- The New York Council on Foreign Relations, the American
branch office of the British Royal Institute for International Affairs,
has issued a public call for a full-scale war on Iraq, as a stepping stone
to imperial world government. The declaration for war and empire appeared
in the form of two articles in the March/April 2002 Foreign Affairs, the
Council's bi-monthly journal.
-
- In addition to the publication of the articles--by
Kenneth
Pollack, deputy director of the CFR's national security studies program,
and Sebastian Mallaby, former Washington bureau chief of the London
{Economist},
now with the Washington Post--EIR has confirmed that CFR officials have
been travelling around the United States, soliciting support from leading
regional political and financial circles, for the Iraq war scheme. And
former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the self-professed British agent
and leading light of the CFR, has launched a personal diplomatic offensive,
in support of the H.G. Wells one-world scheme--including the need for a
"lovely little war" to replace Saddam Hussein.
-
- 'Suitcase Nuke' Scare Stories
-
- Because there is not a shred of evidence credibly linking
Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon, the rationale being put forward to justify an invasion of Iraq
is the threat that Saddam will soon possess "weapons of mass
destruction."
In furtherance of this scare story, Time magazine published a preposterous
black propaganda story in its March 4 edition, claiming that terrorists
are believed to have obtained a 10 kiloton portable nuclear bomb from
Russia,
and had been prepared to detonate it in New York City or Washington last
October. While the Time story acknowledged that the unnamed government
source for the loose nukes tale, code-named "Dragonfire," was
thoroughly discredited, and the portable nuke story was shown to be a
complete
hoax, the incident gave Time the pretext to flash scare-'em headlines,
"Can We Survive the Next 911?" The Time story was widely
circulated
by Rupert Murdoch's New York Post and Fox TV News, and the Washington Post
gave the hoax front-page treatment on March 3.
-
- Some cooler heads on Capitol Hill moved to counter the
propaganda barrage. On March 6, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman
Joe Biden (D-Del.) took testimony from three nuclear weapons experts, who
debunked the idea that terrorists could easily access and explode
"suitcase
nukes." They also gave solid scientific evidence that terrorists would
not be able to inflict mass casualties, even if they were able to detonate
a "dirty bomb," which would spread radiation poisoning.
-
- The Policy Decision Has Been Already Made
-
- While sources in and around the Bush Administration
continue
to insist, in private discussions with EIR, that there is no final decision
on a military operation to effect a "regime change" in Baghdad,
mounting evidence suggests that this is a lie, and that the primary purpose
of Vice President Dick Cheney's tour of 11 Middle Eastern countries,
beginning
on March 15, is to arm-twist the Arab world into accepting the
inevitability
of an American-run military campaign to oust Saddam from power sometime
this year.
-
- According to one Pentagon source, the accelerated
campaign
to crush the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces holed up in Afghanistan is, in
part, driven by the need to prepare the 101st Airborne Division and the
10th Mountain Division for redeployment to the Persian Gulf.
-
- Active duty U.S. military officers have told EIR that
there is a rush to cobble together an "Afghan Army," dominated
by regional warlords and opium lords, to create a "Potemkin
Village"
appearance of victory and stability in Afghanistan, and to justify the
redeployment of the American front-line combat-ready units to the Iraq
theater, perhaps as early as late Summer. There is also a growing concern
about "the fatigue factor" in Afghanistan, as more U.S. combat
aircraft crashes occur as the result of pilot and maintenance crew
exhaustion.
Much of this has been so far kept out of the media.
-
- U.S. 2004 Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche
warned, during a Presidents' Day weekend conference, that U.S. military
forces are about to be drawn into an Afghan quagmire--just as British and
Soviet forces were drawn in and beaten in the past. The idea of a quick
victory and easy exit from Afghanistan--without leaving all of Central
Asia in a state of greater instability than it was facing prior to the
October 2001 start of the war--was preposterous from the outset.
-
- A Utopian Scheme for 'Regime Change'
-
- Such reality factors appear to be of no consequence to
the mad utopians planning the war on Iraq. In this context, the Kenneth
Pollack Foreign Affairs article deserves special attention. Prior to taking
the post of CFR Deputy Director for National Security Studies, Pollack
had been the Director for Gulf Affairs at the National Security Council
(1999-2001).
-
- Just before joining the Clinton Administration, while
a Senior Research Professor at the National Defense University, Pollack
had co-authored another Foreign Affairs article, published in the
January/February
1999 issue, tearing apart idea of a "rollback" of Saddam's power.
