > > COUNTERPUNCH -- April 14, 2002 > > > > http://www.counterpunch.org/
> > > > > > How do we know that the CIA was behind the coup that overthrew
Hugo > > Chavez? > > > > Same way we know that the sun will rise tomorrow
morning. That's what > > it's always done and there's no reason to think
that tomorrow morning > > will be any different. > > > > Consider Chavez's
crimes: > > > > Branding the US attacks on Afghanistan as "fighting
terrorism with > > terrorism", he demanded an end to "the slaughter
of innocents"; holding > > up photographs of children killed in the
American bombing attacks, he > > said their deaths had "no justification,
just as the attacks in New > > York did not, either." In response, the
Bush administration temporarily > > withdrew its ambassador. > > > >
Being very friendly with Fidel Castro and selling oil to Cuba at > >
discount rates. > > > > His defense minister asking the permanent US
military mission in > > Venezuela to vacate its offices in the military
headquarters in > > Caracas, saying its presence was an anachronism
from the cold war. > > > > Not cooperating to Washington's satisfaction
with the US war against > > the Colombian guerrillas. > > > > Denying
Venezuelan airspace to US counter-drug flights. > > > > Refusing to
provide US intelligence agencies with information on > > Venezuela's
large Arab community. > > > > Questioning the sanctity of globalization.
> > > > Promoting a regional free-trade bloc and united Latin American
> > petroleum operations as a way to break free from US economic dominance.
> > > > Visiting Sadaam Hussein in Iraq and Moammar Gaddafy in Libya.
> > > > And more in the same vein which the Washington aristocracy is
> > unaccustomed to encountering from the servant class. > > > > The
United States has endeavored to topple numerous governments for a >
> whole lot less. > > > > The Washington Post reported from Venezuela
on April 13: "Members of > > the country's diverse opposition had been
visiting the U.S. Embassy > > here in recent weeks, hoping to enlist
U.S. help in toppling Chavez. > > The visitors included active and retired
members of the military, media > > leaders and opposition politicians.
> > > > "The opposition has been coming in with an assortment of 'what
ifs'," > > said a U.S. official familiar with the effort. "What if this
happened? > > What if that happened? What if you held it up and looked
at it > > sideways? To every scenario we say no. We know what a coup
looks like, > > and we won't support it." > > > > Right. They won't
support a coup. So what happens when a coup occurs > > which they want
to support? Simple. They don't call it a coup. They > > call it a "change
of government" and say that Chavez was ousted "as a > > result of the
message of the Venezuelan people." Veritable grass-roots > > democracy
it was. > > > > Opposition legislators were also brought to Washington
in recent > > months, including at least one delegation sponsored by
the > > International Republican Institute, an integral part of the
National > > Endowment for Democracy, long used by the CIA for covert
operations > > abroad. > > > > Overthrowing a man such as Hugo Chavez,
guilty of such transgressions, > > was a duty so "natural" for the CIA
that the only reason it might not > > have been intimately involved
in the operation would be that the Agency > > had been secretly disbanded.
> > > > [William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: US Military and
CIA > > Interventions Since World War II and "Rogue State: A Guide to
the > > World's Only Superpower" Blum can be reached at: BBlum6@aol.com
] > > > > ============================= > > > > Venezuelan Generals
Backing Interim President are SOA Grads > > > > Army Commander in Chief
Efrain Vasquez and General Ramirez Poveda, two > > of the major military
backers of a transitional government, received > > training at the notorious
US Army School of the Americas (SOA). > > Vasquez attended the school
from January 23rd to December 2nd, 1988, > > taking a course called
"Command and General Staff Officer Training". > > General Ramirez took
a course called "Auto Maintenance Officer > > Training" from May 8th
to August 11th, 1972. > > > > With military backing, Pedro Carmona,
president of business leaders > > association Fedecameras, has assumed
the position of interim president. > > > > The SOA, renamed in 2001
the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security > > Cooperation (WHISC),
is a combat training school for Latin American > > soldiers, located
at Fort Benning, Georgia. SOA graduates are > > consistently involved
in human rights abuses and atrocities throughout > > Latin America.
> > > > SOA Watch is still researching, with concern, the events in
Venezuela. > > The involvement of SOA trained militaries follows a clear
pattern in > > Latin America. Former Congressperson Joseph Kennedy,
stated "the US > > Army School of the Americas...is a school that has
run more dictators > > than any other school in the history of the world."
In total, the > > school has produced at least eleven Latin American
dictators. Its > > graduates include, among others, Panamanian dictator
Manuel Noriega, > > Major General Guillermo Rodriguez (who overthrew
Ecuador's elected > > government and became dictator), Major General
Juan Velasco (who did > > the same in Peru), Lieutenant General Roberto
Viola and Lieutenant > > General Leopoldo Galtieri (responsible for
Argentina's "Dirty War"), > > Bolivian General Hugo Banzer Suarez (who
despite murdering labor > > leaders and opposition politicians and sheltering
a Nazi war criminal, > > was honored as a member of the SOA Hall of
Fame in 1988), Major General > > Guido Vildoso (military dictator of
Bolivia), Brigadier General Juan > > Melgar Castro (military dictator
of Honduras), and José Efraín Montt > > (dictator of Guatemala). > >
> > In an attempt to diffuse public criticism and to disassociate the
> > school from its reputation the Pentagon renamed the SOA in 2001
the > > Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. SOA Watch
> > maintains that the underlying purpose of the school, to control
the > > economic and political systems of Latin America through aiding
and > > influencing Latin American militaries, remains the same. > >
> > SOA Watch, founded in 1990, is a national, grassroots conscience-based
> > group committed to human rights and the promotion of democracy.
With > > offices in Columbus, GA, Washington DC and chapters in communities
and > > on campuses around the country, our goal is to work in solidarity
with > > the people of Latin America and to close the SOA/WHISC. > >
> > ### > > > > For background information about the situation in Venezuela
visit: > > > http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=170970&group=webcast > > =============================
> > The victory of the people of Venezuela still in the news > > > >
Round Table Informative Broadcast [from Havana] > > National News Agency
CUBA (AIN) > > > > http://www.ain.cubaweb.cu/english/abr1602cbginebra.htm
> > > > The power and the role of the people , and the value of ideas
are the > > most important lesson of these days in Venezuela, it was
highlighted > > during the Round Table Informative Broadcast that continued
today > > reviewing the events in that South American nation. > > >
> The panel of journalist shared with the public opinion last minute
news > > about the gradual return to normality in Venezuela, after the
fascist > > and counterrevolutionary coup. > > > > Randy Alonso, the
moderator of the Round Table described the coup as > > "lasting less
than a meringue at a school entrance", a colloquial > > Spanish language
term for something of very short duration . > > > > In a telephone interview
with Aristobulo Isturiz, the Venezuelan > > minister of education, it
was learned that the majority of that > > nation's schools opened on
Monday and that some privately owned schools > > didn't open. > > >
> It was also learned that the Army Command will be taken by General
> > Julio Garcia > > > > Montoya, who prepared the counter-coup that
forced the resignation of > > the de-facto government and also lead
the operation to rescue the > > legitimate President of the Republic
of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez > > Frias.General Garcia Montoya replaces
in that important position > > General Efrain Vazquez Velasco, as part
of the necessary restructuring > > of the commands after the coup attempt
by an alliance formed by > > powerful business executives, the workers
aristocracy , the traitor > > generals and the privately owned mass
Communications media. > > > > Other news items informed about the press
conference by President > > ChavezAnd the announcement that Tuesday
will see the start up of the > > FederalCouncil of Government , to be
the center of the Round Tables of > > national dialogue in search of
a consensus in matters related to the > > economic, political and social
issues.Vice-President Diosdado Cabello > > Rondon assured that the coup
that took place last Thursday was a > > planned activity , and not the
result of an spontaneous civilian- > > military movement, and the best
proof of this statement was the > > presidential honor band , made in
Spain, with enough time before, that > > the perpetrators of the coup
left behind when they ran away from the > > Miraflores Palace. > > >
> The presidential band and the presidency both were too big for Pedro
> > "the short lived" Carmona, one of the members of the panel stated.
> > > > During the Round Table Informative Broadcast it was also informed
that > > an investigation is in progress regarding a private aircraft
with > > United States of America tail number registration that landed
at Orchila > > Island > > to try to take President Chavez away from
his country. > > > > Among the many moving moments of the program was
the dialogue with > > Maria Gabriela Chavez, daughter of the President
, during which she > > gave thanks to Cuba for its solidarity . > >
> > Maria Gabriela was a key element in denouncing to the world the
fact > > that President Chavez was kidnapped and had not resigned to
his post, > > although she very modestly said that her role was not
that important. > > > > She also told Randy Alonso that the reaction
of the people and the > > honest military was more important than me
talking to you , and assured > > that her father is happy , with a lot
of enthusiasm to work , the > > family now is reunited and we all are
sending to the Cubans a message > > with a lot of love. > > > > The
Cuban TV studio where the Round Table Broadcast took place was full
> > of young Venezuelan students that are attending school here under
a > > full scholarship program. > > > > Freddy Bernal , the major of
the Libertador municipality of Caracas > > assured than far from being
lost, the Bolivarina Revolution continues > > to advance with winning
steps. > > > > Study, learn from the Cuban experience and trust your
people that knows > > that our two nations are the hope for Latin America,
Bernal told to his > > young compatriots that are studying in Cuba.The
Round Table also > > insisted in the role played by the "the rabble
media" both inside and > > outside of Venezuela , before, during and
after the coup, something that > > is now demonstrated as several of
the media involved are involved in a > > campaign about journalist requesting
political asylum in embassies out > > of fear of reprisals that have
no basis. > > > > Meanwhile some of those that instigated the coup like
Carlos Ortega, > > president of the questioned executive of the trade
union organization > > CTV and under the orders of Carlos Andres Perez,
are now trying to > > remove themselves from their Involvement and is
assuring that he > > opposed to the repressive actions of the coup Junta.
> > > > Meanwhile the United States of America the self proclaimed champion
of > > democracy is now condemning the coup, and is showing its stupor,
and > > now is not loosing time in talking about the respect of human
rights. > > > > The US national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice says
that Chavez > > should take advantage of this opportunity to take the
right course and > > abstain from punishing those that attempted to
subvert the > > institutional order in Venezuela.Among those that were
left with the > > desires the so called Cuban American National Foundation
couldn't be > > missing , who in a communiqué made public on the 13th
of April was > > already counting with the sure vote of Venezuela in
favor the anti- > > Cuban resolution during the ongoing meeting of the
UN Human Rights > > Commission. > > > > Some things are now becoming
clear, like the fact that the US > > government was fully aware of what
was been organized in Venezuela > > several months ago, by means of
its embassy in Caracas.The last > > segment of the broadcast was devoted
to reviewing the position assumed > > specifically by the Latin American
governments , reactions that the > > panel described as weak and ambiguous,
when not shameful, like in the > > case of Uruguay or surprising like
in the case of Argentina that > > actually condemned the coup attempt.
> > > > The statement by the Rio Group was ambiguous, because it condemned
the > > coup for the breaking of the constitutional order and advocated
for > > the prompt call to elections , but said nothing about returning
power > > to the legitimate government. > > > > And as regards to the
famous Democratic Clause, approved by the OAS on > > the 12th of September
of 2001 , it simply did not worked, just at the > > moment when its
veracity of its wording was under test, because it > > looks like it
is only applicable when a popular movement reaches power. > > > > =======================
> > portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a > > news, discussion
and debate service of the Committees > > of Correspondence for Democracy
and Socialism. It > > aims to provide varied material of interest to
people > > on the left. > > ====================================================================
> > -- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Joseph T. Miller National Office > > USN, 1961-1968 Vietnam Veterans
Against the War, Inc. > > National Co-Coordinator PO Box 408594 > >
Member, VVAW C-U Chapter Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 327-5756 > > (217)
328-2444 e-mail: vvaw@prairienet.org > > http://www.vvaw.org > >
VIII. American navy 'helped Venezuelan coup' >
> Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles > Monday April 29, 2002 > The Guardian
(UK) > >
The United States had been considering a coup to overthrow the elected
Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, since last June, a former US intelligence
> officer claimed yesterday. It is also alleged that the US navy aided
the abortive coup which took place > in Venezuela on April 11 with intelligence
from its vessels in the Caribbean. Evidence is also emerging of US financial
backing for key participants in the coup. > > Both sides in Venezuela
have blamed the other for the violence surrounding > the coup. Wayne
Madsen, a former intelligence officer with the US navy, told the > Guardian
yesterday that American military attaches had been in touch with > members
of the Venezuelan military to examine the possibility of a coup. > >
"I first heard of Lieutenant Colonel James Rogers [the assistant military
> attache now based at the US embassy in Caracas] going down there last
June > to set the ground," Mr Madsen, an intelligence analyst, said
yesterday. > "Some of our counter-narcotics agents were also involved."
> > He said that the navy was in the area for operations unconnected
to the > coup, but that he understood they had assisted with signals
intelligence as > the coup was played out. > > Mr Madsen also said that
the navy helped with communications jamming support > to the Venezuelan
military, focusing on communications to and from the > diplomatic missions
in Caracas belonging to Cuba, Libya, Iran and Iraq - the > four countries
which had expressed support for Mr Chavez. > > Navy vessels on a training
exercise in the area were supposedly put on > stand-by in case evacuation
of US citizens in Venezuela was required. > > In Caracas, a congressman
has accused the US ambassador to Venezuela, > Charles Shapiro, and two
US embassy military attaches of involvement in the > coup. > > Roger
Rondon claimed that the military officers, whom he named as (James)
> Rogers and (Ronald) MacCammon, had been at the Fuerte Tiuna military
> headquarters with the coup leaders during the night of April 11-12.
> > And referring to Mr Shapiro, Mr Rondon said: "We saw him leaving
Miraflores > palace, all smiles and embraces, with the dictator Pedro
Carmona Estanga > [who was installed by the military for a day] ...
[His] satisfaction was > obvious. Shapiro's participation in the coup
d'état in Venezuela is > evident." > > The US embassy dismissed the
allegations as "ridiculous". Mr Shapiro > admitted meeting Mr Carmona
the day after the coup, but said he urged him to > restore the national
assembly, which had been dissolved. > > Mr Carmona told the Guardian
that no such advice was given, although he > agreed that a meeting took
place. > > A US embassy spokesman said there were no US military personnel
from the > embassy at Fuerte Tiuna during the crucial periods from April
11 to 13, al > though two members of the embassy's defence attache's
office, one of them Lt > Col Rogers, drove around the base on the afternoon
of April 11 to check > reports that it was closed. > > Mr Rondon has
also claimed that two foreign gunmen, one American and the > other Salvadorean,
were detained by security police during the anti-Chavez > protest on
April 11 in which around 19 people were killed, many by > unidentified
snipers firing from rooftops. > > "They haven't appeared anywhere. We
presume these two gentlemen were given > some kind of safe-conduct and
could have left the country," he said. > > The members of the military
who coordinated the coup have claimed that they > did so because they
feared that Mr Chavez was intending to attack the > civilian protesters
who opposed him. > > Mr Chavez's opponents claim pro-Chavez gunmen shot
protesters while his > supporters say the shots were fired by agents
provocateurs . > > In the past year, the United States has channeled
hundreds of thousands of > dollars in grants to US and Venezuelan groups
opposed to Mr Chavez, > including the labour group whose protests sparked
off the coup. The funds > were provided by the National Endowment for
Democracy, a nonprofit agency > created and financed by the US Congress.
> > The state department's human rights bureau is now examining whether
one or > more recipients of the money may have actively plotted against
Mr Chavez. > > > Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
> > >
IX. COVERUP
Subject: Bush Administration Tries to Hide Role in Venezuela Coup August
8, 2002 Bush Administration Tries to Hide Role in Venezuela Coup by
Mark Weisbrot Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill's trip to Brazil, Argentina,
and Uruguay has brought some needed attention to the financial and economic
crises there. But there is one country where the US is playing an enormous
-- and thoroughly destructive -- role that has been left out of the
picture: Venezuela. Last April the Bush Administration sent a powerful
message not only to Venezuelans but to all of our Southern neighbors:
if we don't like the presidents you elect, we will use our muscle to
get rid of them. By any means necessary. That is what was understood
when the Administration endorsed the attempted military coup on April
11 against the elected president of Venezuela. (The White House later
justified its response by saying it thought that President Hugo Chavez
had "resigned;" but nobody south of the Rio Grande was fooled). Now
we will see whether the Democratic-led US Senate will object to this
1950s-style foreign policy. On May 3, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee requested an investigation from
the US State Department, to find out what it did wrong in Venezuela.
What he got was a complete whitewash -- which was turned over to the
Senate last week. The State's Department's supposedly independent Office
of the Inspector General didn't even interview a single Venezuelan,
but relied on US embassy officials and others who had a direct career
interest in covering up what happened. This is comparable to investigating
Enron by talking to Ken Lay and Andrew Fastow. Significant parts of
the report remain classified -- most tellingly, a section entitled "Miscellaneous
Issues Raised by the News Media in Venezuela or the United States."
Just what issues raised by the Venezuelan and U.S. news media are our
State Department trying to keep away from the public discussion? Of
course they can't hide what the press has already printed. The Washington
Post and New York Times cited numerous meetings between top US officials
and the people who led the military coup on April 11. The European press
was even more explicit about these meetings: "The coup was discussed
in some detail, right down to its timing and chances of success, which
were deemed to be excellent," reported the Observer of London, citing
sources at the Organization of the American States. There were dozens
of such leads in the press that the State Department could have investigated.
But they chose not to do so; or if they did, they have apparently withheld
the results from the public. Some of the report's admissions are even
more damning than the omissions. Listing the reasons for US hostility
to President Chavez, the report notes "his involvement in the affairs
of the Venezuelan oil company, and the potential impact of that on oil
prices." There you have it: the number one reason for the US State Department
supporting a military coup against a democratically elected president.
