- We are the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern
- The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military
adventure which threatens the future of humanity.
- The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a broader
military agenda, which was launched at the end of the Cold War. The ongoing
war agenda is a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War and the NATO led wars
on Yugoslavia (1991-2001).
- The post Cold War period has also been marked by numerous
US covert intelligence operations within the former Soviet Union, which
were instrumental in triggering civil wars in several of the former republics
including Chechnya (within the Russian Federation), Georgia and Azerbaijan.
In the latter, these covert operations were launched with a view to securing
strategic control over oil and gas pipeline corridors.
- US military and intelligence operations in the post Cold
War era were led in close coordination with the "free market reforms"
imposed under IMF guidance in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and
the Balkans, which resulted in the destabilization of national economies
and the impoverishment of millions of people.
- The World Bank sponsored privatization programmes in
these countries enabled Western capital to acquire ownership and gain control
of a large share of the economy of the former Eastern block countries.
This process is also at the basis of the strategic mergers and/or takeovers
of the former Soviet oil and gas industry by powerful Western conglomerates,
through financial manipulation and corrupt political practices.
- In other words, what is at stake in the US led war is
the recolonization of a vast region extending from the Balkans into Central
- The deployment of America's war machine purports to enlarge
America's economic sphere of influence. The U.S. has established a permanent
military presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military bases
in several of the former Soviet republics on China's Western frontier.
In turn, since 1999, there has been a military buildup in the South China
- War and Globalization go hand in hand. Militarization
supports the conquest of new economic frontiers and the worldwide imposition
of "free market" system.
- The Next Phase of the War
- The Bush administration has already identified Syria
as the next stage of "the road map to war". The bombing of presumed
'terrorist bases' in Syria by the Israeli Air Force in October was intended
to provide a justification for subsequent pre-emptive military interventions.
Ariel Sharon launched the attacks with the approval of Donald Rumsfeld.
(See Gordon Thomas, Global Outlook, No. 6, Winter 2004)
- This planned extension of the war into Syria has serious
implications. It means that Israel becomes a major military actor in the
US-led war, as well as an 'official' member of the Anglo-American coalition.
- The Pentagon views 'territorial control' over Syria,
which constitutes a land bridge between Israel and occupied Iraq, as 'strategic'
from a military and economic standpoint. It also constitutes a means of
controlling the Iraqi border and curbing the flow of volunteer fighters,
who are traveling to Baghdad to join the Iraqi resistance movement.
- This enlargement of the theater of war is consistent
with Ariel Sharon's plan to build a 'Greater Israel' "on the ruins
of Palestinian nationalism". While Israel seeks to extend its territorial
domain towards the Euphrates River, with designated areas of Jewish settlement
in the Syrian heartland, Palestinians are imprisoned in Gaza and the West
Bank behind an 'Apartheid Wall'.
- In the meantime, the US Congress has tightened the economic
sanctions on Libya and Iran. As well, Washington is hinting at the need
for a 'regime change' in Saudi Arabia. Political pressures are building
up in Turkey.
- So, the war could indeed spill over into a much broader
region extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Indian sub-continent
and China's Western frontier.
- The "Pre-emptive" Use of Nuclear Weapons
- Washington has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive"
nuclear policy, which has now received congressional approval. Nuclear
weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort as during the cold War era.
- The US, Britain and Israel have a coordinated nuclear
weapons policy. Israeli nuclear warheads are pointed at major cities in
the Middle East. The governments of all three countries have stated quite
openly, prior to the war on Iraq, that they are prepared to use nuclear
weapons "if they are attacked" with so-called "weapons of
mass destruction." Israel is the fifth nuclear power in the World.
Its nuclear arsenal is more advanced than that of Britain.
- Barely a few weeks following the entry of the US Marines
into Baghdad, the US Senate Armed Services Committee gave the green light
to the Pentagon to develop a new tactical nuclear bomb, to be used in conventional
war theaters, "with a yield [of up to] six times more powerful than
the Hiroshima bomb".
- Following the Senate decision, the Pentagon redefined
the details of its nuclear agenda in a secret meeting with senior executives
from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex held at Central
Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. The meeting
was held on August 6, the day the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima,
58 years ago.
