Dear cj,
Once again the US is beating the war drums against Iraq. What does this
signify? I wonder how many of you would respond that it's a matter of
Clinton trying to distract attention from his personal scandals? I wonder
how many would suggest that opposition by other countries indicates a
turning of the tide against US interventionism? I wonder how many feel
that Iraq deserves to be attacked? I ask anyone who answered yes to any of
these questions to think again.
-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
The first observation I'd like to offer is that any decision to launch war
operations is not Clinton's to make - he's entirely too far down in the
chain of command.
If you doubt this, I invite you to imagine the following scenario - suppose
Clinton got it in his mind to invade Iraq, and that the NSC (National
Security Council) was opposed. Can anyone seriously imagine that our
non-inhaling lipstick-stained Arkansas playboy would assertively take the
floor, stare down the heads of the CIA, Pentagon, and State Department, and
issue stern orders for them to prepare for invasion whether they like it or
not?
Kennedy _might_ have had the balls to try that, under the right
circumstances, or maybe even Nixon, but Billy? I think not. He's a
spineless figurehead. Undertaking a major operation against the NSC's
wishes, and incurring their implicit opposition, would be uncharacteristic
of him under any conditions - but it is unthinkable when he's on the run,
when his public image is tarnished and when the media is already full of
suggestions that an invasion would be personally motivated. It would
require but a few "leaks" from "high Pentagon officials" that the invasion
idea was "unsound" and that it puts our boys at "unnecessary risk" - and
Clinton would find himself a lone polar bear on an ice floe drifting ever
closer the Political Arctic Circle. There's no way he could pull off such
an operation, nor would he have the guts or imagination to try it in the
first place.
It is clear, I believe, that any planned attack must have purposes quite
unrelated to Mr. Clinton's political dramas, and that it is the NSC who
presents and explains such operations to Clinton, not the other way around.
He's undoubtedly being told by his adviser/handlers that a bit of Old
Glory and Bombs Bursting In Air is Just The Ticket to restore his Public
Image - It Works Every Time, they surely cajole. He may be hoping to pull
his irons from the fire, but that simply cannot account for the reality of
the planned invasion.
-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
My second observation regards the strategic purposes served by the
persecution of Iraq during most of the past decade, and in particular the
purposes of this next attack.
Foremost, of course, is the necessity to create a regime of world order in
support of globalization and its neo-imperialist designs.
Everyone knows that the US requires no outside authorization to justify its
interventions "from the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli", not
to mention Grenada, Panama, or the straits of Taiwan. Uncle Sam pretty
much does what he wants, tells whatever cover story he wants to the
American people, and the international community can go stuff itself, thank
you very much. What was unique about Desert Storm One was the importance
given to "UN authorization".
Globalist planners want to expand the base of the global police force, to
quit depending exclusively on the vagaries of the US political process and
US funding to maintain global order. That's why NATO is being guided to a
more activist role, and why Greece and Italy were encouraged in their
little foray into Albania. The long-range goal is a "legitimate
international elite strike force" that has the "right" to intervene
anywhere it deems necessary to keep "criminal regimes" in line. Since
authoritarian regimes have been installed by imperialism nearly everywhere
in the Third World, any one of them that needs to be disciplined can easily
be turned into a "criminal" simply by pulling some old CIA/State Department
files and telling the press to run with them. The strike force, with its
corporate mass-media allies, are to be the judge, jury, and executioners of
the New World Order.
The point of the Iraqi operation has been to achieve "legitimacy" for this
Judge Dredd strike force. Iraq has been a convenient scapegoat "perp",
with its obviously dictatorial regime, and as a convenient side effect, its
suppression has bolstered world oil prices.
If the US didn't want Saddam to have weapons of mass destruction, it would
not have sold him the materials. If the US had wanted to keep Saddam out
of Kuwait, it would not have given a "go" signal when he asked for
permission to invade. If it wanted him out quickly, it could have simply
responded unilaterally. If clearing Iraqi troops from Kuwait were the
objective, Desert Storm would have been over in three days. If the US
merely wanted Saddam out of power, that could have been easily accomplished
when the tanks were still rolling. The whole operation was a setup, with
Saddam as the fall guy, and has been carefully managed at every stage.
The UN authorization and the image of an "allied" operation were obviously
of great importance to the US, as a media blitz and countless dollars and
diplomatic favors were invested in achieving them. The intent to create a
precedent in international relations, the legitimatizing of intervention,
was clear. It was articulated explicitly by Bush when he described the
outcome as a New World Order, and was underscored when he appealed to Japan
and others to subsidize the costs. The precedent has been largely
established, and was important in smoothing the way for later interventions
in Bosnia and Albania.