He had the nerve to get involved in deciding how much oil Venezuela
should produce, instead of leaving these decisions to Washington! And
people wonder why anti-US sentiment is rising in Latin America. Even
more importantly, the report admits that US officials did little or
nothing to warn the coup leaders that the United States would impose
sanctions on a government that was installed by military force. This
means that all the admonishments from the US embassy about not supporting
a coup -- while Washington was funneling millions of dollars to pro-coup
organizations -- were a mere formality. The real message was a big green
light. The anti-democratic Venezuelan opposition will continue to understand
that message, until there is an explicit statement from the Bush Administration
that a coup would result in a cut-off of economic and diplomatic relations
with the United States. The Senate should demand exactly such a statement,
and conduct a real investigation in place of the State Department's
cover-up. Anything less would tell the world that our Congress -- not
just the Bush Administration -- has little respect for democracy in
Latin America. Mark Weisbrot is co-Director of the Center for Economic
and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is co-author (with Dean Baker)
of Social Security: The Phony Crisis (University of Chicago Press).
DOMINANT RIGHT-WING CORE IN GOVERNMENT, RISING POWER OF WARMONGERS
- Sep 2, 2002 - The Nation: The Men From JINSA and CSP by Jason A. Vest
Almost thirty years ago, a prominent group of neoconservative hawks
found an effective vehicle for advocating their views via the Committee
on the Present Danger, a group that fervently believed the United States
was a hair away from being militarily surpassed by the Soviet Union,
and whose raison d'être was strident advocacy of bigger military budgets,
near-fanatical opposition to any form of arms control and zealous championing
of a Likudnik Israel. Considered a marginal group in its nascent days
during the Carter Administration, with the election of Ronald Reagan
in 1980 CPD went from the margins to the center of power. Just as the
right-wing defense intellectuals made CPD a cornerstone of a shadow
defense establishment during the Carter Administration, so, too, did
the right during the Clinton years, in part through two organizations:
the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center
for Security Policy (CSP). And just as was the case two decades ago,
dozens of their members have ascended to powerful government posts,
where their advocacy in support of the same agenda continues, abetted
by the out-of-government adjuncts from which they came. Industrious
and persistent, they've managed to weave a number of issues--support
for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing
of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism
in general--into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at
its core. On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in
its relentless campaign for war--not just with Iraq, but "total war,"
as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington,
put it last year. For this crew, "regime change" by any means necessary
in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is
an urgent imperative. Anyone who dissents--be it Colin Powell's State
Department, the CIA or career military officers--is committing heresy
against articles of faith that effectively hold there is no difference
between US and Israeli national security interests, and that the only
way to assure continued safety and prosperity for both countries is
through hegemony in the Middle East--a hegemony achieved with the traditional
cold war recipe of feints, force, clientism and covert action. For example,
the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board--chaired by JINSA/CSP adviser and
former Reagan Administration Defense Department official Richard Perle,
and stacked with advisers from both groups--recently made news by listening
to a briefing that cast Saudi Arabia as an enemy to be brought to heel
through a number of potential mechanisms, many of which mirror JINSA's
recommendations, and which reflect the JINSA/CSP crowd's preoccupation
with Egypt. (The final slide of the Defense Policy Board presentation
proposed that "Grand Strategy for the Middle East" should concentrate
on "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot
[and] Egypt as the prize.") Ledeen has been leading the charge for regime
change in Iran, while old comrades like Andrew Marshall and Harold Rhode
in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment actively tinker with ways
to re-engineer both the Iranian and Saudi governments. JINSA is also
cheering the US military on as it tries to secure basing rights in the
strategic Red Sea country of Eritrea, happily failing to mention that
the once-promising secular regime of President Isaiais Afewerki continues
to slide into the kind of repressive authoritarianism practiced by the
"axis of evil" and its adjuncts. Indeed, there are some in military
and intelligence circles who have taken to using "axis of evil" in reference
to JINSA and CSP, along with venerable repositories of hawkish thinking
like the American Enterprise Institute and the Hudson Institute, as
well as defense contractors, conservative foundations and public relations
entities underwritten by far-right American Zionists (all of which help
to underwrite JINSA and CSP). It's a milieu where ideology and money
seamlessly blend: "Whenever you see someone identified in print or on
TV as being with the Center for Security Policy or JINSA championing
a position on the grounds of ideology or principle--which they are unquestionably
doing with conviction--you are, nonetheless, not informed that they're
also providing a sort of cover for other ideologues who just happen
to stand to profit from hewing to the Likudnik and Pax Americana lines,"
says a veteran intelligence officer. He notes that while the United
States has begun a phaseout of civilian aid to Israel that will end
by 2007, government policy is to increase military aid by half the amount
of civilian aid that's cut each year--which is not only a boon to both
the US and Israeli weapons industries but is also crucial to realizing
the far right's vision for missile defense and the Middle East. Founded
in 1976 by neoconservatives concerned that the United States might not
be able to provide Israel with adequate military supplies in the event
of another Arab-Israeli war, over the past twenty-five years JINSA has
gone from a loose-knit proto-group to a $1.4-million-a-year operation
with a formidable array of Washington power players on its rolls. Until
the beginning of the current Bush Administration, JINSA's board of advisers
included such heavy hitters as Dick Cheney, John Bolton (now Under Secretary
of State for Arms Control) and Douglas Feith, the third-highest-ranking
executive in the Pentagon. Both Perle and former Director of Central
Intelligence James Woolsey, two of the loudest voices in the attack-Iraq
chorus, are still on the board, as are such Reagan-era relics as Jeane
Kirkpatrick, Eugene Rostow and Ledeen--Oliver North's Iran/ contra liaison
with the Israelis. According to its website, JINSA exists to "educate
the American public about the importance of an effective US defense
capability so that our vital interests as Americans can be safeguarded"
and to "inform the American defense and foreign affairs community about
the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic
interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East." In practice, this
translates into its members producing a steady stream of op-eds and
reports that have been good indicators of what the Pentagon's civilian
leadership is thinking. JINSA relishes denouncing virtually any type
of contact between the US government and Syria and finding new ways
to demonize the Palestinians. To give but one example (and one that
kills two birds with one stone): According to JINSA, not only is Yasir
Arafat in control of all violence in the occupied territories, but he
orchestrates the violence solely "to protect Saddam.... Saddam is at
the moment Arafat's only real financial supporter.... [Arafat] has no
incentive to stop the violence against Israel and allow the West to
turn its attention to his mentor and paymaster." And if there's a way
to advance other aspects of the far-right agenda by intertwining them
with Israeli interests, JINSA doesn't hesitate there, either. A recent
report contends that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge must be tapped
because "the Arab oil-producing states" are countries "with interests
inimical to ours," but Israel "stand[s] with us when we need [Israel],"
and a US policy of tapping oil under ANWR will "limit [the Arabs'] ability
to do damage to either of us." The bulk of JINSA's modest annual budget
is spent on taking a bevy of retired US generals and admirals to Israel,
where JINSA facilitates meetings between Israeli officials and the still-influential
US flag officers, who, upon their return to the States, happily write
op-eds and sign letters and advertisements championing the Likudnik
line. (Sowing seeds for the future, JINSA also takes US service academy
cadets to Israel each summer and sponsors a lecture series at the Army,
Navy and Air Force academies.) In one such statement, issued soon after
the outbreak of the latest intifada, twenty-six JINSAns of retired flag
rank, including many from the advisory board, struck a moralizing tone,
characterizing Palestinian violence as a "perversion of military ethics"
and holding that "America's role as facilitator in this process should
never yield to America's responsibility as a friend to Israel," as "friends
don't leave friends on the battlefield." However high-minded this might
sound, the postservice associations of the letter's signatories--which
are almost always left off the organization's website and communiqués--ought
to require that the phrase be amended to say "friends don't leave friends
on the battlefield, especially when there's business to be done and
bucks to be made." Almost every retired officer who sits on JINSA's
board of advisers or has participated in its Israel trips or signed
a JINSA letter works or has worked with military contractors who do
business with the Pentagon and Israel. While some keep a low profile
as self-employed "consultants" and avoid mention of their clients, others
are less shy about their associations, including with the private mercenary
firm Military Professional Resources International, weapons broker and
military consultancy Cypress International and SY Technology, whose
main clients include the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, which oversees
several ongoing joint projects with Israel. The behemoths of military
contracting are also well represented in JINSA's ranks. For example,
JINSA advisory board members Adm. Leon Edney, Adm. David Jeremiah and
Lieut. Gen. Charles May, all retired, have served Northrop Grumman or
its subsidiaries as either consultants or board members. Northrop Grumman
has built ships for the Israeli Navy and sold F-16 avionics and E-2C
Hawkeye planes to the Israeli Air Force (as well as the Longbow radar
system to the Israeli army for use in its attack helicopters). It also
works with Tamam, a subsidiary of Israeli Aircraft Industries, to produce
an unmanned aerial vehicle. Lockheed Martin has sold more than $2 billion
worth of F-16s to Israel since 1999, as well as flight simulators, multiple-launch
rocket systems and Seahawk heavyweight torpedoes. At one time or another,
General May, retired Lieut. Gen. Paul Cerjanand retired Adm. Carlisle
Trost have labored in LockMart's vineyards. Trost has also sat on the
board of General Dynamics, whose Gulfstream subsidiary has a $206 million
contract to supply planes to Israel to be used for "special electronics
missions." By far the most profitably diversified of the JINSAns is
retired Adm. David Jeremiah. President and partner of Technology Strategies
& Alliances Corporation (described as a "strategic advisory firm and
investment banking firm engaged primarily in the aerospace, defense,
telecommunications and electronics industries"), Jeremiah also sits
on the boards of Northrop Grumman's Litton subsidiary and of defense
giant Alliant Techsystems, which--in partnership with Israel's TAAS--does
a brisk business in rubber bullets. And he has a seat on the Pentagon's
Defense Policy Board, chaired by Perle. About the only major defense
contractor without a presence on JINSA's advisory board is Boeing, which
has had a relationship with Israeli Aircraft Industries for thirty years.
(Boeing also sells F-15s to Israel and, in partnership with Lockheed
Martin, Apache attack helicopters, a ubiquitous weapon in the occupied
territories.) But take a look at JINSA's kindred spirit in things pro-Likud
and pro-Star Wars, the Center for Security Policy, and there on its
national security advisory council are Stanley Ebner, a former Boeing
executive; Andrew Ellis, vice president for government relations; and
Carl Smith, a former staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee
who, as a lawyer in private practice, has counted Boeing among his clients.
"JINSA and CSP," says a veteran Pentagon analyst, "may as well be one
and the same." Not a hard sell: There's always been considerable overlap
beween the JINSA and CSP rosters--JINSA advisers Jeane Kirkpatrick,
Richard Perle and Phyllis Kaminsky also serve on CSP's advisory council;
current JINSA advisory board chairman David Steinmann sits on CSP's
board of directors; and before returning to the Pentagon Douglas Feith
served as the board's chair. At this writing, twenty-two CSP advisers--including
additional Reagan-era remnants like Elliott Abrams, Ken deGraffenreid,
Paula Dobriansky, Sven Kraemer, Robert Joseph, Robert Andrews and J.D.
Crouch--have reoccupied key positions in the national security establishment,
as have other true believers of more recent vintage. While CSP boasts
an impressive advisory list of hawkish luminaries, its star is Gaffney,
its founder, president and CEO. A protégé of Perle going back to their
days as staffers for the late Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (a k a the
Senator from Boeing, and the Senate's most zealous champion of Israel
in his day), Gaffney later joined Perle at the Pentagon, only to be
shown the door by Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci in 1987, not long
after Perle left. Gaffney then reconstituted the latest incarnation
of the Committee on the Present Danger. Beyond compiling an A-list of
influential conservative hawks, Gaffney has been prolific over the past
fifteen years, churning out a constant stream of reports (as well as
regular columns for the Washington Times) making the case that the gravest
threats to US national security are China, Iraq, still-undeveloped ballistic
missiles launched by rogue states, and the passage of or adherence to
virtually any form of arms control treaty. Gaffney and CSP's prescriptions
for national security have been fairly simple: Gut all arms control
treaties, push ahead with weapons systems virtually everyone agrees
should be killed (such as the V-22 Osprey), give no quarter to the Palestinians
and, most important, go full steam ahead on just about every national
missile defense program. (CSP was heavily represented on the late-1990s
Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States,
which was instrumental in keeping the program alive during the Clinton
years.) Looking at the center's affiliates, it's not hard to see why:
Not only are makers of the Osprey (Boeing) well represented on the CSP's
board of advisers but so too is Lockheed Martin (by vice president for
space and strategic missiles Charles Kupperman and director of defense
systems Douglas Graham). Former TRW executive Amoretta Hoeber is also
a CSP adviser, as is former Congressman and Raytheon lobbyist Robert
Livingston. Ball Aerospace & Technologies--a major manufacturer of NASA
and Pentagon satellites--is represented by former Navy Secretary John
Lehman, while missile-defense computer systems maker Hewlett-Packard
is represented by George Keyworth, who is on its board of directors.
And the Congressional Missile Defense Caucus and Osprey (or "tilt rotor")
caucus are represented by Representative Curt Weldon and Senator Jon
Kyl. CSP was instrumental in developing the arguments against the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty. Largely ignored or derided at the time, a 1995 CSP memo
co-written by Douglas Feith holding that the United States should withdraw
from the ABM treaty has essentially become policy, as have other CSP
reports opposing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Chemical Weapons
Convention and the International Criminal Court. But perhaps the most
insightful window on the JINSA/CSP policy worldview comes in the form
of a paper Perle and Feith collaborated on in 1996 with six others under
the auspices of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies.
Essentially an advice letter to ascendant Israeli politician Benjamin
Netanyahu, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" makes
for insightful reading as a kind of US-Israeli neoconservative manifesto.
The paper's first prescription was for an Israeli rightward economic
shift, with tax cuts and a selloff of public lands and enterprises--moves
that would also engender support from a "broad bipartisan spectrum of
key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders." But beyond economics, the paper
essentially reads like a blueprint for a mini-cold war in the Middle
East, advocating the use of proxy armies for regime changes, destabilization
and containment. Indeed, it even goes so far as to articulate a way
to advance right-wing Zionism by melding it with missile-defense advocacy.
"Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with
the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat
of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either state,"
it reads. "Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter
a tangible physical threat to Israel's survival, but it would broaden
Israel's base of support among many in the United States Congress who
may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense"--something
that has the added benefit of being "helpful in the effort to move the
US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem." Recent months in Washington have
shown just how influential the notions propagated by JINSA and CSP are--and
how disturbingly zealous their advocates are. In early March Feith vainly
attempted to get the CIA to keep former intelligence officers Milt Bearden
and Frank Anderson from accepting an invitation to an Afghanistan-related
meeting with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld at the Pentagon--not because
of what the two might say about Afghanistan, according to sources familiar
with the incident, but likely out of fear that Anderson, a veteran Arabist
and former chief of the CIA's Near East division, would proffer his
views on Iraq (opposed to invading) and Israel-Palestine (a fan of neither
Arafat nor Sharon). In late June, after United Press International reported
on a US Muslim civil liberties group's lambasting of Gaffney for his
attacks on the American Muslim Council, Gaffney, according to a fellow
traveler, "went berserk," launching a stream of invective about the
UPI scribe who reported the item. It's incidents like this, say knowledgeable
observers and participants, that highlight an interesting dynamic among
right-wing hawks at the moment. Though the general agenda put forth
by JINSA and CSP continues to be reflected in councils of war, even
some of the hawks (including Rumsfeld deputy Paul Wolfowitz) are growing
increasingly leery of Israel's settlements policy and Gaffney's relentless
support for it. Indeed, his personal stock in Bush Administration circles
is low. "Gaffney has worn out his welcome by being an overbearing gadfly
rather than a serious contributor to policy," says a senior Pentagon
political official. Since earlier this year, White House political adviser
Karl Rove has been casting about for someone to start a new, more mainstream
defense group that would counter the influence of CSP. According to
those who have communicated with Rove on the matter, his quiet efforts
are in response to complaints from many conservative activists who feel
let down by Gaffney, or feel he's too hard on President Bush. "A lot
of us have taken [Gaffney] at face value over the years," one influential
conservative says. "Yet we now know he's pushed for some of the most
flawed missile defense and conventional systems. He considered Cuba
a 'classic asymmetric threat' but not Al Qaeda. And since 9/11, he's
been less concerned with the threat to America than to Israel." Gaffney's
operation has always been a small one, about $1 million annually--funded
largely by a series of grants from the conservative Olin, Bradley and
various Scaife foundations, as well as some defense contractor money--but
he's recently been able to underwrite a TV and print ad campaign holding
that the Palestinians should be Enemy Number One in the War on Terror,
still obsessed with the destruction of Israel. It's here that one sees
the influence not of defense contractor money but of far-right Zionist
dollars, including some from Irving Moskowitz, the California bingo
magnate. A donor to both CSP and JINSA (as well as a JINSA director),
Moskowitz not only sends millions of dollars a year to far-right Israeli
settler groups like Ateret Cohanim but he has also funded the construction
of settlements, having bought land for development in key Arab areas
around Jerusalem. Moskowitz ponied up the money that enabled the 1996
reopening of a tunnel under the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, which
resulted in seventy deaths due to rioting. Also financing Gaffney's
efforts is New York investment banker Lawrence Kadish. A valued and
valuable patron of both the Republican National Committee and George
W. Bush, Kadish helps underwrite CSP as well as Americans for Victory
Over Terrorism, an offshoot of conservative activist William Bennett's
Empower America, on which he and Gaffney serve as "senior advisers"
in the service of identifying "external" and "internal" post-9/11 threats
to America. (The "internal" threats, as articulated by AVOT, include
former President Jimmy Carter, Harper's editor Lewis Lapham and Representative
Maxine Waters.) Another of Gaffney's backers is Poju Zabludowicz, heir
to a formidable diversified international empire that includes arms
manufacturer Soltam--which once employed Perle--and benefactor of the
recently established Britain Israel Communication and Research Centre,
a London-based group that appears to equate reportage or commentary
uncomplimentary to Zionism with anti-Semitism. While a small but growing
number of conservatives are voicing concerns about various aspects of
foreign and defense policy--ranging from fear of overreach to lack of
Congressional debate--the hawks seem to be ruling the roost. Beginning
in October, hard-line American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael
Rubin (to Rubin, outgoing UN human rights chief Mary Robinson is an
abettor of terrorism) arrives at the Pentagon to take over the Defense
Department's Iran-Iraq account, adding another voice to the Pentagon
section of Ledeen's "total war" chorus. Colin Powell's State Department
continues to take a beating from outside and inside--including Bolton
and his special assistant David Wurmser. (An AEI scholar and far-right
Zionist who's married to Meyrav Wurmser of the Middle East Media Research
Institute--recently the subject of a critical investigation by London
Guardian Middle East editor Brian Whitaker--Wurmser played a key role
in crafting the "Arafat must go" policy that many career specialists
see as a problematic sop to Ariel Sharon.) As for Rumsfeld, based on
comments made at a Pentagon "town hall" meeting on August 6, there seems
to be little doubt as to whose comments are resonating most with him--and
not just on missile defense and overseas adventures: After fielding
a question about Israeli-Palestinian issues, he repeatedly referred
to the "so-called occupied territories" and casually characterized the
Israeli policy of building Jewish-only enclaves on Palestinian land
as "mak[ing] some settlement in various parts of the so-called occupied
area," with which Israel can do whatever it wants, as it has "won" all
its wars with various Arab entities--essentially an echo of JINSA's
stated position that "there is no Israeli occupation." Ominously, Rumsfeld's
riff gave a ranking Administration official something of a chill: "I
realized at that point," he said, "that on settlements--where there
are cleavages on the right--Wolfowitz may be to the left of Rumsfeld."
