SHOW US YOUR BUSH !
Wed Jan 21 11:33:40 2004
America's War For
By Michel Chossudovsky
We are the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history.
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
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
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 Asia.
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 Sea.
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,
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
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
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" nuclear weapons.
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."
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 America's
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
The PNAC's declared objective is quite simple - to:
"Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars".
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
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,
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
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 Order."
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,
Franks identifies the precise scenario whereby military rule will be
"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."
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
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
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
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 democracy.
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:
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 Doctrine
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
"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
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
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
BUSH , Cont. Michel Chossudovsky, Wed Jan 21 11:42
More Bush.... Michel Chossudovsky, Wed Jan 21 12:26
Re: SHOW US YOUR BUSH ! Anonymous, Wed Jan 21 11:40
Main Page -01/22/04
Message Board by American
Patriot Friends Network [APFN]