Pollack and his two co-authors, Gideon Rose and Daniel Byman, had warned
that any effort at "regime change" in Iraq would produce a fiasco
equal to the 1961 Bay of Pigs attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro in
Cuba.
-
- After singling out then-Undersecretary of Defense (now
Deputy Secretary of Defense) Paul Wolfowitz as the leading proponent of
"rollback," Pollack et al. wrote, "Even if rollback were
desirable, any policy to achieve it would have to pass three tests to be
considered seriously. It would have to be militarily feasible, amenable
to American allies whose cooperation would be required for implementation,
and acceptable to the American public.... For the United States to try
moving from containment to rollback in Iraq would be a terrible mistake
that could easily lead to thousands of unnecessary deaths."
-
- How things changed in just three short years! In the
March/April 2002 Foreign Affairs article, "Next Stop Baghdad?,"
Pollack bluntly declared, "The United States should invade Iraq,
eliminate
the present regime, and pave the way for a successor prepared to abide
by its international commitments and live in peace with its
neighbors."
-
- Pollack explained his change of heart. The previous
containment
policy, he argued, has failed to prevent Saddam from rapidly gaining access
to weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and the majority of nations of the
world have lost the will to maintain the sanctions. With Saddam in
possession
of WMDs, the idea of deterring Iraq from waging war against Israel, or
even its Persian Gulf neighbors, is tenuous, at best, he argued. "With
containment eroding and deterrence too risky, some form of regime change
is steadily becoming the only answer to the Iraqi conundrum."
-
- Pollack argued that a war on the model of the recent
American "success" in Afghanistan would run too high a risk of
failure, given the size and capabilities of the Iraqi military forces.
Any idea of an internal coup d'etat against Saddam by top military or the
ruling Ba'ath Party circles is preposterous. And the array of exile
opposition
groups, typified by the London-based Iraqi National Congress, would have
zero chance of overthrowing Saddam.
-
- His solution: A full-scale U.S. military invasion.
-
- "All told, the force should total roughly
200,000-300,000
people: for the invasion, between four and six divisions plus supporting
units, and for the air campaign, 700-1,000 aircraft and anywhere from one
to five carrier battle groups (depending on what sort of access to bases
turned out to be possible). Building up such a force in the Persian Gulf
would take three to five months, but the campaign itself would probably
take about a month, including the opening air operations."
-
- Pollack admitted that the diplomatic fallout would be
far more devastating than the military losses. However, here again, he
blustered, "Although both the Saudis and the Kuwaitis have said they
do not want the United States to attack Iraq, the consensus among those
who know those countries' leaders well is that they would grudgingly
consent
if the United States could convince them it was willing to use the full
range of its military capabilities to ensure a swift, successful
campaign."
-
- Giving the tip-off to the whole imperial game, Pollack
admitted, "Once the country has been conquered and Saddam's regime
driven from power, the United States would be left `owning' a country of
22 million people ravaged by more than two decades of war, totalitarian
misrule, and severe deprivation. The invaders would get to decide the
composition
and form of a future Iraqi government--both an opportunity and a
burden."
-
- Every competent military analyst and Middle East scholar
contacted by EIR for comment on the Pollack scheme had the identical
reaction:
"Insane!"
-
- In fact, under present circumstances, with the entire
Arab and Muslim world angered at the appearance of total U.S.
Administration
support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the Israeli Defense
Forces' genocide against the Palestinian people, any American action
against
any Arab state would be the trigger for the "Clash of
Civilizations"
religious war in the Middle East, demanded by the likes of Harvard Prof.
Samuel Huntington, former Carter National Security Adviser Zbigniew
Brzezinski,
Bernard Lewis, Kissinger, et al. In short, a U.S. "invasion"
of Iraq would detonate a new Thirty Years' War on a global scale.
-
- The New Imperium
-
- The fact is, the Anglo-American financial oligarchy is
{promoting} just such a "Clash of Civilizations"--for the same
reasons that Averell Harriman, Montagu Norman, and other Anglo-Americans
bankrolled Hitler and the Nazi Party in 1933. These oligarchs saw the
orchestration
of a global war as a means of retaining their power, under the conditions
of a global collapse of the financial and monetary system, which was the
basis for their world domination.
-
- Their goal is the creation of a new imperium. The Pollack
scheme for provoking such a war by an American invasion of Iraq was carried
to its logical conclusion in the second seminal piece in the March/April
2002 Foreign Affairs, Sebastian Mallaby's "The Reluctant
Imperialist--Terrorism,
Failed States, and the Case for American Empire."
-
- Mallaby, an Oxford University graduate and longtime
employee
of the City of London's flagship journal, The Economist, spelled out a
detailed blueprint for the creation of a one-world agency, to impose order
on those parts of the globe under siege by terrorists, drug smugglers,
and other criminals.