--- Chris Toensing Editor, Middle East Report 1500 Massachusetts Ave.
NW, Suite 119 Washington, DC 20005 t (202) 223-3677 e ctoensing@merip.org
SPECIAL FORCES GLOBAL
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:09:32 -5 From: "Compañero"
Subject: US Global Death Squads in Uniform http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0812-04.htm
Published on Monday, August 12, 2002 in the New York Times
American Hit Squads Rumsfeld Weighs Covert Activities by Military Units
by Thom Shanker and James Risen WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald
H. Rumsfeld is considering ways to expand broadly the role of American
Special Operations forces in the global campaign against terrorism,
including sending them worldwide to capture or kill Al Qaeda leaders
far from the battlefields of Afghanistan, according to Pentagon and
intelligence officials. Proposals now being discussed by Mr. Rumsfeld
and senior military officers could ultimately lead Special Operations
units to get more deeply involved in long-term covert operations in
countries where the United States is not at open war and, in some cases,
where the local government is not informed of their presence. This expansion
of the military's involvement in clandestine activities could be justified,
Pentagon officials believe, by defining it as "preparation of the battlefield"
in a campaign against terrorism that knows no boundaries. Some officials
outside the Pentagon express concerns that the proposals ultimately
could lead the military into covert operations that have traditionally
been conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency under tightly controlled
legal conditions; these are set out by the president in secret "findings,"
which are then closely monitored by Congress. The discussion whether
to give Special Operations forces missions to capture or kill individual
Qaeda leaders may at some point conflict with the executive order prohibiting
assassinations. In past administrations, there was a clear effort to
distinguish between the combat activities conducted by Special Operations
forces and missions handled by the C.I.A. But the line has gradually
blurred as the campaign against terrorism required greater cooperation
among United States law enforcement, intelligence and military officials.
Indeed, some senior advisers to Mr. Rumsfeld say a legal finding allowing
lethal force to be used as part of a mission against a terrorist leader
may not be necessary to send Special Operations forces to hunt, capture
or kill Al Qaeda leaders in any country - especially since the terror
network attacked the United States on Sept. 11, creating a state of
armed conflict. "We're at war with Al Qaeda," a senior adviser to Mr.
Rumsfeld said. "If we find an enemy combatant, then we should be able
to use military forces to take military action against them." No formal
plans have yet been written for Mr. Rumsfeld, and the discussions remain
far from any form that might be presented to President Bush for his
approval. Mr. Rumsfeld is described by aides as frustrated that military
operations in and around Afghanistan have reached a plateau without
the elimination of Al Qaeda. A classified directive issued recently
by the Pentagon to the Special Operations Command ordered it to come
up with fresh thinking on how elite counterterrorism units could be
sent to "disrupt and destroy enemy assets," according to three Pentagon
and administration officials who have seen the document. The directive
made clear that proposals for increased funds, new equipment and more
personnel would be considered if Special Operations forces were cleared
by the president and Mr. Rumsfeld to take the lead in attacking terrorist
leaders far beyond the Afghan theater, those officials said. More broadly,
officials outside the Pentagon say that as Mr. Rumsfeld tries to stretch
the limits on Special Operations activities, he may be moving them into
areas of political intelligence-gathering and related clandestine operations
traditionally conducted by C.I.A. case officers. Mr. Rumsfeld was said
to be dissatisfied that it was the C.I.A. that first developed ties
to Afghan warlords as early as two years before Sept. 11, which put
them in a position to introduce those warlords to American military
personnel after the war in Afghanistan began. And it was the C.I.A.
that paid off local warlords in order to obtain their cooperation with
the American-led military campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
In some cases, efforts by American Special forces working with anti-Taliban
commanders in Afghanistan to buy back Stinger missiles were slowed by
the fact that they had to await payments to those Afghan fighters by
C.I.A. field officers, because the American soldiers were not allowed
to hand out cash. George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence,
is described as not opposing the proposals, and at least one Pentagon
official said discussions were under way with the intelligence sector
on how to work out new arrangements between Special Operations forces
and American intelligence. This would "optimize each other's capabilities"
in ways that have not been possible up to now, the official said. In
fact, American troops have over the years been assigned to C.I.A.-led
operations, with Vietnam being an often-cited example. Likewise, a traditional
unconventional warfare mission for Army Special Forces, the Green Berets,
has been to develop relationships and train foreign armies or guerrilla
groups sharing goals with the United States. In Afghanistan, a senior
Defense Department official said, there was "an ad hoc relationship
that was operationally driven" and that forced Special Operations forces
and C.I.A. officers to cooperate and work together more closely, but
with bumps and glitches in the process. Now, the official said, the
idea is to formalize a closer relationship, with Special Operations
forces playing a greater role in intelligence and "direct action" operations
- that is, those that use lethal force. A number of Pentagon and administration
officials said a central goal of stepping up Special Operations missions
would be to seek out terrorist leaders themselves in their safe houses
or as they travel the world to coordinate attacks or seek havens. In
the United States military, two highly secretive groups are designated
for counterterrorism missions: the Army Special Operations unit known
as Delta Force, also called the Combat Applications Group; and the Naval
Special Warfare unit known as SEAL Team 6, also called the Development
Group, senior Pentagon and military officials said. Those two units
have a second specialized mission - counter-proliferation - that is
important to a Bush administration that has given greater emphasis in
its national security policy to combating biological, chemical and nuclear
weapons that may fall into the hands of terrorists or their state sponsors.
While the American military does not deny the existence of those units,
it also does not officially confirm their existence or provide details
on their operations. "The people in these units are available 24 hours
a day, seven days a week, anywhere around the world," a military officer
said. "They are very highly trained, with specialized skills for dealing
with close-quarters combat and unique situations posed by weapons of
mass destruction." According to a definition supplied by one former
senior lawyer for the C.I.A., a covert action is "an activity or activities
of the United States government to influence the political, economic
or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of
the United States will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly." Some
years ago, a State Department counsel issued an opinion that stated
that the president, as commander in chief, had the power to order Delta
Force to capture terrorists overseas and then bring them back to the
United States, the former C.I.A. lawyer recalled. "So there are legal
theories that would support the president simply doing this on his own,
as commander in chief," the lawyer observed. "Frankly, it is a question
of what Congress will accept." Mr. Bush, like President Clinton before
him, authorized "lethal" covert action findings against Osama bin Laden
and Al Qaeda, allowing the use of deadly force in the C.I.A.'s covert
operations intended to destroy the terrorist network. A senior administration
official argued that having vowed war on Al Qaeda, on terrorists with
global reach and nations that assist them, "If we find a high-value
target somewhere, anywhere, in the world, and if we have the forces
to get there and get to them, we should get there and get to them."
With a stealthy, mercurial adversary like Al Qaeda, which learns quickly
and adapts its tactics to the American response, the military has to
be allowed to react just as quickly, this official said. "Right now,
there are 18 food chains, 20 levels of paperwork and 22 hoops we have
to jump through before we can take action," the official said. "Our
enemy moves faster than that." The head of the United States Special
Operations Command, Gen. Charles R. Holland, has briefed Mr. Rumsfeld
and a very small group of senior Defense Department and military officers
on initial thinking. While some of the missions could be conducted under
the direction of regional war-fighting commanders, others could be the
sole mission of the Special Operations Command working independently
around the world, which also would break new ground in the military,
officials said. Special Operations forces played a central and highly
celebrated role in toppling the Taliban government in Afghanistan and
routing Al Qaeda. But today, a number of Defense Department and military
officials say some of those elite units have been deployed for too long
in the more traditional of their unconventional roles, especially in
support of the time-consuming, if still important, sweeps for pockets
of enemy fighters and arms caches. "They've become distracted by conventional
uses," a Pentagon official said. Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
### _____
EUGENE DEBS' STATEMENT AGAINST WAR
The feudal barons of the Middle Ages, the economic predecessors of the
capitalists of our day, declared all wars. And their miserable serfs
fought all the battles. The poor, ignorant serfs had been taught to
revere their masters; to believe that when their masters declared war
upon one another, it was their patriotic duty to fall upon one another
and to cut one another's throats for the profit and glory of the lords
and barons who held them in contempt. And that is war in a nutshell.
The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has
always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and
nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and
all to lose--especially their lives. http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/debs-speech.htm
The Anti-war Speech That Earned Eugene Debs 10 Years in Prison
Prominent labor organizer and political activist Eugene Debs delivered
a speech at a Socialist Party convention in Canton, Ohio, on 16 June
1918. Because of it, he was prosecuted under the Sedition Act for interfering
with the draft, leading to a 10-year prison sentence and the stripping
of his US citizenship. (He ended up serving 2 years and 8 months in
the slammer; President Warren G. Harding commuted his sentence.) Interestingly,
Debs ran for President on the Socialist Party ticket five times, with
the last time occurring while he was in prison. He received almost one
million votes. The Memory Hole is presenting this speech for many reasons.
Besides its historical value, we believe any speech which caused its
speaker to be imprisoned is worth saving. And you may notice that as
the current administration bangs the drum for war against Iraq, Afghanistan,
and 60 other countries, the anti-war portions of this speech are as
relevant now as they were 84 years ago. Anti-war portions of Debs' speech
Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder. In
the Middle Ages when the feudal lords who inhabited the castles whose
towers may still be seen along the Rhine concluded to enlarge their
domains, to increase their power, their prestige and their wealth they
declared war upon one another. But they themselves did not go to war
any more than the modern feudal lords, the barons of Wall Street go
to war. The feudal barons of the Middle Ages, the economic predecessors
of the capitalists of our day, declared all wars. And their miserable
serfs fought all the battles. The poor, ignorant serfs had been taught
to revere their masters; to believe that when their masters declared
war upon one another, it was their patriotic duty to fall upon one another
and to cut one another's throats for the profit and glory of the lords
and barons who held them in contempt. And that is war in a nutshell.
The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has
always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and
nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and
all to lose--especially their lives. They have always taught and trained
you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and to have
yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the
world you, the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and
strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has
ever been declared by the people. And here let me emphasize the fact--and
it cannot be repeated too often--that the working class who fight all
the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the
working class who freely shed their blood and furnish the corpses, have
never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is
the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and
they alone make peace. Yours not to reason why; Yours but to do and
die. That is their motto and we object on the part of the awakening
workers of this nation. If war is right let it be declared by the people.
You who have your lives to lose, you certainly above all others have
the right to decide the momentous issue of war or peace.... You need
at this time especially to know that you are fit for something better
than slavery and cannon fodder. You need to know that you were not created
to work and produce and impoverish yourself to enrich an idle exploiter.
You need to know that you have a mind to improve, a soul to develop,
and a manhood to sustain.... They are continually talking about your
patriotic duty. It is not their but your patriotic duty that they are
concerned about. There is a decided difference. Their patriotic duty
never takes them to the firing line or chucks them into the trenches.
And now among other things they are urging you to "cultivate" war gardens,
while at the same time a government war report just issued shows that
practically 52 percent of the arable, tillable soil is held out of use
by the landlords, speculators and profiteers. They themselves do not
cultivate the soil. Nor do they allow others to cultivate it. They keep
it idle to enrich themselves, to pocket the millions of dollars of unearned
increment.... And now for all of us to do our duty! The clarion call
is ringing in our ears and we cannot falter without being convicted
of treason to ourselves and to our great cause. Do not worry over the
charge of treason to your masters, but be concerned about the treason
that involves yourselves. Be true to yourself and you cannot be a traitor
to any good cause on earth. .... Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear
Power in Space PO Box 90083 Gainesville, FL 32607 (352) 337-9274 http://www.space4peace.org
globalnet@mindspring.com
SCHOOL OF AMERICAS
Subject: Close the SOA http://www.dailygazette.com/fulton.shtml#story2D340002
Sunday August 25, 2002 Keynote speaker set to go to prison Protesters
believe U.S. is supporting terrorism training By ALLISON FARRELL Gazette
Reporter
FONDA - One day before the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks,
Rae Kramer will report to federal prison in Danbury, Conn. for protesting
what she believes to be U.S.-sponsored terrorism. Saturday, Kramer,
a keynote speaker at a conference titled "Indigenous People Under Siege"
held at the National Kateri Tekakwitha Shrine on Route 5, said she was
arrested in November when she "crossed the line" onto The School of
The Americas property at Fort Benning, Ga. On Sept. 10, she will report
to the women's minimum security prison camp at the federal penitentiary
in Danbury to serve her six-month sentence for criminal trespass. She
and 100 other people from the School of Americas Watch organization
walked onto the property in protest of the U.S. military school, which
trains North, Central and South American soldiers in warfare techniques.
"We are teaching soldiers how to be more capable terrorists," Kramer
told the group of 12 people gathered in the chapel of the Kateri shrine.
Kramer said the School of the Americas is a taxpayer-supported organization
that trains Latin American soldiers to subvert democracy in their countries
and support U.S. economic interests in South America. Some of the techniques
these soldiers are taught include interrogation and torture of civilians,
she said. Kramer and other protesters of the School of the Americas
call the graduates of the School of the Americas "terrorists." "I call
them terrorists because their targets are moms, grandpas and children,"
Kramer said. "And the SOA graduates legitimize their violence by labeling
their targets insurgents - a strange and self-serving description of
health-care workers, teachers, labor organizers, farmers and priests."
One attendee of Saturday's event was an unlikely protestor of the U.S.
government, given the fact that he worked for the U.S. government for
20 years in the Air Force and served during the Vietnam War. But Frank
Houde, of Albany, said he couldn't live with himself if he didn't protest
the activities of The School of the Americas. "I looked at some truths
I really didn't want to see and I found I couldn't have any personal
integrity if I didn't speak out against what I see," Houde said. The
School of the Americas Watch organization plans an annual protest every
November on the anniversary of the deaths of six Jesuit priests, their
housekeeper and her daughter, who were killed at the hands of SOA graduates
in El Salvador, Kramer said. Even though she won't be able to attend
this year's rally, she tried to recruit protesters on Saturday. She
called on people to exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech.
"To be truly American is to dissent. It is to ask questions," Kramer
said. "Is that not the birthright of our own revolution?" Attendees
of the event said they plan to spread the SOA watch organization's message
of non-violent protest. Some said they would attend the November protest
in Georgia, while others plan to keep their activism closer to home.
Helen Carpenter of Fonda brought her 18-year-old daughter along as she
gathered information for the Franciscans at St. Thomas Moore in Fonda.
"I think it's a good cause," Carpenter said. "I'm just sort of trying
to get the information out."
ELLSBERG AND VIETNAM WAR
Daniel Ellsberg Interview. VVA had an interview with Daniel Ellsberg
in their last issue of their Veteran.. It's much too long to post. So
here is the link. http://www.vva.org/TheVeteran/2002_07/pentagon1.htm
-- --- Speak Truth to Power Tom Baxter, USA 66-69, Vietnam 67-69 Progressive
Librarians http://www.libr.org/PL/index.html VVAW http://www.prairienet.org/vvaw/
Veterans for Peace http://www.veteransforpeace.org/ PO Box 10358, Tallahassee,
Florida 32302 W 850-414-3300 H 850-893-7390
IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY DOESN'T NEED CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL
White House Lawyers Say Iraq Decision Is Bush's http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.27A.wh.law.iraq.htm
CENTRAL ASIA
CENTRAL ASIAN OUTPOST For some time the U.S. military and oil interests
have been looking for a pretext to move into Central Asia. September
11 gave the U.S. just such an excuse to set up permanent operations
in the region. Just like the U.S. cavalry claimed that they were protecting
settlers from "hostile" Native Americans during westward expansion,
today the U.S. reassures us that they are out to stop "terrorism." The
U.S. cavalry "secured" Indian land for eventual expansion of the fledgling
U.S. empire. Today in oil rich Central Asia, it's more of the same,
U.S. imperial expansion. With the lease of air bases in Kyrgyzstan and
Uzbekistan (less than 200 miles from China) and U.S. troops in Afghanistan
for a "long, long time" a new move in the global chess game has been
made. Checkmate! The new bases place American forces on China's western
frontier, on Russia's southern border, and next door to Iran, which
Bush has labeled part of the "axis of evil." Secretary of State Colin
Powell told the House International Relations Committee last spring
that "America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central
Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before." All of this
will also be a boost to the U.S.'s number one industrial export - weapons.