- The new nuclear policy explicitly involves the large
defense contractors in decision-making. It is tantamount to the "privatization"
of nuclear war. Corporations not only reap multibillion dollar profits
from the production of nuclear bombs, they also have a direct voice in
setting the agenda regarding the use and deployment of nuclear weapons.
- Meanwhile, the Pentagon has unleashed a major propaganda
and public relations campaign with a view to upholding the use nuclear
weapons for the "defense of the American Homeland."
- Fully endorsed by the US Congress, the mini-nukes are
considered to be "safe for civilians".
- This new generation of nuclear weapons is slated to be
used in the next phase of this war, in "conventional war theatres"
(e.g. in the Middle East and Central Asia) alongside conventional weapons.
- In December 2003, the US Congress allocated $6.3 billion
solely for 2004, to develop this new generation of "defensive"
- The overall annual defense budget is of the order of
400 billion dollars, roughly of the same order of magnitude as the entire
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the Russian Federation.
- While there is no firm evidence of the use of mini-nukes
in the Iraqi and Afghan war theatres, tests conducted by Canada's Uranium
Medical Research Center (UMRC), in Afghanistan confirm that recorded toxic
radiation was not attributable to 'heavy metal' depleted uranium ammunition
(DU), but to another unidentified form of uranium contamination:
- "some form of uranium weapon had been used (...)
The results were astounding: the donors presented concentrations of toxic
and radioactive uranium isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater than
in the Gulf War veterans tested in 1999." www.umrc.net
- The Planning of War
- The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least
since the mid-1990s.
- A 1995 National Security document of the Clinton administration
stated quite clearly that the objective of the war is oil. "to protect
the United States' uninterrupted, secure U.S. access to oil.
- In September 2000, a few months before the accession
of George W. Bush to the White House, the Project for a New American Century
(PNAC) published its blueprint for global domination under the title: "Rebuilding
- The PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank linked to the
Defense-Intelligence establishment, the Republican Party and the powerful
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which plays a behind-the-scenes role
in the formulation of US foreign policy.
- The PNAC's declared objective is quite simple - to:
- "Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous
- This statement indicates that the US plans to be involved
simultaneously in several war theaters in different regions of the World.
- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney had commissioned the PNAC
blueprint prior to the presidential elections.
- The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for
"the direct imposition of U.S. "forward bases" throughout
Central Asia and the Middle East "with a view to ensuring economic
domination of the world, while strangling any potential "rival"
or any viable alternative to America's vision of a 'free market' economy"
(See Chris Floyd, Bush's Crusade for empire, Global Outlook, No. 6, 2003)
- The Role of "Massive Casualty Producing Events"
- The PNAC blueprint also outlines a consistent framework
of war propaganda. One year before 9/11, the PNAC called for "some
catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor," which
would serve to galvanize US public opinion in support of a war agenda.
(See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html )
- The PNAC architects seem to have anticipated with cynical
accuracy, the use of the September 11 attacks as "a war pretext incident."
- The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing
event" echoes a similar statement by David Rockefeller to the United
Nations Business Council in 1994:
- "We are on the verge of global transformation. All
we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World
- Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book,
The Grand Chessboard:.
- "it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus
[in America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a
truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
- Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Adviser
to President Jimmy Carter was one of the key architects of the Al Qaeda
network, created by the CIA at the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan war (1979-1989).
- The "catastrophic and catalyzing event" as
stated by the PNAC is an integral part of US military-intelligence planning.
General Franks, who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently
(October 2003) to the role of a "massive casualty-producing event"
to muster support for the imposition of military rule in America. (See
General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003,
- Franks identifies the precise scenario whereby military
rule will be established:
- "a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event
[will occur] somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States
of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution
and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another
mass, casualty-producing event." (Ibid)
- This statement from an individual, who was actively involved
in military and intelligence planning at the highest levels, suggests that
the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational
assumption. It is part of the broader "Washington consensus".
It identifies the Bush administration's "roadmap" of war and
"Homeland Defense." Needless to say, it is also an integral part
of the neoliberal agenda.
- The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event"
is presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The
resulting crisis and social turmoil are intended to facilitate a major
shift in US political, social and institutional structures.
