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