Bush has reportedly pledged up to $150 million in loans and grants to
Uzbekistan and is ready to condone human rights abuses in the region
in return for their loyalty and obedience. In the former Soviet Republic
of Georgia, the U.S. has deployed 10 combat helicopters and 150 military
instructors to train a "rapid reaction force" which will guard strategic
sites in Georgia - particularly oil pipelines.
DOMINATION OF OUTER SPACE (see: airspacewar
file)
The U.S. war in landlocked Afghanistan has bolstered the need for a
military presence in outer space says Gen. Lester Lyles, the Air Force
Commander of Research & Development at Kirtland A.F.B. in Albuquerque,
New Mexico. Since the 9-11 attacks, "We've had greater demonstrations
on how space is almost invaluable to helping accomplish our missions."
The Space Command's Aerospace Operations Center (AOC) at Vandenberg
A.F.B. in California has played a key role in the Afghanistan war. According
to Maj. Gen. William Looney, "The challenge of both our AOC, and the
one they have right now in Saudia Arabia at Prince Sultan Air Base that
is orchestrating this, is to integrate all of this magnificent capability
we possess so that we maximize and optimize the efficiency of what it
is we can bring to bear. The only way we could have done that with the
number of sorties we've flown.is through the navigation and timing capabilities
that are provided by the Global Positioning System (GPS) we have." Recognizing
that space "control and domination" lead to control and domination of
any Earth battlefield, the Pentagon and aerospace industry are thinking
ahead. Peter Teets, former President of Lockheed-Martin, and now the
Undersecretary of the Air Force, recently stated, "One of the main problems
that has hampered space programs has been a lack of stable funding.
We're going to work to improve that." One of the programs Teets wants
funded long-term is the new space-based radar, designed to track moving
ground targets around the globe 24 hours a day and in all types of weather.
Initial research & development cost would be $91 million. At a recent
Department of Defense (DoD) conference called Scientists Helping America,
other "21st Century warfare" ideas were discussed. Space.com reported
that "Robotic systems, down to micro and nano-size, are to be used in
the battlefield and can be controlled via satellite from remote locations..Directed
energy weapons are also on tap. For instance, high-powered microwave
beams can render helpless computers and communication equipment. 'Soft
targets,' meaning humans, can also be damaged via intense microwave
or laser beams." One can only venture a guess as to where the money
will come from to pay for these new exotic, high-tech weapons. Expect
further severe cuts in social security, health care, education, child
care, public transit, and environmental programs. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.),
Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee
recently told Space News, "My sense is that the Pentagon needs to allocate
more money in its budget toward space programs."
SECRET WAR COUNCIL
On August 19 Time Magazine ran a story entitled "Inside the Secret War
Council" which reported on the Defense Policy Board chaired by Richard
Perle - a Reagan Pentagon official whose hard line views won him the
title of "Prince of Darkness." Other members of the "Board" include
Dan Quayle, Newt Gingrich, former CIA Chief James Woolsey, and former
CIA and Pentagon boss James Schlesinger. Perle recently authored a column
in the London Daily Telegraph called "Why the West Must Strike First
Against Saddam Hussein." The Defense Policy Board is charged with helping
Secretary of War Rumsfeld complete the "transformation" of the U.S.
global war machine into a colder, larger, more efficient and lethal
one. In addition, over the years the "Board" has played a key role in
the concerted campaign to get the U.S. intelligence community to alter
its conclusions about when and how "rogue states" will be able to have
weapons of mass destruction. Until 1998, it was an article of faith
for the U.S. intelligence community that no potentially hostile country
- apart from Russia or China - would pose a long-range missile threat
to the U.S. before 2010, at the earliest. Scarcely a year later, CIA
analysts were saying something entirely different. Thus, the predicate
for missile defense and a new policy of preemptive strike was artificially
created.
CHINA THE REAL TARGET (see: airspacewar
file)
Despite the fact that China today only has 20 nuclear missiles capable
of hitting the continental U.S. and is not expected to be able to pose
any real strategic threat to the U.S. before 2015, plans are now underway
in the Pentagon to contain China. A 2001 Rand Corp. analysis, The U.S.
and Asia: Toward a New U.S. Strategy and Force Posture calls on the
U.S. to stockpile enough munitions and other military hardware on the
island of Guam in the Pacific to support 150 fighter aircraft and as
many as 50 bombers. Within a decade, China's trade is likely to surpass
that of Japan and Germany, making China the world's second largest trader.
China is currently preoccupied with economics, not military adventurism.
But the U.S. fears a strong China and is now embracing a closer political
and military relationship with Taiwan than any U.S. government in decades
as a way of expanding the new China containment plan. For years, U.S.
administrations maintained "strategic ambiguity" toward Taiwan, a position
meant to discourage Taiwan from declaring independence while keeping
Beijing confused about how the U.S. would respond to a Chinese offensive.
Bush signaled a change in this strategy by early on committing the U.S.
to "whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan. So, if China does expand military
spending in response to U.S. moves in the region - all the better. If
China builds more nuclear weapons then Bush has the "moral" justification
for expanding Star Wars development even further to protect the homeland
from "godless aggression." U.S. harsh posturing toward North Korea only
amplifies China's fears about American intensions. Japan, the historic
aggressor in the region, has recently doubled their funding for Theatre
Missile Defense (TMD) systems, encouraged to do so by the Bush team.
TMD systems would include interceptor missiles on Aegis destroyers (built
at Bath Iron Works in Maine). The blueprint of an American-Japanese
missile defense system for the Pacific region would not be ready before
2005 but has already forced China to consider how to respond.
A CIA MANUAL AND THE DATE OF 9-11
Here are some thoughts about "why they hate us"-- Who Are the Terrorists,
and What Beliefs Drive Them? Tom Greening tgreening@saybrook.edu Notes
for presentation at panel on The Psychology of Terrorism at the annual
meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, August 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quotes from a terrorist manual found in an Afghanistan cave: "This
is a religious struggle, an Islamic and liberating jihad fought by Islamic
heroes who rally to the slogan "Allah, homeland and justice." Honor
the Islamic spirituality of the valiant fighters. With Allah and devotion
we will overcome Satan. We are different, we are Moslems. We consider
Allah a witness to our words". If you regard this as chilling evidence
of the religious and political fanaticism that generates the terrorism
with which the U.S. must cope, consider the following. The above quote
was not actually from a terrorist manual found in an Afghanistan cave.
I simply substituted words for those in a CIA manual for Contra "freedom
fighters" in their campaign against the Sandinistas. That original manual
reads as follows: This is a religious struggle, a Christian and democratic
crusade fought by Christian guerrillas who rally to the slogan "God,
homeland and democracy." Honor the Christian spirituality of the freedom
fighters. With God and patriotism we will overcome communism. We are
different, we are Christians. We consider God a witness to our words.
It has been said that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom
fighter." Regardless of how righteous we feel about our values and actions,
it behooves us to remember that we are not always seen by others as
we would like to be seen, and that we may bear some responsibility for
those perceptions or misperceptions. Effective policy and action must
be based on accurate assessments of ourselves and our enemies, and on
how others see themselves and us. Simplistic splitting into good and
bad dangerously blinds us to the complexities of international relations.
A similar observation can be made regarding U. S. citizens' referring
to "9/11" as designating the attack on the World Trade Center in New
York on September 11, 2001. Few seem aware of the earlier "9/11" tragedy
when a CIA-backed coup overthrew the democratically elected government
of Chile leading to the death of President Allende and many others.
Righteous, ignorant, wounded innocence will not serve us well in dealing
with the political complexities of the modern world. ======================================
END of email from: Thomas Greening, Ph. D. 1314 Westwood Blvd., Suite
205 Los Angeles, CA 90024 310-474-0064 www.tom.greening.com ======================================
> From: psysripn@aol.com > Reply-To: ippn@yahoogroups.com > Date: Sat,
31 Aug 2002 10:40:49 -0400 > To: ippn@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [ippn]
US State Dept. to study "why they hate us" > > Dear IPPN, > This story
made me wonder what kind of questions they have been asking, and > what
kinds of questions we would ask that would be helpful to the uncovering
> of some of the problems that need to be addressed. I welcome any comments
or > suggestions for questions that we could offer to the process. >
Thanks for your help. > Anne Anderson > Coordinator > Psychologists
for Social Responsibility > ____________________________________ > State
Department to Study Why the World Hates the USA > Washington, DC --
August 29 -- Why do they hate us? > US officials will spend two days
next week grappling with this question, as 20 > outside experts share
their views with some 50 participants at a State > Department conference
studying anti-Americanism. > > "The purpose of this conference is to
explore various manifestations and roots > of anti-Americanism around
the world, what it means for the United States and > how the United
States may address it," State Department spokesman Richard > Boucher
told reporters on Wednesday. > > The 20 experts -- including novelist
Salman Rushdie -- from the United States > and abroad will discuss the
growing resentment in the Arab world and elsewhere > to an audience
of about 50 US officials. > > The conference, which Boucher said will
be a "closed, off the record" event, > is hosted by the State Department's
Bureau of Intelligence and Research and > the National Intelligence
Council -- the CIA's long and medium range policy > planning shop. It
is scheduled for Sept. 4-5 at the Wye Plantation in > Maryland, where
the Israelis and Palestinians negotiated > their last major peace agreement
in 1999. > > Panels in the conference include: "Regional attitudes towards
the United > States," "Understanding Anti-Americanism -- has the American
model become a > lightning rod for global discourse?" and "New players
in the anti-American > coalition --has soft power hurt or helped America's
image?" > > "This conference is the culmination of a project on anti-Americanism
that the > bureau has been doing, which has looked at the phenomenon
in Europe and Russia > and the Muslim world," Boucher said. "And their
purpose is to sort of explore > the various manifestations and the roots
and the reasons, and to > make it improve the quality of their product
and their explanation, their > analysis for the secretary (of state)
and the rest of the people who use their > analysis within the US government,"
he added. > > The timing of the meeting is particularly important given
recent criticism > from European and Arab governments of possible US
military action against > Iraq. After a speech on Monday by Vice President
Cheney where he virtually > ruled out the possibility of seeking the
return of UN weapons inspectors to > Iraq, numerous ambassadors and
foreign governments flooded the State > Department's switchboard. >
> According to an analysis of foreign media conducted between March
15 and > August 15 by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence
and Research, > "little sympathy could be found in Arab or Muslim papers"
for military action > against Iraq. The report goes on to say, "A common
theme was that the > campaign against Iraq was simply a way to gain
control of Iraqi oil, > help the US economy and boost the president's
popularity." > > The survey released internally on Monday also notes
that a full 68 per cent of > newspaper editorials analysed in NATO countries
and Australia opposed military > action against Iraq. In the analysis
of Western European editorials, the > report says, "Many sources worried
that a military campaign > to oust Hussein would trigger a storm of
indignation in the Middle East." > > http://www.dawn.com/2002/08/30/int2.htm
> ================================== > wilmerding@earthlink.net cerj@igc.org
> ------------------------------------------- > John Wilmerding, Convener
and List Manager > Coalition for Equity-Restorative Justice (CERJ) >
1 Chestnut Hill, Brattleboro, VT, ZIP: 05301-6073 > Phone: 1-802-254-2826
| 1-802-380-0664 (cellular) > -------------------------------------------
BUSH'S SPEECH AT MOUNT RUSHMORE
Bush's speech at Mount Rushmore National Memorial 8-15-02 in which he
demanded Congress give him a Homeland Security Dept. unfettered by rules
and red tape (=oversight and accountability) tells us a lot about Bush.
Washington, Jefferson, T. Roosevelt, Lincoln--what did they signify
to Gutzon Borglum, the creator of the four faces on Mt. Rushmore? Read
The Unveiling of the National Icons by Albert Boime for his
belief, in his euphemistic language, of US "territorial completion
and development." From Washington to Roosevelt and onward, "completion"
was the divine aim of Manifest Destiny; that is, empire, conquest, racism,
massive land theft by violence, numerous treaty violations, genocide.
And the sculpture specifically after all that? "...the sculptor
then proceeded to desacralize the [Native American] holy place by defacing
it permanently with the effigies of four Great White Fathers ."
DOMINATION OF WORLD
Bush Seeks Unlimited Power to Make War http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.21A.unlimited.war.htm
Bush Unveils Global Doctrine of First Strikes http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.21B.1st.strikes.htm
Leahy Calls Draft War Resolution On Iraq; 'Overly Broad And Premature'
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.21C.leahy.war.pwrs.htm
DEFENSE GUIDANCE PLANNING REPORTS FOR WORLD DOMINATION
David Armstrong, "Dick Cheney's Song of America: Drafting a Plan
for Global Dominance." Harper's Magazine (Oct. 2002) 76-.
Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz created the Defense Planning
Guidance reports since 1992. "The Plan is for the United States
to rule the world."
CIA AND SADDAM HUSSEIN (see Iraq)
Richard Helms: CIA Assassination, Regime Change, Mass Murder and Saddam
By Richard Sanders, Coordinator, Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade
and editor, of COAT's quarterly magazine "Press for Conversion!"
With the death of former CIA director Richard Helms, the corporate media
is offering a rare glimpse into the CIA's use of political assassinations.
Unfortunately, however, the coverage is highly-sanitized. It covers
up much more than it reveals. Contrary to what the corporate media suggests,
assassination is not a clean, surgical method of removing very specific
political enemies. It is only one small element in a larger cluster
of crimes used by the CIA in executing a "regime change." The reality
is that the CIA's use of assassination to exterminate political leaders
has historically been closely linked to many other political crimes
that are, arguably, even worse. For example, when planning, coordinating,
arming, training and financing repressive military coups, as the CIA
has done so many times, their henchmen are wont to carry out mass arrests,
mass torture and mass murder. It's a nasty business. As Kissinger once
said about the CIA's betrayal of Iraqi Kurds, "covert action should
not be confused with missionary work." Although 32 of the 98 recent
stories on Richard Helms (found using a google media search) mention
the term "assassination," not one of these articles mentions any of
the following terms that are equally relevant to CIA operations: torture,
murder, arrest. Only 4 of the 98 recent stories on Helms mention the
term "coup." In one case, the article uses the term to praise Helms,
saying he scored a "journalistic coup" when he interviewed Adolph Hitler
in 1935. Richard Helms' contact with Nazis didn't end there (and probably
didn't begin there either). Helms went on to work closely with General
Reinhard Gehlen, the notorious Nazi spymaster who was hired by US "intelligence"
to set up an organization within the CIA. The "Gehlen Org" recruited
thousands of Nazi agents to run covert operations in Eastern Europe
after the war. Gehlen is, of course, not mentioned in any of recent
news reports on Helms. Neither is the fact that the OSS (the US agency
that preceded the CIA) had a lot in common with the SS. To both, the
biggest evil in the word was summed up in one word, communism. And to
both, the elimination of communists, labour activists and other undesirable
elements that got in the way of corporatism was their chief preoccupation.
Political assassination is a valuable weapon in the covert operative's
toolbox. But it is only one tool among many. A successful right-wing
covert action not only removes the enemy's head, it replaces the body
politic. The CIA has been organizing "regime change" for 50 years. They
have removed many governments that are unfriendly to US corporate interests
and replaced them with regimes that are more likely to work closely
and slavishly to carry out the economic and geopolitical desires of
the US corporate elite. But the CIA's crimes don't end when a right-wing
coup has succeeded. The CIA then has to keep its repressive despots
in power in order to ensure that they can put into place and then maintain
a variety of unjust economic systems and structures. This is done with
arms sales (and outright gifts of "surplus" weapons), glowing diplomatic
support, "intelligence support" (sic) and massive economic investment
(i.e., pillaging as much profit as possible by exploiting the natural
resources that drew them in there in the first place, and handing out
some of the spoils to a loyal local elite). When the corporate media
describe the CIA's use of political assassination as if it exists in
isolation from mass imprisonment, torture and murder, they cover up
the horror, pain and suffering experienced by thousands of ordinary
people in countries where CIA-backed blood baths have taken place. They
neglect to reveal that when the CIA carries out its high-profile assassination
efforts, they also carry out murders of thousands of lesser-known political
figures. It's standard procedure with many coups that thousands of grassroots
activists and organizers get rounded up, tortured and killed. Such waves
of mass violence make today's serial sniper in Washington look like
a Boy Scout. The CIA has used such goons to eliminate its opponents
and as a scare tactic to ensure that other citizens, who might otherwise
have protested the regime change, decide instead to lay very low in
order to stay alive. An apt example of a real CIA assassination campaign
was the "Phoenix Program" in Vietnam. Tens of thousands of people where
specifically targetted, tracked down and assassinated, many by snipers.
Although Helms held the post of Director of the CIA during the height
of this mass serial assassination program, none of the 98 recent stories
on Helms, found with the google search engine, even mention Phoenix.
Reliable estimates on the total number of people killed by the US in
South East Asia during the Vietnam war range from three to five million
people. But, of course, there is no mention of Helms culpability in
any recent corporate media articles. they say it is taboo to speak ill
of the dead, but what they don't say is that it is even more taboo to
speak ill of the CIA, or breath word that CIA directors are criminals
for overseeing the deliberate murder of millions of innocent civilians.