- General Franks' statement reflects a consensus within
the US Military as to how events ought to unfold. The "war on terrorism"
is to provide a justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately
with a view to "preserving civil liberties."
- Franks' interview suggests that an Al Qaeda sponsored
terrorist attack will be used as a "trigger mechanism" for a
military coup d'état in America. The PNAC's "Pearl Harbor type
event" would be used as a justification for declaring a State of emergency,
leading to the establishment of a military government.
- In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State
institutions in the US is already functional under the facade of a bogus
- War Propaganda
- In the wake of the September attacks on the World Trade
Center, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created to the Office of Strategic
Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it was labeled
by its critics:
- "The Department of Defense said they needed to do
this, and they were going to actually plant stories that were false in
foreign countries -- as an effort to influence public opinion across the
world. (Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002.)
- And, all of a sudden, the OSI was formally disbanded
following political pressures and "troublesome" media stories
that "its purpose was to deliberately lie to advance American interests."
(Air Force Magazine, January 2003, italics added) "Rumsfeld backed
off and said this is embarrassing." (Adubato, op. cit. italics added)
Yet despite this apparent about-turn, the Pentagon's Orwellian disinformation
campaign remains functionally intact: "[T]he secretary of defense
is not being particularly candid here. Disinformation in military propaganda
is part of war."(Ibid)
- Rumsfeld later confirmed in a press interview that while
the OSI no longer exists in name, the "Office's intended functions
are being carried out". (Quoted in Federation of American Scientists
(FAS) Secrecy News, http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/11/112702.html
, Rumsfeld's press interview can be consulted at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/11/dod111802.html
- A number of government agencies and intelligence units
--with links to the Pentagon-remain actively involved in various components
of the propaganda campaign. Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war
are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards "regime
change" and "the restoration of democracy". Military occupation
and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping".
The derogation of civil liberties --in the context of the so-called "anti-terrorist
legislation"-- is portrayed as a means to providing "domestic
security" and upholding civil liberties.
- The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush's National Security
- Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS),
the preemptive "defensive war" doctrine and the "war on
terrorism" against Al Qaeda constitute the two essential building
blocks of the Pentagon's propaganda campaign.
- The objective is to present "preemptive military
action" --meaning war as an act of "self-defense" against
two categories of enemies, "rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists":
- "The war against terrorists of global reach is a
global enterprise of uncertain duration. America will act against such
emerging threats before they are fully formed.
- Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us
using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they
rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction
- The targets of these attacks are our military forces
and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal
norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September
11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists
and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired
and used weapons of mass destruction.
- The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive
actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater
the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and the more compelling
the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, (). To forestall
or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will,
if necessary, act preemptively."12 (National Security Strategy, White
House, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html )
- To justify pre-emptive military actions, the National
Security Doctrine requires the "fabrication" of a terrorist threat,
--ie. "an outside enemy." It also needs to link these terrorist
threats to "State sponsorship" by the so-called "rogue states."
- But it also means that the various "massive casualty-producing
events" allegedly by Al Qaeda (the fabricated enemy) are part of the
National Security agenda.
- In the months building up to the invasion of Iraq, covert
'dirty tricks' operations were launched to produce misleading intelligence
pertaining to both Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Al Qaeda, which
was then fed into the news chain.
- In the wake of the war, while the WMD threat has been
toned down, Al Qaeda threats to 'the Homeland' continue to be repeated
ad nauseam in official statements, commented on network TV and pasted on
a daily basis across the news tabloids.
- And underlying these manipulated realties, "Osama
bin Laden" terrorist occurrences are being upheld as a justification
for the next phase of this war. The latter hinges in a very direct way:
- 1) the effectiveness of the Pentagon-CIA propaganda campaign,
which is fed into the news chain.
- 2) The actual occurrence of "massive casualty producing
events" as outlined in the PNAC
- What this means is that actual ("massive casualty
producing") terrorist events are part and parcel of military planning.