-
- Mallaby candidly admitted that the threat posed by
terrorists,
drug traffickers, and organized criminals would not normally "conjure
up an imperialist revival, if the West had other ways of responding. But
experience has shown that non-imperialist options--notably, foreign aid
and various nation-building efforts--are not altogether
reliable."
-
- Mallaby's alternative: "White man's burden."
The United States, he argued, must rise to the imperial moment. "Might
an imperial America rise to fill the gap?" he asked. "The logic
of neoimperialism is too compelling for the Bush Administration to
resist....
The chaos in the world is too threatening to ignore, and existing methods
for dealing with that chaos have been tried and found wanting.... A new
imperial moment has arrived, and by virtue of its power America is bound
to play the leading role. The question is not whether the United States
will seek to fill the void created by the demise of European empires but
whether it will acknowledge that this is what it is doing. Only if
Washington
acknowledges this task will its response be coherent."
-
- Wellsian Doublespeak
-
- Mallaby spelled out a detailed design for a new one-world
agency, dominated by the United States, and armed with the military and
other force to establish control over regions of the globe that have fallen
into chaos. He cited the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund
as examples of how to structure such a new agency. "Both institutions
reflect American thinking and priorities yet are simultaneously
multinational....
A new international body with the same governing structure could be set
up to deal with nation-building. It would be subject neither to the
frustrations
of the UN Security Council, with its Chinese and Russian vetoes, nor to
those of the UN General Assembly, with its gridlocked one-country/one-vote
system."
-
- The new international agency envisioned by Mallaby
"would
assemble nation-building muscle and expertise and could be deployed
wherever
its American-led board decided.... Its creation would not amount to an
imperial revival. But it would fill the security void that empires
left--much
as the system of mandates did after World War|I ended the Ottoman Empire.
The new fund would need money, troops, and a new kind of commitment from
the rich powers--and it could be established only with strong U.S.
leadership."
-
- Mallaby's scheme for an American-led foreign legion,
modelled on the Roman legions of old, is not new. Such plans for a
post-nation-state
American imperium were at the heart of H.G. Wells' 1928 The Open
Conspiracy,
and such post-World War II "Open Conspirators" as William Yandell
Elliott and Robert Strausz-Hupe, the mentors of Kissinger, Brzezinski,
and Huntington, openly discussed precisely such schemes during the 1950s
and '60s.
-
- What gives urgency to the present revival of this
imperial
fantasy is the fact that the sponsors of this plan orchestrated the events
of Sept. 11, 2001, and are now pressing for a war on Iraq, that would
trigger
global conflagration. These utopian madmen cannot succeed in creating their
one-world imperium, but they can set events in motion that plunge the
planet
into a dark age of death and destruction that would last for several
generations.
-
- - - -
-
- The above introduces a pungent feature in the March 15
issue of Executive Intelligence Review {EIR}. The package proves that those
forces which are now steering the United States toward an invasion of Iraq,
and a general "Clash of Civilizations," are acting in service
of the H. G. Wells, Bertrand Russell "Utopian" Open Conspiracy
fantasy to bury not only the United States, but the very idea of the United
States, through a global war of destruction.
-
- In the next section, Stanley Ezrol demonstrates that
this agitation, even down to details including the "suitcase
bomb"
scare and opposition to the UN "one nation/one vote" system,
is merely a revival of the "Round Table" cult schemes pushed
by now-deceased council member, William Yandell Elliott and his
Agrarian/Distributist
confederates for over seventy years. They tried to aggravate the Second
World War, and when that failed, the Cold War, in exactly the way today's
CFR followers are now building their "Clash." The Cold Warriors'
own words prove that their real enemy was not "Communism," but
the system of national sovereignty identified with the American
Intellectual
Tradition. This they conspired to crush under a new empire dominated by
a soldier's cult "religion" which treats the filioque idea that
man shares in God's creative capacity, as its chief heresy.
-
- The concluding section, Tony Papert's review of Robert
D. Kaplan's Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos, shows
just how hideous this new Romanism has become. He points out that Kaplan's
concluding paean to the Emperor Tiberius--the Emperor who ordered the
crucifixion
of Christ--is in a centuries' old tradition of anti-Christ worship, which
included the short-lived Nazi Caesar, Adolph Hitler, as well as the
"Soviet"
poet, Maxim Gorky.
-
- A free copy of this week's 72-page EIR will be sent to
those who call 1-888-347-3258 and say they "saw it on
Rense.com."
|