During Helms' tenure as director of the CIA under President Johnson,
he also oversaw the "secret war" against Laos. But, it was no secret
for the people of Laos. Over two million tons of bombs were dropped
on this small country. The word "Laos" is not mentioned in any of the
98 recent corporate media articles found by google in a search for Richard
Helms. Tio much of the world, it's still a "secret war." Another very
good example of a CIA-organized "regime change" was a coup in 1963 that
employed political assassination, mass imprisonment, torture and murder.
This was the military coup that first brought Saddam Hussein's beloved
Ba'ath Party to power in Iraq. At the time, Richard Helms was Director
for Plans at the CIA. That is the top CIA position responsible for covert
actions, like organizing coups. Helms served in that capacity until
1966, when he was made Director. In the quotations collected below,
the name of the leader who was assassinated is spelled variously as
Qasim, Qassim and Kassem. But, however you spell his name, when he took
power in a popularly-backed coup in 1958, he certainly got recognized
in Washington. He carried out such anti-American and anti-corporatist
policies as starting the process of nationalizing foreign oil companies
in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the US-initiated right-wing Baghdad Pact
(which included another military-run, US-puppet state, i.e., Pakistan)
and decriminalizing the Iraqi Communist Party. Despite these actions,
and more likely because of them, he was Iraq's most popular leader.
He had to go! In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim.
The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963,
a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's
Ba'ath Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from
exile in Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq's secret service.
The CIA then provided the new pliant, Iraqi regime with the names of
thousands of communists, and other leftist activists and organizers.
Thousands of these supporters of Qasim and his policies were soon dead
in a rampage of mass murder carried out by the CIA's close friends in
Iraq. Iraq is once again a target of US "regime change." Despite that,
precious little is being said by the corporate media about how the CIA
aided and abetted political assassination, regime change and mass murder,
all in the name of putting Saddam's Ba'ath power into power for the
first time in Iraq. One thing is for sure, the US will find it much
harder to remove the Ba'ath Party from power in Iraq than they did putting
them in power back in 1963. If more people knew about this diabolical
history, they just might not be so inclined to trust the US in its current
efforts to execute "regime change" in Iraq. Here then are some quotations
that I've gathered on this fascinating early history of CIA involvement
in the vicious history of "regime change" in Iraq: In early 1963, Saddam
had more important things to worry about than his outstanding bill at
the Andiana Cafe. On February 8, a military coup in Baghdad, in which
the Baath Party played a leading role, overthrew Qassim. Support for
the conspirators was limited. In the first hours of fighting, they had
only nine tanks under their control. The Baath Party had just 850 active
members. But Qassim ignored warnings about the impending coup. What
tipped the balance against him was the involvement of the United States.
He had taken Iraq out of the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact. In 1961, he threatened
to occupy Kuwait and nationalized part of the Iraq Petroleum Company
(IPC), the foreign oil consortium that exploited Iraq's oil. In retrospect,
it was the ClAs favorite coup. "We really had the ts crossed on what
was happening," James Critchfield, then head of the CIA in the Middle
East, told us. "We regarded it as a great victory." Iraqi participants
later confirmed American involvement. "We came to power on a CIA train,"
admitted Ali Saleh Sa'adi, the Baath Party secretary general who was
about to institute an unprecedented reign of terror. CIA assistance
reportedly included coordination of the coup plotters from the agency's
station inside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad as well as a clandestine
radio station in Kuwait and solicitation of advice from around the Middle
East on who on the left should be eliminated once the coup was successful.
To the end, Qassim retained his popularity in the streets of Baghdad.
After his execution, his sup- porters refused to believe he was dead
until the coup leaders showed pictures of his bullet-riddled body on
TV and in the newspapers. Source: Andrew and Patrick Cockburn, excerpt
from Out of the Ashes, The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, 2000. Cited
by Tim Buckley --------------------------------------------------
The Ba'athist coup, resulted in the return to Iraq of young fellow-Ba'athist
Saddam Hussein, who had fled to Egypt after his earlier abortive attempt
to assassinate Qasim. Saddam was immediately assigned to head the Al-Jihaz
al-Khas, the clandestine Ba'athist Intelligence organisation. As such,
he was soon involved in the killing of some 5,000 communists. Saddam's
rise to power had, ironically, begun on the back of a CIA-engineered
coup! Source: Alfred Mendes, Excerpt from "Blood for Oil," Spectr@zine.
-------------------------------------------------- 1963: Qasim's government
is overthrown in a coup bringing the Arab nationalist Ba'ath party to
power. They favour the joining together of Iraq, Egypt and Syria in
one Arab nation. In the same year, the Ba'ath also come to power in
Syria, although the Syrian and Iraqi parties subsequently split. The
Ba'ath strengthen links with the U.S. During the coup, demonstrators
are mown down by tanks, initiating a period of ruthless persecution.
Up to 10,000 people are imprisoned, many are tortured. The CIA supply
intelligence to the Ba'athists on communists and radicals to be rounded
up. In addition to the 149 officially executed, about 5,000 are killed
in the terror, many buried alive in mass graves. The new government
continues the war on the Kurds, bombarding them with tanks, artillery
and from the air, and bulldozing villages. Source: From Practical History,
London, May 2000.
-------------------------------------------------- Iraqis have always
suspected that the 1963 military coup that set Saddam Husain on the
road to absolute power had been masterminded by the US Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA). New evidence just published reveals that the agency not
only engineered the putsch but also supplied the list of people to be
eliminated once power was secured - a monstrous stratagem that led to
the decimation of Iraq's professional class. The overthrow of president
Abdul Karim Kassim on February 8, 1963 was not, of course, the first
intervention in the region by the agency, but it was the bloodiest -
far bloodier than the coup it orchestrated in 1953 to restore the shah
of Iran to power. Just how gory, and how deep the CIA's involvement
in it, is demonstrated in a new book by Said Aburish, a writer on Arab
political affairs. The book, A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab
Elite (1997), sets out the details not only of how the CIA closely controlled
the planning stages but also how it played a central role in the subsequent
purge of suspected leftists after the coup. The author reckons that
5,000 were killed, giving the names of 600 of them - including many
doctors, lawyers, teachers and professors who formed Iraq's educated
elite. The massacre was carried out on the basis of death lists provided
by the CIA. The lists were compiled in CIA stations throughout the Middle
East with the assistance of Iraqi exiles like Saddam, who was based
in Egypt. An Egyptian intelligence officer, who obtained a good deal
of his information from Saddam, helped the Cairo CIA station draw up
its list. According to Aburish, however, the American agent who produced
the longest list was William McHale, who operated under the cover of
a news correspondent for the Beirut bureau of Time magazine. The butchery
began as soon as the lists reached Baghdad. No-one was spared. Even
pregnant women and elderly men were killed. Some were tortured in front
of their children. According to the author, Saddam who 'had rushed back
to Iraq from exile in Cairo to join the victors, was personally involved
in the torture of leftists in the separate detention centres for fellaheen
[peasants] and the Muthaqafeen or educated classes.' King Hussain of
Jordan, who maintained close links with the CIA, says the death lists
were relayed by radio to Baghdad from Kuwait, the foreign base for the
Iraqi coup. According to him, a secret radio broadcast was made from
Kuwait on the day of the coup, February 8, 'that relayed to those carrying
out the coup the names and addresses of communists there, so they could
be seized and executed.' The CIA's royal collaborator also gives an
insight into how closely the Ba'athist party and American intelligence
operators worked together during the planning stages. 'Many meetings
were held between the Ba'ath party and American intelligence - the most
critical ones in Kuwait,' he says. At the time the Ba'ath party was
a small nationalist movement with only 850 members. But the CIA decided
to use it because of its close relations with the army. One of its members
tried to assassinate Kassim as early as 1959. Saddam, then 22, was wounded
in the leg, later fleeing the country. According to Aburish, the Ba'ath
party leaders - in return for CIA support - agreed to 'undertake a cleansing
programme to get rid of the communists and their leftist allies.' Hani
Fkaiki, a Ba'ath party leader, says that the party's contact man who
orchestrated the coup was William Lakeland, the US assistant military
attache in Baghdad. One of the coup leaders, colonel Saleh Mahdi Ammash,
former Iraqi assistant military attache in Washington, was in fact arrested
for being in touch with Lakeland in Baghdad. His arrest caused the conspirators
to move earlier than they had planned. Aburish's book shows that the
Ba'ath leaders did not deny plotting with the CIA ro overthrow Kassim.
When Syrian Ba'ath party officials demanded to know why they were in
cahoots with the US agency, the Iraqis tried to justify it in terms
of ideology comparing their collusion to 'Lenin arriving in a German
train to carry out his revolution.' Ali Saleh, the minister of interior
of the regime which had replaced Kassim, said: 'We came to power on
a CIA train.' It should not come as a surprise that the Americans were
so eager to overthrow Kassim or so willing to cause such a blood bath
to achieve their objective. At the height of the cold war, they were
causing similar mayhem in Latin America and Indo-China overthrowing
any leaders that dared show the slighest degree of independence. Kassim
was a prime target for US aggression and arrogance. After taking power
in 1958, he took Iraq out of the Baghdad Pact, the US-backed anti-Soviet
alliance in the Middle East, and in 1961 he dared nationalise part of
the concession of the British-controlled Iraq Petroleum company and
resurrected a long-standing Iraqi claim to Kuwait ( the regime which
succeeded him immediately dropped the claim to Kuwait). But the cold
war does not by itself explain Uncle Sam's propensity to violence. When
president George Bush bombed Iraq to smithereens, killing thousands
of civilians, the cold war was over. Clinton cannot cite the cold war
for insisting that the brutal regime of sanctions imposed on the country
should stay. In fact the brutal, blood-stained nature of Uncle Sam goes
back all the way to the so-called 'Founding Fathers,' who made no attempt
to conceal it. As long ago as 1818, John Quincy Adams hailed the 'salutary
efficacy' of terror in dealing with 'mingled hordes of lawless Indians
and negroes.' He was defending Andrew Jackson's frenzied operations
in Florida which virtually wiped out the indigenous population and left
the Spanish province under US control. Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues
were not above professing to be impressed by the wisdom of his words.
Source: Muslimedia: August 16-31, 1997
-------------------------------------------------- The CIA has been
meddling in Iraq with disastrous consequences for over four decades.
After propping up the corrupt Nuri Said, the USA went after Abdul-Karim
Kassem, whose popularly-supported coup eliminated the old British agent
Nuri in 1958. Among those whom the CIA recruited to do its dirty work
were the Iraqi Baath Party, including a brash power-hungry adventurer
named Saddam Hussein. Saddam actually engaged in an attempt on Kassem's
life, one of many engineered by CIA "assets." The Baath did finally
succeed in overthrowing and killing Kassem in 1963. The CIA gave the
emergent Baath a long list of Communists and others to liquidate, which
they undertook to accomplish with their usual thoroughness, Husayn Al-Kurdi
, "The CIA In Kurdistan", December 1996
Source:
-------------------------------------------------- Kassem had helped
found the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in an
attempt to curtail Western control of Arab oil. He had been planning
to nationalise the Iraq Petroleum Company in which the USA had an interest.
Iraq had also disapproved when Kuwait had been given independence by
the UK with a pro-west emir (king) and oil concessions to Western companies.
A few days before the coup, the French newspaper La Monde had reported
that Kassem had been warned by the USA government to change his country's
economic policies or face sanctions. British government papers later
declassified would indicate that the coup was backed by the USA and
UK. The new government promises not to nationalise American oil interests
and renounces its claim to Kuwait. The USA recognises and praises the
new government. Source: Kryss Katsiavriades and Talaat Qureshi, "The
Acts of the Democracies: 1960 to 1964"
-------------------------------------------------- A history of twists
and turns, with the CIA often as a blunt axe, have made it very difficult
for the United States to be seen as a reliable, or even honest, presence
in the Middle East. The resentment is not confined to Arabs. Nine years
ago, Massoud Barzani, who has rarely ever traveled away from Kurdistan,
agreed to visit Washington with a deputation of the opposition Iraqi
National Congress (INC). Massoud, used to the traditional baggy trousers
and cummerbund, looked uncomfortable in an Armani suit at receptions,
but the INC was keen to create the right impression with senators and
opinion-formers. Nonetheless, Massoud refused an invitation to visit
Henry Kissinger. Despite all the compromises of Kurdish politics, Massoud
had never forgiven the former secretary of state for engineering the
1975 Algiers agreement between Iraq and Iran, when the two sides suddenly
settled long-standing differences and felt free to deal with their "internal
problems," including the Kurds. Algiers came just two years after Massoud
went to Washington to meet Richard Helms, the CIA director, and Al Haig,
the White House chief of staff a meeting that led to both CIA and Israeli
advisers moving into northern Iraq to help the Kurds. Algiers left the
Kurds high and dry, ending a generation of Kurdish revolt led by Massoud's
father, Mulla Mustafa, whose broken heart sent him into exile and an
early death. Even if those in Washington forgot quickly, Massoud did
not. The relationship between the CIA and Saddam Hussein is a long one.
In 1963, the Americans plotted with the Ba'ath against Abdel Karim Kassem,
a man who, in the words of the writer Said Aburish, "retains more of
the affection of the Iraqi people than any leader this century." The
CIA supplied lists for the Ba'ath to kill leftists and communists, and
Washington flew arms to Kirkuk to use against the Kurds. In Aburish's
biography of the Iraqi leader, the author quotes many anti-Saddam Iraqis
including Ahmad Chalabi, leader of the INC on CIA cooperation with the
second Ba'ath coup in 1968. Later, in the 1980s, the United States and
Britain helped arm Saddam in his confrontation with Iran only to turn
against him over the 1990 Kuwait crisis. When in 1991 the Iraqi people
rose against Saddam, the United States was fearful that change would
put its majority Shi'ites and thus Iran in power, and US forces stood
by as the Republican Guard crushed the rebellion. The CIA then worked
on sponsoring a coup in Baghdad, a strategy that crumbled in 1996 when
Iraqi intelligence infiltrated a conspiracy led by the ex-Ba'athist
Iyad Alawi. Having rounded up hundreds of officers, the mukhabarat sent
a message to the CIA team in Amman: "We have arrested all your people.
You might as well pack up and go home." The CIA's half-hearted support
for the INC also ended in 1996, when Saddam exploited Kurdish in-fighting
to crush an INC presence in the Kurdish-controlled zone in the north.
As Iraqi tanks moved in, the CIA fled and left the INC people to their
fate. Washington washed its hands of the affair, and Chalabi noted that
CIA officials "are not known for their veracity." Source: Gareth Smyth,
"In the Middle East, the CIA has hurt its friends and helped its own
enemies."
-------------------------------------------------- In 1963, Saddam Hussein
worked with the CIA to carry out the coup by the Baath party, which
eventually brought him to power in Iraq. The book, A Brutal Friendship:
The West and the Arab Elite by Said K. Aburish, which was reviewed recently
in Counterpunch ("The CIA: Lest We Forget", CounterPunch. Sept.16-30
1997, p.2), describes how the CIA, Saddam and other members of the Baath
party collaborated to bring about the coup, murdering perhaps 5,000
people in the process. The United States went on to help Saddam win
the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. According to Noam Chomsky, "There were
no passionate calls for a military strike after Saddam's gassing of
Kurds at Halabja in March, 1988; on the contrary, the US and U.K. extended
their strong support for the mass murderer, then, also 'our kind of
guy'" ("Iraq and the UN Sanctions", The Economist, Nov.19 1994, p.47)
Source: Ruth Wilson, "American Policy in Iraq"
-------------------------------------------------- America aided Saddam
Hussein and the Ba'ath party into power in Iraq. Describing them as
"...the political force of the future..." the CIA met with Ba'ath activists
in the early 1960's. In the coup of 1963, thousands of Iraqi opposition
political figures were murdered in three days, many them on a list which,
according to journalist John Pilger, was supplied by the CIA. James
Critchfield was the head of the CIA's Middle East Desk at the time.
He later described the coup to authors Andrew and Patrick Cockburn for
their book 'Out of the Ashes.' "It was a great victory. [....] It was
an operation where all the 't's were really crossed." Another CIA agent
testified to Congress: "He [Saddam] was a son of a bitch, but he was
OUR son of a bitch." ['PAYING THE PRICE' - documentary by John Pilger,
CARLTON TV, UK, 1999] Source: "Fear And Loathing Of The US Government"
-------------------------------------------------- 1963: U.S. supports
coup by Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) and
reportedly gives them names of communists to murder, which they do with
vigor. Andrew Cockburn and Patrick Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection
of Saddam Hussein, New York: Harperperennial. 1999, p. 74; Edith and
E. F. Penrose, Iraq: International Relations and National Development,
Boulder: Westview, 1978, p. 288; Hanna Batatu, The Old Social Classes
and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq, Princeton: Princeton UP, 1978,
pp. 985-86 Source: Stephen R. Shalom Middle East Time Line (revised,
12 Dec. 2001)
-------------------------------------------------- It is astonishing
how many tough-minded men in American government have been convinced
by the regular spiel that the CIA has a deeprooted antipathy to proposals
for political murder. A witness to still another episode of the sort
was Armin Meyer, a career diplomat with a long history in the Near East
going back to the Office of War Information, a kind of offshoot of the
OSS, during World War II. In July 1958, when the government of Iraq
was overthrown in a coup notable for its violence, Meyer was deputy
director of the State Department's Office of Near Eastern Affairs. The
following year he was promoted to director and as such was called in
whenever the CIA contemplated covert operations in Iraq. The new ruler
of the country was an army general named Abdul Karim Kassem, who had
murdered his predecessors as well as a number of foreigners who happened
to be in Baghdad at the time of his coup. On top of that, he immediately
restored diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, later lifted a
ban on the Iraqi Communist party while suppressing pro-Western parties,
and in many other ways invited the hostility of Eisenhower and John
Foster Dulles. On one occasion during Armin Meyer's tenure as director
of the Office of Near Eastern Affairs, he attended a meeting in Allen
Dulles's office at the CIA to discuss how the United States might remove
Kassem. Meyer had attended many such meetings; they were a routine of
government; but this one stuck in his mind. During the meeting one of
those present suggested that Kassem was the problem, and maybe the best
way to get rid of him was to get rid of him. Wait a minute, Dulles said.