- Actual Terrorist Attacks
- In other words, to be "effective" the fear
and disinformation campaign cannot solely rely on unsubstantiated "warnings"
of future attacks, it also requires "real" terrorist occurrences
or "incidents", which provide credibility to the Washington's
war plans. These terrorist events are used to justify the implementation
of "emergency measures" as well as "retaliatory military
actions". They are required, in the present context, to create the
illusion of "an outside enemy" that is threatening the American
- The triggering of "war pretext incidents" is
part of the Pentagon's assumptions. In fact it is an integral part of US
military history.(See Richard Sanders, War Pretext Incidents, How to Start
a War, Global Outlook, published in two parts, Issues 2 and 3, 2002-2003).
- In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret
plan entitled "Operation Northwoods", to deliberately trigger
civilian casualties to justify the invasion of Cuba:
- "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay
and blame Cuba," "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign
in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington"
"casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national
indignation." (See the declassified Top Secret 1962 document titled
"Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba"16 (See
Operation Northwoods at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html
- There is no evidence that the Pentagon or the CIA played
a direct role in recent terrorist attacks, including those in Indonesia
(2002), India (2001), Turkey (2003) and Saudi Arabia (2003).
- According to the reports, the attacks were undertaken
by organizations (or cells of these organizations), which operate quite
independently, with a certain degree of autonomy. This independence is
in the very nature of a covert intelligence operation. The &laqno;intelligence
asset» is not in direct contact with its covert sponsors. It is not
necessarily cognizant of the role it plays on behalf of its intelligence
- The fundamental question is who is behind them? Through
what sources are they being financed? What is the underlying network of
- For instance, in the case of the 2002 Bali bomb attack,
the alleged terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiah had links to Indonesia's
military intelligence (BIN), which in turn has links to the CIA and Australian
- The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament
--which contributed to pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war--
were allegedly conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba
("Army of the Pure") and Jaish-e-Muhammad ("Army of Mohammed"),
both of which according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) are supported
by Pakistan's ISI. (Council on Foreign Relations at http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html
, Washington 2002).
- What the CFR fails to acknowledge is the crucial relationship
between the ISI and the CIA and the fact that the ISI continues to support
Lashkar, Jaish and the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen (JKHM),
while also collaborating with the CIA. (For further details see Michel
Chossudovsky, Fabricating an Enemy, March 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301B.html
- A 2002 classified outbrief drafted to guide the Pentagon
"calls for the creation of a so-called 'Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations
Group' (P2OG), to launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions"
among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that
is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves
to 'quick-response' attacks by U.S. forces." (William Arkin, The Secret
War, The Los Angeles Times, 27 October 2002)
- The P2OG initiative is nothing new. It essentially extends
an existing apparatus of covert operations. Amply documented, the CIA has
supported terrorist groups since the Cold War era. This "prodding
of terrorist cells" under covert intelligence operations often requires
the infiltration and training of the radical groups linked to Al Qaeda.
- In this regard, covert support by the US military and
intelligence apparatus has been channeled to various Islamic terrorist
organizations through a complex network of intermediaries and intelligence
proxies. In the course of the 1990s, agencies of the US government have
collaborated with Al Qaeda in a number of covert operations, as confirmed
by a 1997 report of the Republican Party Committee of the US Congress.
(See US Congress, 16 January 1997, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html
). In fact during the war in Bosnia US weapons inspectors were working
with Al Qaeda operatives, bringing in large amounts of weapons for the
Bosnian Muslim Army.
- In other words, the Clinton Administration was "harboring
terrorists". Moreover, official statements and intelligence reports
confirm links between US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda operatives,
as occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and Macedonia (2001).(See
See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalisation, The Truth behind September
11, Global Outlook, 2003, Chapter 3, http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html
- The Bush Administration and NATO had links to Al Qaeda
in Macedonia. And this happened barely a few weeks before September 11,
2001, Senior U.S. military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on
contract to the Pentagon, were fighting alongside Mujahideen in the terrorist
attacks on the Macedonian Security forces. This is documented by the Macedonian
press and statements made by the Macedonian authorities. (See Michel Chossudovsky,
op cit). The U.S. government and the Islamic Militant Network were working
hand in glove in supporting and financing the National Liberation Army
(NLA), which was involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia.
- In other words, the US military was collaborating directly
with Al Qaeda barely a few weeks before 9/11.