An awful silence followed. Dulles was a man of great personal authority,
and his words on this occasion had a cold and deliberate emphasis which
Meyer never forgot. Dulles wanted one thing to be understood: it is
not in the American character to assassinate opponents; murder was not
to be discussed in his office, now or ever again; he did not ever want
to hear another such suggestion by a servant of the United States government;
that is not the way Americans do things. Dulles was so clear on this
point, and spoke with such evident passion and conviction, that Meyer
simply could not understand how Dulles ever could have been party to
an assassination plot no matter who gave the orders. Meyer knew what
was in the Church Committee's reports, but he simply did not believe
it, there must be some error, it was beyond Meyer's capacity to conceive
that he could have been mistaken on this point, Dulles had left no room
for doubt: he would not be a party to assassination. The regular spiel
.... The message to McNamara, and to us, ought to be loud and clear:
assassination was too sensitive a matter to be discussed in official
meetings or to be recorded in official memos and minutes. What those
high officials who received the regular spiel failed to comprehend was
the degree of secrecy which surrounded any matter as explosive as assassination.
Armin Meyer, for example, was convinced by Dulles's version of the regular
spiel that he would never be a party to assassination. He knew what
was in the Church Committee's Assassination Report roughly knew, that
is; he had not actually read itbut he couldn't square what he'd heard
with what he thought he knew. If he had read the report, the whole report,
and most particularly the long footnote on page 181, he would have known
that Dulles's solemn disapproval was in truth nothing more than the
regular spiel. In February 1960, while the government was trying to
decide what to do about General Kassem, the chief of the DDP's Near
East Division proposed that Kassem be "incapacitated" with a poisoned
handkerchief prepared by the DDP's Technical Services Division. In April
the proposal was supported by the DDP's Chief of Operations, Richard
Helms, who endorsed Kassem's incapacitation as "highly desirable." Meyer
would further have known that Bisseil did not act in such matters without
Dulles's approval, and that Bissell was convinced he could hardly have
made this point any clearer to the Church Committee that Dulles would
not have proceeded without an order from the only man with the authority
to okay an attempt on a foreign leader's life. In this instance the
handkerchief was duly dispatched to Kassem, but whether or not it ever
reached him, it certainly did not kill him. His own countrymen did that
on February 8, 1963, by executing him before a firing squad on live
television in Baghdad. What Livingston Merchant, Armin Meyer, Robert
McNamara, and others failed to understand was that official meetings
in the office of the Director of the CIA, or of the Secretary of State,
or of the Special Group, were hardly the place to discuss something
that was really secret. From the CIA's point of view the Secretary of
State's office was about as secure as the floor of Congress with a full
press gallery. It you were going to plan an assassination in the Secretary
of State's office, or record the discussion in the minutes, you might
as well send a press release to the New York Times. Eisenhower and Kennedy
went after two enemies in particular in the years between 1959 and 1963
Lumumba in the Congo and Castro in Cuba but when they gave the job to
the CIA they expected secrecy, and that is what they got. Source: Thomas
Powers, The Man Who Kept The Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA, 1979,
pp. 160-164. Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT) (A network of
individuals and NGOs across Canada and around the world) Email: ad207@ncf.ca
Web: http://www.ncf.ca/coat To join our list serve on the Afghan and
Iraq wars, the war on terrorism and the criminalisation of dissent,
send the message: subscribe no_to_nato to To see
the archives at http://www.flora.org/coat/forum/ Issue #43 of of COAT's
quarterly magazine "Press for Conversion!" was on: "A People's History
of the CIA: The Subversion of Democracy from Australia to Zaire"
http://www.ncf.ca/coat/our_magazine/links/issue43
CIA AND PENTAGON EXPANDING COVERT OPERATIONS
http://www.latimes.com/la-op-arkin27oct27001451,0,7355676.story Los
Angeles Times October 27, 2002 The Secret War. Frustrated by intelligence
failures, the Defense Department is dramatically expanding its 'black
world' of covert operations By William M. Arkin e-mail: warkin@igc.org
William M. Arkin is a military affairs analyst who writes regularly
for Opinion. SOUTH POMFRET, Vt.
-- In what may well be the largest expansion of covert action by the
armed forces since the Vietnam era, the Bush administration has turned
to what the Pentagon calls the "black world" to press the war on terrorism
and weapons of mass destruction. The Defense Department is building
up an elite secret army with resources stretching across the full spectrum
of covert capabilities. New organizations are being created. The missions
of existing units are being revised. Spy planes and ships are being
assigned new missions in anti-terror and monitoring the "axis of evil."
The increasingly dominant role of the military, Pentagon officials say,
reflects frustration at the highest levels of government with the performance
of the intelligence community, law enforcement agencies and much of
the burgeoning homeland security apparatus. It also reflects the desire
of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to gain greater overall control
of the war on terror. Insulated from outside pressures, armed with matchless
weapons and technology, trained to operate below the shadow line, the
Pentagon's black world of classified operations holds out the hope of
swift, decisive action in a struggle against terrorism that often looks
more like a family feud than a war. Coupled with the enormous effort
being made throughout the government to improve and link information
networks and databases, covert anti-terror operations promise to put
better information in the hands of streamlined military teams that can
identify, monitor and neutralize terrorist threats. "Prevention and
preemption are ... the only defense against terrorism," Rumsfeld said
in May. "Our task is to find and destroy the enemy before they strike
us." The new apparatus for covert operations and the growing government
secrecy associated with the war on terrorism reflect the way the Bush
administration's most senior officials see today's world: First, they
see fighting terrorism and its challenge to U.S. interests and values
as the 21st century equivalent of the Cold War crusade against communism.
Second, they believe the magnitude of the threat requires, and thus
justifies, aggressive new "off-the-books" tactics. In their understandable
frustration over continued atrocities such as the recent Bali attack,
however, U.S. officials might keep two points in mind. Though covert
action can bring quick results, because it is isolated from the normal
review processes it can just as quickly bring mistakes and larger problems.
Also, the Pentagon is every bit as capable as the civilian side of the
government when it comes to creating organization charts and bureaucracy
that stifle creative thinking and timely action. The development of
the Pentagon's covert counter-terror capability has its roots in the
1979 Iran hostage crisis. The Army created a highly compartmentalized
organization that could collect clandestine intelligence independent
of the rest of the U.S. intelligence community and follow through with
covert military action. Known as the Intelligence Support Activity,
or ISA, when it was established in 1981, this unit fought in drug wars
and counter-terror operations from the Middle East to South America.
It built a reputation for daring, flexibility and a degree of lawlessness.
In May 1982, Deputy Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci called the ISA
"uncoordinated and uncontrolled." Though its freelance tendencies were
curbed, the ISA continued to operate under different guises through
the ill-starred U.S. involvement in Somalia in 1992 and was reportedly
active in the hunt for Bosnian Serbs suspected of war crimes. Today,
the ISA operates under the code name Gray Fox. In addition to covert
operations, it provides the war on terrorism with the kind of so-called
"close-in" signals monitoring -- including the interception of cell
phone conversations -- that helped bring down Colombian drug lord Pablo
Escobar. Gray Fox's low-profile eavesdropping planes also fly without
military markings. Working closely with Special Forces and the CIA,
Gray Fox also places operatives inside hostile territory. In and around
Afghanistan, Gray Fox was part of a secret sphere that included the
CIA's paramilitary Special Activities Division and the Pentagon's Joint
Special Operations Command. These commands and "white" Special Forces
like the Green Berets, as well as Air Force combat controllers and commandos
of eight different nations report to a mind-boggling array of new command
cells and coordination units set up after Sept. 11. An Army brigadier
general commands the Joint Interagency Task Force at Bagram air base
north of Kabul to coordinate CIA, Defense Department and coalition forces
in Afghanistan. A new Campaign Support Group has been established at
Ft. Bragg, N.C. The Special Operations Joint Interagency Collaboration
Center has been created in Tampa, Fla. In Europe, the Joint Interagency
Coordination Group handles information-sharing and logistical support
with NATO. Hawaii's Pacific Command stood up a Joint Interagency Counter-Terrorist
Group this summer. Meantime, old commands are being morphed into new
ones for the covert war. The two Joint Interagency Task Forces in the
United States previously devoted to fighting drugs now have the war
on terrorism as their highest priority. The epicenter of the Pentagon's
covert operations remains the North Carolina-based Joint Special Operations
Command, often referred to as Delta Force. The super-secret command
is still not officially acknowledged to exist. Its two-star commander,
Army Maj. Gen. Dell L. Dailey, who spent much of the Afghan war in Oman,
has no public biography. Among Dailey's assets is a fleet of aircraft
specially equipped for secret operations -- conventional and covert
military planes and helicopters, and even former Soviet helicopters.
The bulk of those craft, including the reconfigured Russian choppers,
fly from airfields in Uzbekistan and from two Pakistani air bases, Shahbaz
and Shamsi. The Air Force and the CIA collect additional intelligence
from unmanned Predator and Global Hawk drones. They also have low-profile
reconnaissance assets that look like transport planes and operate under
such code names as ARL-Low, Keen Sage, Scathe View and Senior Scout.
Not to be left out, the Navy's Gray Star spy vessel, reminiscent of
the old Pueblo, captured by North Korea in 1968, now sweeps up sophisticated
-- and obscure -- "measurements and signatures intelligence" to monitor
the ballistic missile capabilities of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Even
with all this, the Pentagon wants to expand covert capabilities. Rumsfeld's
influential Defense Science Board 2002 Summer Study on Special Operations
and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism says in its classified
"outbrief" -- a briefing drafted to guide other Pentagon agencies --
that the global war on terrorism "requires new strategies, postures
and organization." The board recommends creation of a super-Intelligence
Support Activity, an organization it dubs the Proactive, Preemptive
Operations Group, (P2OG), to bring together CIA and military covert
action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception.
Among other things, this body would 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. Such tactics would hold "states/sub-state actors accountable"
and "signal to harboring states that their sovereignty will be at risk,"
the briefing paper declares. Never to be outdone in proposing hardware
solutions, the Air Force is designing its own Global Response Task Force
to fight the war on terrorism. The all-seeing, all-bombing Air Force
envisions unmanned A-X aircraft capable of long-range, nighttime gunship
operations and an M-X covert transport, as well as hypersonic and space-based
conventional weapons capable of delivering a "worldwide attack within
an hour." Who says the arms race is over? Rumsfeld's science board warns
against overemphasis on equipment even as it recommends more. Washington
is well on its way to an arms race with itself. And for those who worry
that all these secret operations and aggressive new doctrines will turn
the United States into the world's policeman, there is a ray of hope.
Rumsfeld is now the field marshal of the war on terrorism, but the Pentagon
is also creating new layers of bureaucracy that may save it from itself.
Not to mention the rest of us. Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times Global
Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 90083 Gainesville,
FL 32607 (352) 337-9274 http://www.space4peace.org globalnet@mindspring.com
US CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS
US weapons secrets exposed Julian Borger in Washington Tuesday October
29, 2002 The Guardian
Respected scientists on both sides of the Atlantic warned yesterday
that the US is developing a new generation of weapons that undermine
and possibly violate international treaties on biological and chemical
warfare. The scientists, specialists in bio-warfare and chemical weapons,
say the Pentagon, with the help of the British military, is also working
on "non-lethal" weapons similar to the narcotic gas used by Russian
forces to end last week's siege in Moscow. They also point to the paradox
of the US developing such weapons at a time when it is proposing military
action against Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is breaking international
treaties.
Malcolm Dando, professor of international security at the University
of Bradford, and Mark Wheelis, a lecturer in microbiology at the University
of California, say that the US is encouraging a breakdown in arms control
by its research into biological cluster bombs, anthrax and non-lethal
weapons for use against hostile crowds, and by the secrecy under which
these programmes are being conducted. "There can be disagreement over
whether what the United States is doing represents violations of treaties,"
Mr Wheelis told the Guardian. "But what is happening is at least so
close to the borderline as to be destabilising." In a paper to be published
soon in the scientific journal Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the
two academics focus on recent US actions that have served to undermine
the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. In a move that stunned the international
community last July, the US blocked an attempt to give the convention
some teeth with inspections, so that member countries could check if
others were keeping the agreement. Mr Dando believes Washington's motive
for torpedoing the deal, which had the support of its allies, was to
maintain secrecy over US research work on biological weapons. He said
that work includes: · CIA efforts to copy a Soviet cluster bomb designed
to disperse biological weapons · A project by the Pentagon to build
a bio-weapon plant from commercially available materials to prove that
terrorists could do the same thing · Research by the Defence Intelligence
Agency into the possibility of genetically engineering a new strain
of antibiotic-resistant anthrax · A programme to produce dried and weaponised
anthrax spores, officially for testing US bio-defences, but far more
spores were allegedly produced than necessary for such purposes and
it is unclear whether they have been destroyed or simply stored. In
each case, the US argued the research work was being done for defensive
purposes, but their legality under the BWC is questionable, the scientists
argue. For example, a clause in the biological weapons treaty forbids
signatories from producing or developing "weapons, equipment or means
of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes
or in armed conflict". Furthermore, signatories agreed to make annual
declarations about their biodefence programmes, but the US never mentioned
any of those programmes in its reports. Instead, they emerged from leaks
and press reporting. The focus on Washington's biological and chemical
weapons programme comes at an awkward time for the Bush administration,
which is locked in negotiations at the UN for a tough resolution on
arms inspections of Iraq. According to Mr Dando, British and US research
into hallucinogenic weapons such as the gas BZ encouraged Iraq to look
into similar agents. "We showed them the way," he said. Mr Dando added
that the US was currently working on "non-lethal" weapons similar to
the gas Russian forces used to break the Moscow theatre siege. Those
include "calmative" agent which are designed to knock people out without
killing them. "What happened in Moscow is a harbinger of what is to
come," Mr Dando said. "There is a revolution in life sciences which
could be applied in a major way to warfare. It's an early example of
the mess we may be creating." He added that Britain "is implicated as
well", as the Pentagon's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate has worked
with British officers on its research. Jonathan Tucker, a chemical weapons
expert at the US Institute for Peace in Washington, said much of the
work on non-lethal weapons was being carried out by an institute under
the US justice department but was funded by the Pentagon. "They are
trying to keep it at arms length, but it is problematic especially for
military purposes. The chemical weapons convention makes a very clear
distinction between riot control and incapacitants," he said. While
Mr Tucker believes that such knock-out gases are explicitly banned under
the treaty, Mr Dando and Mr Wheelis believe the Pentagon has exploited
a loophole that allows for such weapons for "law enforcement purposes".
But by blurring the edges of the treaty, they argue the US is inviting
other countries to do the same. The US, Mr Dando said, "runs the very
real danger of leading the world down a pathway that will greatly reduce
the security of all."
ORIGINS OF BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S IMPERIAL POLICIES
(see: Militarism, Bush,
The Right Wing)
THE PRESENT DANGER | October 31, 2002 "Standing In Defense of International
Law, International Cooperation, and Multilateralism" http://www.presentdanger.org/
~~ Present Danger Editors: Tom Barry and John Gershman, Interhemispheric
Resource Center (IRC) **The Men Who Stole the Show By Tom Barry and
Jim Lobe
In engineering the radical break in U.S. foreign policy, Wolfowitz,
Rumsfeld, and Cheney relied on a handful of think tanks and front groups
that have closely interlocking directorates and shared origins in the
right-wing and neoconservative organizations of the 1970s. Organizations
such as the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), the Center for
Security Policy (CSP), and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) have
supplied the administration with a steady stream of policy advice and
also with the men-and they are virtually all men-to steer the ship of
state on its radical new course. These men are by no means new recruits
to the foreign policy elite. They cut their teeth on some of the most
fateful foreign policy debates of the last thirty years. Their motto
was "peace through strength," and they took great pride in their credentials
as militant anticommunists and champions of U.S. military power. Until
now, their greatest moments came during Reagan's first! term in which
most of them held high office. But now, in a world without the Soviet
Union, their ambitions are much greater. (Tom Barry
is a senior analyst with the Interhemispheric Resource Center (online
at http://www.irc-online.org/) and codirector of Foreign Policy In Focus.
Jim Lobe is a frequent contributor to FPIF and
to Inter Press Service. A version of this report will appear as a chapter
in Power Trip, a new FPIF book edited by John Feffer, forthcoming
from Seven Stories Press. ) See this new Special Report online at http://www.fpif.org/papers/02men/index.html
With a printer-friendly version at http://www.fpif.org/pdf/papers/SRmen.pdf
IRC Projects ONLINE Foreign Policy In Focus http://www.fpif.org/papers/02men/index.html
Project Against the Present Danger http://www.presentdanger.org/ Americas
Program of the IRC http://www.americaspolicy.org Interhemispheric Resource
Center http://www.irc-online.org/ Self-Determination In Focus, a project
of Foreign Policy In Focus http://www.selfdetermine.org/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Distributed by the Project for the Present Danger ~ "Standing in Defense
of International Law, International Cooperation, and Multilateralism"
An initiative of Foreign Policy In Focus. FPIF is a joint project of
the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) and the Institute for Policy
Studies (IPS). For more information, visit http://www.presentdanger.org/
ANALYSIS OF US VALUES AND PRACTICE ABROAD (11-6-02)
(A response to the statement that follows--D)I agree that most Americans
have almost no knowledge or only a vague sense of how immorally we operate
abroad--as compared to the values and ideals of freedom and law abidingness
that we claim (and do, comparatively) live by domestically. This ignorance
has two effects. First, there is no call to accountability for illegal
and immoral government or business behavior abroad because no one knows
it's happening. Second, if we do hear about bribes or assassinations
or coups or invasions or military support of cruel dictators, we accept
that this is just how things must work in the "real world." As Americans,
we seem to accept that we are blessed with more courage and perspective
than the rest of the world, and perhaps even a manifest destiny, and
that it probably is unreasonable to expect our own high values to work
"out there" or "over there." &nbs! p;I think this smug ignorance is
our country's single greatest security weakness and must be overcome
quickly or we will soon find ourselves in an untenably isolated and
opposed position in the world. That U.S. foreign policy now is being
driven almost totally by big and international business interests I
trust is beyond debate. Those interests notoriously are amoral and defined
by profits--usually short term profits, at that. I assume that competition
for supremacy in world markets has driven most corporate considerations
of morality, ethics, or principles--as they might concern themselves
with the environment or with underclasses, small economies, small businesses,
or even small countries--right off the table. Where will pressure to
force these considerations into foreign policy come from? I think Americans
will demand to know more and insist on change only when they appreciate
the risks of the track we are on. People need to understand that our
policies of exporting and encouraging our western ideals of democracy
and freedom have thinned to the merest of pretenses for expanding markets
for our capitalism. I think there are indeed political values that have
made us strong, values Americans hold dear and assume we are working
like missionaries to bring to an ignorant and needy world. These do
include freedom, but under a rule of law that applies to all, and democracy,
but with a Bill of Rights that protects minorities from tyranny by the
majority. Those values have distinguished the U.S. and its constitution
as a great experiment in world history and made us the object of world
wide admiration for a long time. But I don't believe we stand for those
value! s in the world any longer, and most of the world, except our
own citizens, knows that. Americans need to know that our smugness about
our perspective is misplaced, and so might be our sense of manifest
destiny. Many average citizens and societies around the world are far
more knowledgeable about how the "real world" operates than we are,
and they are highly critical of us. As we have abandoned consideration
of our constitutional values in our international actions, and rely
increasingly on military and economic force in the blatant pursuit of
more military and economic dominance, world admiration inevitably is
turning to resistance. How could it be otherwise? Unless we see a long
term, realistic potential for militarily overcoming or suppressing all
world resistance, the course we are on seems headed for disaster. And
even if we do, is that the kind of world we want to be co-creating?
So, I'd say the need for public education is urgent and critical. We
the People should not expect the business interests directing foreign
policy now to concern themselves with the values Americans have cherished
and believe have enabled our great strength. That is not business's
primary concern, and arguably not even its responsibility. Our brilliant
constitutional system is stabilized by many checks and balances. Corporate
America is not the ultimate arbiter or protector of freedom and democracy.
The People are...and we'd better start looking after things soon. Christine
Rack 11/06/2002 12:28 PM To: Chris Hanlin
, Robert Rack , Chris Lottman ,
rina , Marja Scheeres , stiano@unm.edu,
Gail , Elizabeth Doak , Larry Pesavento
, tsierra@unm.edu, Gwen Hardiman , roseh@unm.edu,
Deborah Tang , Deborah Bernard ,
Jo Rack , Anil Menon , iistra@hotmail.com
cc: Subject: [pjsadiscussion] Thesis for Discussion --Three (fwd) Thesis
for Discussion (third of six): The USA has supported oppressive regimes
in the Middle East only because of short-sighted and often covert policies
favoring special interests which the American people as a whole do not
know about and would not approve of. Peace activists should do educational
work to make the American people better informed about the Middle East,
with the goal of persuading them to rise up and protest massively against
what has been done in their name behind their backs. My opinion: American
representatives abroad (business, government, military) often back authoritarian,
cruel, and anti-popular regimes. The American people know this already
in a general way. I doubt that greater awareness of the details of illicit
American activity abroad would in itself lead the majority to demand
major policy changes. Policy is driven by business interests, although
they are sometimes called "security interests." Betraying democratic
ideals for business reasons is seen by most Americans (it seems to me)
as a price the conscience must pay to support the standard of living.
Most Americans see themselves as beneficiaries of America's control
of oil and as beneficiaries of the success of American business generally.
They see people who try to persuade them otherwise as unpatriotic. Therefore,
my opinion is that widespread changes in values and worldviews would
be needed before better information about the Middle East would move
public opinion to demand major policy changes. What is your opinion
? ---------
Mideast Crisis Links
Breaking
News: Jerusalem
Indy Media | Israel
Indy Media | Ha`aretz
| Jerusalem Post |
Middle
East News Online | Al-Ahram
| Palestine
Chronicle | Palestine
News Agency | Electronic
Intifada | Guardian
of London | Independent/UK
| BBC
| CNN | AP
| Reuters
| Wire
Photos
Working
for Peace: American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee | B'Tselem
| Colorado
Campaign for Middle East | Courage
to Refuse | Grassroots
International | Gush
Shalom | International Solidarity
Movement | Jewish
Voice for Peace | Jews
for Justice in the Middle East | MADRE
| Middle East Children's
Alliance | Middle
East Research and Information Project
| Not in My Name
| Palestinian Society for the Protection
of Human Rights and the Environment | Peace
Now Israel | Peace
Now USA | Tikkun | Voices
in the Wilderness | Washington
Report on Middle East Affairs
Other: Israeli
Govt | Israel
Ministry of Foreign Affairs | Office
of Yasser Arafat | Palestine
National Authority | PLO
Negotiation Affairs Dept | Maps
of Israel
A nation lost
By James Carroll, 4/22/2003
EVEN BEFORE conclusions can be drawn about the war in
Iraq (Saddam? Weapons of mass destruction? Iraqi stability? Cost to
civilians? Syria?) a home front consensus is jelling around a radical
revision of America's meaning in the world.
Centered on coercive unilateralism, the new doctrine assumes that
the United States not only stands apart from other countries but above
them. The primitive tribalism of boys at football games -- ''We're number
one!'' -- has been transformed into an axiom of strategy. Military force
has replaced democratic idealism as the main source of US influence.
Formerly conceived of as essentially defensive, US armed services
are now unapologetically on the offense. Aggression is prevention. Diplomacy
is reduced to making the case for impending war and then putting the
best face on war's denouement. The aim of all this is not world dominance
but world order. That world order in the new age requires American dominance
is an unintended consequence of America's power-altruism. That ''We're
number one'' makes the world safe for everybody -- if only they accept
it.
This new vision is clear, its advocates are powerful, and with Iraq
its main blocks are in place, with obvious implications for countries
as geographically dispersed as Iran and North Korea. What are the elements
of an alternative vision? In a world traumatized by terrorist threat,
weapons proliferation, and the sensationalism of Fox and CNN, disruption
is infinitely magnified.
When such horror strikes, whether from twin towers collapsing or twin
snipers shooting strangers, can human beings put faith in something
other than overwhelming force? What strategies should critics of the
new US doctrine of coercive unilateralism employ in opposing it? Learning
from the past, I think of several:
Don't cede the language of morality to the right wing. Manichaean
bipolarity oversimplifies good and evil, banalizing both. Still, some
things should be done because they are right or opposed because they
are wrong.
Critics of the intended new Pax Americana should not hesitate to say
that long-agreed ethical principles are being violated. It is wrong
to break treaties, as the United States is doing in its treatment of
POWs in Cuba. It is wrong to wage aggressive war, as the United States
now openly does. To make decisions for or against such policies on supposedly
pragmatic grounds is to break the crucial link between means and ends,
as if an outcome (''regime change'') can justify whatever was done to
accomplish it. In the long run, the only truly pragmatic act is the
moral act.
Be skeptical of ''homeland security.'' The American tradition prefers
the risks associated with liberty to the risks associated with bureaucratic
control. The new homeland security state threatens the kind of excess
that came with the national security state after World War II. It was
the National Security Act of 1947, after all, that laid the groundwork
for the univocal bureaucratizing of government based in the Pentagon
that marginalized debate and eliminated the natural checks of multiple
power centers.
''National security,'' defined by anti-Communist paranoia at home
and abroad, was false security. ''Homeland security'' promises to be
a paranoid reprise.
Be suspicious of foreign policy based on ''worst case'' thinking. During
the Cold War, the United States made fearful assessments of Soviet capabilities
and intentions that turned out to be entirely false -- assessments that
shaped policy. Low-level intelligence estimates regularly reported mere
possibilities of hostile threat, which, reported up the chain of command,
were transformed into certain facts. Thus, Soviet troop strength was
wildly overestimated in the beginning of the era; Soviet missile strength
was overestimated in the middle; Soviet political strength was overestimated
at the end. The result was a US-driven nuclear arms race, the effects
of which still threaten the world.
The worst case for the Soviet Union existed only in Washington's fantasy.
And now it seems that the Saddam worst case resides in the same place.
A nation that is so driven by fear will always find things to be afraid
of. That nation's gravest threat arises, of course, from what it then
does to defend itself.
Beware of war as an organizing principle of society. It should be a
source of alarm, not pride, that the United States is drawing such cohesive
sustenance from the war in Iraq.
Photographic celebrations of our young warriors, glorifications of
released American prisoners, heroic rituals of the war dead all take
on the character of crass exploitation of the men and women in uniform.
First they were forced into a dubious circumstance, and now they are
themselves being mythologized as its main post-facto justification --
as if the United States went to Iraq not to seize Saddam (disappeared),
or to dispose of weapons of mass destruction (missing), or to save the
Iraqi people (chaos), but ''to support the troops.'' War thus becomes
its own justification. Such confusion on this grave point, as on the
others, signifies a nation lost.
James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.
Before it
moves, nuke it
It’s time that the mass media informs the public as to the truth
about US first use nuclear strategy and the threat it poses to the
future of the planet and the central role nuclear weapons play in
US plans for achieving global dominance
Holding the world to ransom
By William
Bowles
06/08/03: (Information
Clearing House) If anything should make people wake up and
smell the coffee, it’s the US ‘posture’ on nuclear weapons. In a new
round of accelerated development of so-called battlefield nuclear weapons,
the US have signaled to the world that the use of nuclear weapons is
a prerogative that they reserve entirely for themselves and that their
use will now be part of a ‘conventional’ warfare scenario. Moreover,
they project their development and use for the next 50 years including
space-based weapons systems designed to ‘take out enemies’ from the
safety of orbit.
Doing the unthinkable
In a classified document entitled "The Nuclear Posture Review",
portions of which have been leaked to the press, the US lays out exactly
what it thinks about nuclear disarmament in the post-Soviet period –
no can do. This in spite of its signing legally binding international
agreements to ban the acquisition of a new generation of nuclear weapons,
testing and the eventual elimination of its existing stockpile.
Using the ‘war on terror’ as a pretext, thinking the unthinkable has
become doing the undoable, for once the idea that the use of ‘mini-nukes’
is transformed into policy, the door is opened and a new propaganda
offensive will be unleashed on the US public, to get them to accept
the idea that in order to ‘survive’, deaths in the order of 20 million
of its own citizens is acceptable. In a paper written by Keith Payne
and Colin Grey, George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld’s very own Dr. Strangelove
(twins), bizarrely entitled ‘Victory is possible’, they write.
"[A]n intelligent United States offensive [nuclear] strategy,
wedded to homeland defenses, should reduce U.S. casualties to approximately
20 million … a level compatible with national survival and recovery."
http://foreignpolicy.com/pdf/victory_is_possible.pdf
Nukes are "the only game in town"
The mind boggles, yet these crazy bastards are serious. Dr. Keith Payne
has been pushing the idea for over 20 years and he’s finally got a president
and a policy ready to take him seriously. Note that they use word "offensive"
not defensive. Payne who was an acolyte of Herman Kahn at the Hudson
Institute (the original Dr. Strangelove who first proposed the idea
of ‘winning’ a nuclear war back in the 1960s) wrote in 1999 that,
"[T]he future of United States nuclear forces faces a very serious
challenge" from "anti-nuclear activists" and that "unless
a coolly reasoned response is presented, their agenda will appear to
be the only game in town."
http://www.nipp.org/Adobe/ours%20and%20theirs.pdf
The "coolly reasoned response" is the above-mentioned Nuclear
Posture Review, released by Donald Rumsfeld (and who brought Payne into
the Bush administration) in January 2002, which is now official US policy,
no longer the fantasy of some psychopathic nerd ensconced in a right-wing
Washington think-tank (Payne was president of the National Institute
for Public Policy, yet another right-wing think-tank before being brought
into the White House). In it, the spectre of thousands of additional
nuclear weapons is not only contemplated, but planned and at a cost
of over $100 billion dollars. Moreover, their use is envisioned under
a wide range of situations, including blanket bombing of entire "areas"
where even non-nuclear missiles are "suspected" of being located.
Once more, we see that the policy of pre-emption is embedded in US strategy.
Nuclear weapons are now seen as "complementing" conventional
weapons, not of deterring a potential aggressor from using nuclear weapons
against the US, a policy which has (in theory anyway) been central to
US strategic planning since the 1960s (the policy of Mutually Assured
Destruction or MAD as its acronym informs us).
And the usual suspects are promoting the idea:
""[Charles] Krauthammer trumpeted a new "Bush Doctrine,"
which "holds that, when it comes to designing our nuclear forces,
we build to suit. We will build offensive missiles to suit our needs....
For reasons of delicacy, Bush spoke of the need to ‘replace’ rather
than abrogate the treaty, which remains the Linus blanket of an
entire generation of arms controllers. No matter. He made it clear
that we will blithely ignore it.... Sure, to placate the critics
we will be consulting and assuaging and schmoozing everyone from
Tokyo to Moscow. But in the end, we will build a defense to meet
the challenge of the missile era. If others don’t like it, too bad.""
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2003/jf03/jf03krepon.html
Too bad eh? For who though? Not only do the warmongers of the White
House regard 20 million or so of their own citizens as a ‘reasonable’
price to pay for waging war on the planet, it reveals the underlying
strategy of the Bush administration is to hold the world to nuclear
ransom as intrinsic to its goal of achieving total, global hegemony.
How soon before threats of using nuclear weapons becomes reality?
"[A] [nuclear] accounting system worthy of Enron"
Perhaps the most chilling reading of all can be found on the National
Resources Defense Council’s overview of the NPR. The language employed
by the Department of Defense and in the NPR document makes your blood
run cold as it discusses the ‘options’ available to it in this post-Cold
War period:
""Nuclear weapons will continue to play a "critical
role" because they possess "unique properties" that
provide "credible military options" for holding at risk
"a wide range of target types" important to a potential
adversary's threatened use of "weapons of mass destruction"
or "large-scale conventional military force.""
""[T]he purpose of possessing nuclear weapons is fourfold:
to "assure allies and friends," "dissuade competitors,"
"deter aggressors" and "defeat enemies.""
""Over the next 10 years, the Bush administration's plans
call for the United States to retain a total stockpile of intact
nuclear weapons and weapon components that is roughly seven to nine
times larger than the publicly stated goal of 1,700 to 2,200 "operationally
deployed weapons." This is an accounting system worthy of Enron.""
Contrary to its publicly stated policy of reducing the total number
of nuclear weapons, the reality is in fact the complete opposite:
"[The] Bush administration is actually planning to retain
the potential to deploy not 1,700 to 2,200 nuclear weapons, but
as many as 15,000."
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/restraint.asp
So much for the champions of peace and freedom. But what will it take
for people to wake up to the realities of this ‘New World order’? How
much longer will the media continue to push the fiction of a peace-loving
US, intent on ridding the world of ‘terrorists’ when the reality is
that the real terrorist is the US government and its junior accomplice,
the UK?
But just in case you think that current US thinking is somehow a departure
from its past policies as a response to the ‘terrorist threat’, it’s
worth remembering that aside from its first use of WMDs in 1945 against
the Japanese, there have been a number of other occasions when their
‘pre-emptive’ use has been seriously considered including during the
Korean war against China, the Six-day Israeli-Arab war in 1967 when
nuclear-armed warplanes were actually launched against Egypt and only
recalled at the last minute, and during the Vietnam war. It was only
the existence of the Soviet nuclear arsenal that deterred their actual
use. And how many other times has the world come close to nuclear annihilation
that we have no knowledge of? That the US now considers their inclusion
as part of their ‘normal’ military strategy surely now has to get you
questioning the motives of a government that professes to want a ‘secure’
and ‘peaceful’ world.
Some further reading
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm
http://www.nipp.org/Adobe/volume%201%20complete.pdf
http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-arms.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/21/MN179269.DTL
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/page.cfm?pageID=1106
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/02.01/020114kriegernucpolicy.htm
Copyright © 2003 William
Bowles. All rights reserved. You have the
right to republish under the following conditions: Please request permission
from the copyright owner first; please supply the copyright owner with
the URL or publication of the reposting site; do not alter or remove
the contents, including this copyright notice.
How the Empire Works: The Second Track
by James Petras
Introduction
In the past year U.S. empire building has largely focused on military
conquest, threats of regional wars and a massive enlargement of clandestine
military and intelligence operations. Particularly since the war and
occupation of Afghanistan, the imminent attack on Iraq and the failed
military coup in Venezuela, the military track in U.S. policy has
been foremost in public debate. However, U.S. policy operates on two
tracks, the military and the political-diplomatic to expand and consolidate
imperial power. Even today while the media and pundits focus on U.S.
war preparations, on an everyday basis on many of the crucial issues
of the day, U.S. diplomats, intelligence operatives and agency heads
are active in intimidating, bribing, and pressuring would-be adversaries
into accepting and collaborating with U.S. imperialism or at the least
refraining from criticizing it. Numerous cases come to mind in recent
days. To sabotage the operation of the International Court of Justice,
which the U.S. opposed, Washington diplomats have successfully pressured
a number of countries into signing bilateral agreements providing
immunity to U.S. soldiers in their country. The list includes Rumania,
Argentina, Colombia, England (and of course Israel, which jumped at
the chance to gain immunity for its war criminals) and the list is
lengthening.