- Al Qaeda and Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI)
- It is indeed revealing that in virtually all post 9/11
terrorist occurrences, the terrorist organization is reported (by the media
and in official statements) as having "ties to Osama bin Laden's Al
Qaeda". This in itself is a crucial piece of information. Of course,
the fact that Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA is neither mentioned in
the press reports nor is it considered relevant to an understanding of
these terrorist occurrences.
- The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly
those in Asia) to Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged
in a few cases by official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed by the
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have
links to Pakistan's ISI, without identifying the nature of these links.
Needless to say, this information is crucial in identifying the sponsors
of these terrorist attacks. In other words, the ISI is said to support
these terrorist organizations, while at same time maintaining close ties
to the CIA.
- September 11
- While Colin Powell --without supporting evidence-pointed
in his February 2003 UN address to "the sinister nexus between Iraq
and the Al Qaeda terrorist network", official documents, press and
intelligence reports confirm that successive US administrations have supported
and abetted the Islamic militant network. This relationship is an established
fact, corroborated by numerous studies, acknowledged by Washington's mainstream
- Both Colin Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, who
in the months leading up to the war casually accused Baghdad and other
foreign governments of "harboring" Al Qaeda, played a direct
role, at different points in their careers, in supporting terrorist organizations.
- Both men were implicated --operating behind the scenes--
in the Irangate Contra scandal during the Reagan Administration, which
involved the illegal sale of weapons to Iran to finance the Nicaraguan
Contra paramilitary army and the Afghan Mujahideen. (For further details,
see Michel Chossudovsky, Expose the Links between Al Qaeda and the Bush
Administration, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html )
- Moreover, both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell played
a role in the 9/11 cover-up. The investigations and research conducted
in the last two years, including official documents, testimonies and intelligence
reports, indicate that September 11 was an carefully planned intelligence
operation, rather than a act conducted by a terrorist organization. (For
further details, see Centre for Research on Globalization, 24 Key articles,
- The FBI confirmed in a report made public late September
2001 the role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence. According to the report,
the alleged 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from sources
out of Pakistan. A subsequent intelligence report confirmed that the then
head of the ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad had transferred money to Mohammed
Atta. (See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization, op.cit.)
- Moreover, press reports and official statements confirm
that the head of the ISI, was an official visit to the US from the 4th
to 13th of September 2001. In other words, the head of Pakistan's ISI,
who allegedly transferred money to the terrorists also had a close personal
relationship with a number of senior Bush Administration officials, including
Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage,
whom he met in the course of his visit to Washington. (Ibid)
- The Antiwar Movement
- A cohesive antiwar movement cannot be based solely on
the mobilization of antiwar sentiment. It must ultimately unseat the war
criminals and question their right to rule.
- A necessary condition for bringing down the rulers is
to weaken and eventually dismantle their propaganda campaign.
- The momentum of the large anti-war rallies in the US,
the European Union and around the world, should lay the foundations of
a permanent network composed of tens of thousands of local level anti-war
committees in neighborhoods, work places, parishes, schools, universities,
etc. It is ultimately through this network that the legitimacy of those
who "rule in our name" will be challenged.
- To shunt the Bush Administration's war plans and disable
its propaganda machine, we must reach out to our fellow citizens across
the land, in the US, Europe and around the world, to the millions of ordinary
people who have been misled on the causes and consequences of this war.
- This also implies fully uncovering the lies behind the
"war on terrorism" and revealing the political complicity of
the Bush administration in the events of 9/11.
- September 11 is a hoax. It's the biggest lie in US history.
- Needless to say, the use of "massive casualty producing
events" as pretext to wage war is a criminal act. In the words of
Andreas van Buelow, former German Minister of Technology and author of
The CIA and September 11:
- "If what I say is right, the whole US government
should end up behind bars."
- Yet it is not sufficient to remove George W. Bush or
Tony Blair, who are mere puppets. We must also address the role of the
global banks, corporations and financial institutions, which indelibly
stand behind the military and political actors.
- Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment
(rather than the State Department, the White House and the US Congress)
is calling the shots on US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Texas oil giants,
the defense contractors, Wall Street and the powerful media giants, operating
discreetly behind the scenes, are pulling the strings. If politicians become
a source of major embarrassment, they can themselves be discredited by
the media, discarded and a new team of political puppets can be brought