U.S. diplomats were able to prevent the EU and other member states
from passing any significant resolutions on any major problems including
fossil fuel targets, global warming, and poverty reduction at the
Johannesburg global meeting. In relation to recent adverse decisions
by the World Trade Organization concerning U.S. trade practices, trade
officials and diplomats have threatened European and other diplomats
with dire consequences if they actually implement WTO approved sanctions.
The Europeans have refrained from implementing the ruling. It is clear
that empire building operates on two inter-related tracks in which
political and economic threats are used to subordinate allied competitors
as well as clients always backed by military power and military force
or threats against perceived adversaries.
The political-diplomatic track is also used to co-opt and/or constrain
opposition within client countries, particularly an opposition which
has converted from a popular insurgency to legal electoralist politics.
The process by which the diplomatic channel operates to silence or
limit legal opposition is evident in a recent international conference
organized to discuss and debate Plan Colombia and U.S. Policy and
its implications for Latin America. The conference took place in El
Salvador, July 20-22, 2001 and was sponsored by the Philosophy Department
of the University of El Salvador and was scheduled to occur at a conference
hall at the University.
The Operation of the Diplomatic Channel
One of the principle aims of overseas U.S. political offices at the
Embassy is to convert opposition political leaders into allies of
Washington. The techniques include convincing them to turn from mass-based
direct action (whether armed or civil) to electoral politics. The
embassy offers these leaders legality for separation from the mass
struggles for basic socio-economic changes. With legality and institutional
commitments, the opposition politicians are vulnerable to further
Embassy pressures to avoid direct attacks on U.S. policy.
In countering opposition, the Embassy utilizes its local and overseas
political assets to bolster the political position of Washington –
thus avoiding direct confrontation and making it appear that the debate
is between national or regional adversaries.
In our case study of U.S. diplomatic intervention to undermine the
conference in El Salvador, Embassy officials combined several of the
above-mentioned techniques to undermine the effectiveness of the conference.
Contrary to Washington propaganda it is more concerned with political
manipulation to impose uniformity in support of Washington’s political
line then in the free and open debate of ideas.
This essay draws on an extended memorandum (to be referred to as
the MEMO in the text) issued form the U.S. embassy in El Salvador
in July 2001 secured via the Freedom of Information Act.
The first point to make is that the Embassy characterized the event
as an organized propaganda exercise despite the academic setting and
the presence of several prominent Nobel Prize recipients (Jose Saromago
and Adolfo Perez Esquivel), the President of the World Council of
Churches (Bishop Pagura from Argentina), the then President of the
Algerian Parliament (Ahmed Ben Bella) and two well-known professors
from Mexico and the U.S. – Heinz Dieterich and James Petras. The sponsors
included the Forabundo Marti National Liberation (FMLN) party, the
main opposition party and a host of local foundations and U.S. NGOs.
According to the memo, an Embassy political offices (Poloff) "spoke
frankly and forcefully… to FMLN members that the press release (critical
of the U.S.) was inflammatory rhetoric and there would be two serious
costs if the conference proceeded in this fashion". Among the
serious costs to the FMLN, Poloff mentioned that the "FMLN would
damage its own image, showing that it preferred outdated U.S.-basking
to responsible discussion of serious issues". Putting the FMLN
official (Eugenio Chicus, the FMLN advisor for foreign affairs committee
in the legislature on the defensive, the latter noted that the FMLN
could not control what other participants said. Poloff insisted that
"as an organizer the FMLN showed responsibility expressed"
and he went o to warn "if it did not distance itself from inflammatory
rhetoric, it tacitly associated itself with those comments".
Several important issues are raised by this memo. First that the
Embassy clearly threatens a political party with reprisals – serious
costs – which implies a reversion to illegality since the embassy
official claims that its image (as a legal electoral party) was damaged
by reverting to outdated U.S.-bashing (a reference to the anti-imperialist
politics of the FMLN when it represented the popular insurgency.
The Embassy’s use of violent, hyperbolic rhetoric to refer to the
dissenting views of the Nobel Prize winners, bishop and academics
as a means of discrediting the conference is a technique designed
to remind the FMLN that a condition for U.S. tolerance is that it
desist from systematic criticism of U.S. empire building.
U.S. strategy was based on pressuring the FMLN to drop the critical
orientation of the conference and to operate with the parameters dictated
by the embassy.
Washington’s claim to favor a responsible discussion of serious issues
is a simple propaganda ploy, appealing to the FMLN legislative advisers
non-confrontational style as a minority in the Salvadorian congress.
In reality the Embassy he designed its own strategy to counter the
conference and its coverage by the major news network. The embassy
went to work to recruit "friendly" Colombian journalists
and politicians to "ensure that the U.S. point of view is articulated"
(memo). The strategy was to find respectable Colombian journalists
and a "reasonable voice from the left" in El Salvador to
the U.S. to meet with officials form the government and writers from
right-wing think tanks, to provide them with the arguments then presumably
bring them back to El Salvador to counter the conference. Among the
persons who would influence the respectable Colombian journalist listed
as Eduardo Torres anchor on three television channels and columnist
for the conservative Colombian daily El Diario de Hoy – was
one Francisco Santos, one of the owners of Bogota’s largest daily
newspaper El Tiempo, who the U.S. Embassy assumed would
present the U.S. point of view. Whether Santos was an asset of U.S.
intelligence is not clear, but today he is the Vice President of Colombia
under President Uribe – past and present organizer of paramilitary
death squads.
The Embassy’s search for a "reasonable voice from the Left"
is a common ploy, in which individuals with some background on the
Left and some mild criticisms of the existing order are co-opted to
do the dirty work of discrediting prestigious critics as those invited
to the conference. Using their self-proclaimed credentials as "human
rights" activists they spend most of their time attacking the
Left and praising the rhetorical concerns of Washington. Their views
are amplified: as the memo states "we could follow up with telepress
conferences between journalists and public and private sector Colombian
specialists. In addition Post (an embassy operative) will make sure
that media and interested contacts" are informed.
Conclusion
The Embassy was not successful in preventing the meeting, but it
did pressure the University to cancel the use of the University meeting
hall at the last minute and limiting media coverage beyond the several
hundred that attended the meeting.
The two-track strategy is evidently an important component of empire
building. In the El Salvadorian context, it included Track 1, the
military intervention of the 1980s and the killing of over 75,000
Salvadorians, followed by Track 2, the so-called peace accords, the
legalization of the FMLN and the pressure and co-optation tactics.
The two-track strategy relies heavily on "personal contacts",
threats to rescind legal status and ambassadorial "goodwill",
and in some cases the co-optation of reasonable Leftists, who have
access to the media and who can be used to discredit the Left.
The challenge for the Left is to focus their opposition on both tracks:
to oppose militarization as well as the diplomatic-political intimidation
and co-optation. The Left must reject the imperial rhetoric that labels
"anti-imperialism" as "out-moded", that speaks
of reasonable concerns for human rights while engaging in a worldwide
campaign to violate them. Empire-building is an integral process which
combines violence and diplomacy, repression and co-optation – there
are not "good diplomats" and "bad militarist"
they work in tandem, as a term promoting the same imperial goals:
they are not on parallel tracks – the two tracks converge in a world
where the voices of resistance are silenced by violence and "reasonable
voices from the Left.
Copyright
James Petras 2002. For fair use only/ pour usage équitable
seulement .
THE PERFECT ENEMY
Terrorists who can't be caught because they don't really exist or because
they're CIA assets
by John Kaminski
skylax@comcast.net
Nigerian Proverb by Kathy Davis
War is a sociological safety valve that cleverly
diverts popular hatred for the ruling classes into a happy occasion
to mutilate or kill foreign enemies.
— Ernest Becker
War provides the perfect cover for those waging
it to commit crimes against not only enemies but also friends. Amid
the patriotic flag waving and somber ceremony, the populace is cowed
into distraction and for the most part will not see the chicanery
and manipulation that not only created the conditions FOR the war,
but also will not perceive that the purpose OF it is not to defeat
the enemy, but to financially castrate and sociologically neutralize
those who are actually helping to wage the war.
Such is the process by which those in power
consolidate their advantage among their so-called friends.
The Christian Crusades of millenia past provide
an apt example of this deceptive process. With no enemies nearby and
a surfeit of armed and affluent noblemen itching for aggressive acts,
kings and ministers of past empires dreamed up external threats by
which to distract their powerful friends from contemplating revolution.
Jerusalem and the dark-skinned Muslim realms have always been a popular
target. The subsequent conflicts not only reaped new riches for the
warmaking kingdoms, but also depleted the ranks and resources of those
sent to fight, thereby lessening the potential political threat to
the very people who dreamed up the wars in the first place. Two birds
with one stone.
Those innocents killed in such cynical gambits
now bear the unfortunate title of collateral damage, regrettable but
necessary sacrifices to the selfishness of those in positions of power
who seek to maintain it. So this world full of greedy humans continues
to turn.
During war, citizens of the warmaking state
may not question the motives of their leaders, lest they be accused
of treason and summarily executed. Therefore, any state seeking permanent
obeisance and minimal criticism from its citizenry will logically
aspire toward a regimen of permanent war. It is supremely ironic that
a majority of these citizens will wholeheartedly support such efforts,
without realizing that it is the destruction of their own freedom
that they are cheering.
However, real enemies are usually not so accommodating
as to wish to engage in battle indefinitely. They are either are defeated
and disappear as a viable social force, or, they kick butt and thereby
ruin the plans of the manipulative attacker forever.
A shrewd superpower kingdom will cleverly
avoid picking a fair fight, thereby eliminating, as nearly as possible,
the undesirable surprise of an unexpected defeat. It will also defer
toward states of relatively equal strength, establish diplomatic relations,
and wait for an opportunity to screw them surreptitiously and without
penalty.
Since the situation we face now is that one
superpower outstrips in military might the next ten strongest nations,
the need for it to be diplomatic is at an all-time low. It simply
can do what it wants when it wants.
And yet, humans being what they are — wanting
to be free, happy, honest and well-fed — even a superpower in this
unchallenged position must construct fantasy scenarios to convince
its people — no matter how amateurishly — that they are doing the
right thing by supporting endless wars.
Today we hear all sorts of childish whimpering
about the terrorist threat, even though a cursory examination of recent
history would reveal that most of these threats have been deliberately
created by the nation doing most of the complaining about these very
threats.
And this epiphany can lead you to a very startling
observation about the nature of the world as human civilization enters
the 21st century following the appearance of the Divine Messiah most
of this civilization pretends to worship.
It seemed for a time — two centuries, actually
— that the United States of America was a good country, champion of
justice, advocate of freedom, that sort of stuff. What was lost in
the education of its own citizens, however, was the frequency with
which it went to war, against interlopers who were invariably depicted
as evil people on the wrong side of democratic progress.
A cursory perusal of this murderous American
resumé will reveal that it has always been the aggressor in all these
big fights, even though the official histories bend the facts to show
the U.S. was fighting for freedom against one tyrant or another.
But as time passed and the world got smaller,
it became obvious that the U.S. was running out of countries that
it could call evil, declare war against, and then pulverize.
Besides, once a country had been seriously
obliterated, it simply took too long to rebuild it into a serious
enemy again.
Clearly, if the same cartel that has essentially
been running this country for all of its 227 years was to stay in
power, it had to devise a new formula for finding constant enemies
to fight, thereby enriching its own coffers and keeping its own citizenry
from noticing too much about the way it actually conducts its business.
So it devised a new system of actually creating
its own enemies. It sponsored young malcontents to fight battles the
served the purposes of the masters, provided them with weapons and
support techniques, used them for awhile, and then seemingly cut them
loose to develop on their own. Of course, all the while the progress
of these young rebels was monitored by American intelligence agencies,
for the purpose of determining exactly when they could be considered
mature enough to reclassify them from a nominal ally fighting for
U.S. interests into a nightmare threat fighting against U.S. interests.
The key element in making this process work
was fabricating staged terror events that were actually perpetrated
against our own citizens but then cleverly blamed on these various
foreign provocateurs whom the U.S. had carefully nurtured and brought
to maturity.
The U.S. learned this trick from Israel, which
had successfully used the technique throughout Europe (principally
in Germany) and specifically in Iraq in the 1940s, to convince its
own people of the dangers posed by "enemies" it had previously supported,
for the purpose of creating a hysteria to compel more Jews to move
to Israel.
Of course, now we see how Israel has used
this staged terror formula to elicit world support for its illegal
occupation of Palestine. And more vividly, we see how the staged terror
events in New York City have driven a large part of Western Civilization
into a new, crusade-like rage against the peoples of Islamic countries.
Serious historians will note this has all been done before, but the
general population contains few serious historians, so most people
don't notice that the current War on Terror is simply a replay of
the European royals' propaganda used to attack Middle Eastern peoples
some eight hundred years ago, and ever since.
And lest you think all this is merely a flight
of literary fancy, I bid you consider the careers of Osama bin Laden
and Saddam Hussein, both of whom were catapulted into the public eye
as fledgling CIA operatives, bin Laden as an Arab counterculture hero
(and cheered on by his family) who rode to the rescue (with large
amounts of cash) of the Afghani mujahadeen, accompanied by plenty
of assistance from Ronald Reagan's CIA wheelerdealers; and Saddam
as one of the triggermen in a 1968 coup in Iraq that was of course
fueled by support from the, you-guessed-it, CIA. I probably need not
mention that either one of these strategic CIA assets has ever been
apprehended.
So for these folks to develop into threats
against the world (and this is not to mention Panama's Manuel Noriega,
who also followed the same progressive curriculum as a pawn in the
South American drug game and good friend of the Bush family, only
to later become the target of a massive American invasion), you begin
to see the pattern.
The U.S. has really replaced client state
enemies it first builds up with cash bribes and then converts into
enemies with client personality enemies, whom it nurtures with military
support, provokes with a no-win decision (whatever did happen to April
Glaspie?), and then invades in a profitable fit of righteous retribution.
Are you getting the picture?
It's interesting reading some of the older
stories about al-Qaeda, the so-called terror group founded by bin
Laden in Afghanistan (and nurtured by Pakistani intelligence, which
was covertly funded by the American CIA), and seeing how al-Qaeda
fought side by side with American mercenaries in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia
and even Chechnya, but when they were conveniently needed as an excuse
for going to war somewhere else (Afghanistan and Iraq), they were
quickly converted into an enemy.
Clearly, al-Qaeda is connected to the CIA,
but for purposes of stealing Iraq's oil reserves, the U.S. connected
them to Iraq, and got a major assist from what used to be called the
American free press, but now is called something else, something far
worse.
I guess you could call al-Qaeda a multi-purpose
CIA asset, good for either good or bad activities.
Al-Qaeda are claimed to the boogeymen who
perpetrated 9/11 and were supposedly connected to Saddam.
And yet when you go to find out about them,
they disappear in a cloud of undercover spy dust, with no leads suddenly
unavailable as to where they might have disappeared. How utterly convenient.
The real reason is because their controllers live at the Pentagon
and other prestigious Washington addresses, not to mention a few palaces
in Saudi Arabia that have ties to many American corporations.
Occasionally, the powers that be throw us
a bone, like Moussaoui, or Richard Reid, just to try to prove there
are actual terrorists out there. But how many more so-called terrorists
have been allowed to slip away, under cover of CIA assistance? And,
as in Yemen, how many more are prevented from being sought, lest they
reveal their ties to the government in Washington?
Instead of having countries to blame for our
ills, we now have mystical individuals — terrorists — who absolutely
can't be found, except for those like Atta and the supposed hijackers
who actually received training at U.S. military installations. Sound
like a familiar technique?
For endless war, you must have an enemy who
cannot be caught, who is completely vaporous, therefore necessitating
nonstop aggressive emergency measures, variously colored alerts and
tough talk for those who are unable to understand words.
The perfect enemy for a state that seeks endless
war and seeks forever to pull the wool over the eyes of its own citizens
for purposes of endless robbery and implementing slavery where freedom
previously existed would be an enemy who cannot, under any circumstances,
ever be caught. Osama and Saddam doubtless know this.
In the literal sense, this perfect enemy does
not exist, which makes him perfect for a society determined to make
war, because he will never be caught, and the war can continue forever.
The harder an enemy is to find and defeat,
the better it is for those who seek to destroy that enemy. The CIA's
creation of al-Qaeda is the perfect recipe for those billionaires
whose objective is endless conflict from which to make more money.
This is the new era in which we find ourselves.
It is the ultimate tilting at windmills, by
which the elite who have always run America can perpetrate their vicious
schemes of slavery, the gullible can continue to have their empty
causes to cheer, and legitimate, God-fearing citizens can cower in
fear while the very churches they support participate in the coverup
that supports the tyrants who oppress them.
This is the way the world is, and has always
been.
Only now it's worse, because the enemy is
now a fabricated fiction, available for convenient blame in any and
all disasters, no matter who actually perpetrated them.
And thanks to media shills who don't ask real
questions, well-bribed legislators devoid of conscience, law enforcers
who help their patrons cover up crimes, and judges who have no interest
in real justice, there is no end in sight for this war on freedom.
John Kaminski is a writer who still believes
in the real American dream, with liberty and justice for all, but
who has noticed that his country has been hijacked by terrorists in
expensive suits.
He has a book coming out soon titled "America's Autopsy
Report", published by Dandelion
Books.
|