The pattern being established includes not only the legitimatizing of
intervention, via UN resolutions, but includes as well a "blank check"
clause. The UN is to be the issuing agency for enforcement warrants, but
is to be otherwise uninvolved. Once the warrant is issued, the details are
the prerogative of the elite force itself. Even in the face of today's
widespread international opposition to Desert Storm 2, the US will no doubt
claim that existing resolutions constitute sufficient authorization.
I frequently employ the Judge Dredd metaphor in describing the elite force,
and I mean for the analogy to be rather closely drawn. The film was, it
seems obvious, intended specifically to condition public opinion for the
NWO - to propagandize an heroic image of a high-tech beyond-the-law
enforcer, and to portray him as the One Hope for Maintaining Order in a
world where Chaos Reigns. The film was released, if memory serves, just in
time for the climax of the Bosnian intervention, where cruise missiles
actualized the Butt-Kicking symbolized by Dredd on the silver screen, and
US arrogance in running the operation echoed Stallone's brutish on-screen
persona.
Aside: By comparing Stallone with John Wayne, one can see how
different is the globalist rhetoric and reality from that of
traditional US nationalism. Wayne was slow to draw his gun and
was glad for the battle be over, and peace to be restored; Stallone
makes his entrance with all guns blazing and lives in a world of
ongoing violence, with any hope for lasting peace long since
abandoned.
-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
Besides the primary objective of establishing the legitimacy of the NWO
strike force, several other objectives have been accomplished via Iraq as
well, as is typical of covert operations - elite planners are great
believers in the several-birds-with-one-stone theory. I've already
mentioned bolstering the price of oil, which made Iraq just that much more
attractive as the candidate fall-guy. More strategic has been the testing
of hi-tech weapons systems: satellite command and control, stealth
weaponry, cruise missiles, night warfare, blitzkrieg timing, electronic
counter-measures, total-control-of-theater tactics, spent-uranium shells,
laser-guided bombs, air-fuel explosives, biowarfare antigens, designer
drugs for attack pilots, war-as-entertainment propaganda, and more. The
operation must have been viewed within the military/intelligence/PR
communities much like a Mars mission is viewed by scientists: So Little
Time to carry out So Many Experiments.
-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
This brings us up to the present, and the question of Why Desert Storm 2?
There are two answers, one related to consolidating the elite-force regime,
and the other related to the question of China.
The elite-force regime has been solidly established, in principle, and the
regime can be easily fine-tuned over time. Where the precedent still needs
to be significantly upgraded, I submit, is in the area of "terms of
authorization".
In Iraq, the authorization treated Iraq as a sovereign nation, but one
whose aggression needed to be reversed. In Bosnia, we see a different
picture - part of the joint mission of the UN and NATO was "nation
engineering". The Camp David "Peace" Accords didn't just call a truce,
they designed the structure of the new state, and provided for ongoing
international supervision. The NWO is not just about containing
trouble-makers, but about active nation-management and nation-engineering.
The NWO is to be a world government, not just an international police
force.
My guess is that what the US wants ultimately, as the agent of globalism,
is the explicit authorization to take out Saddam and to install a new
regime, with the details to be left to the implementers. Then the
precedent will be complete: the UN is to issue enforcement warrants, and
the elite force will be authorized to clobber and then re-invent whatever
hapless victim nation. Until this precedent is achieved, Iraq serves as a
convenient punching bag for whatever exercises might be deemed necessary.
Aside: One can also see this desire for nation-engineering in
the policies of the IMF, and in particular in the treatment
South Korea has been receiving in the wake of the externally
caused financial collapse. Currency crises, in a world of
online trading and super-computer market modeling, is just
one more hi-tech weapon in the elite's blitzkrieg arsenal.
One might also recall that in Grenada and Panama, the US
was prompt to install its own stooges in government and to
purge the military and militia forces.
One of the exercises currently deemed necessary, I suggest, is additional
weapons testing. It's been nearly a decade now since Desert Storm 1, and
that's a very long time when measured in terms of high-tech development
cycles - there must be many new generations of weapons, electronic systems,
and propaganda tricks to be field-tested in the context of a sizable modern
nation-target.
Most notable among the devices to be field-tested are tactical nuclear
warheads. And more important than the military data gathered will be the
precedent thereby established. With nukes added to the already formidable
arsenal, there is no nation which can effectively resist the elite force,
no nation which can steer a course independent of the globalist regime.
Not even China.
Not that war against China will necessarily be required. China seems to be
changing rapidly, and eagerly desires to increase its participation in the
global economy. Perhaps it will steer a course acceptable to globalist
strategists. Indeed the "legitimatizing" of tactical nukes provides extra
incentive for China to play nicely.
But China has made clear that it considers Asia to be its "rightful" sphere
of influence, and China is pursuing a rapid course of upgrading its
military capability. Meanwhile the US continues to hold strongly to the
policy that no Asian power can be permitted to have hegemony in the region,
and has drawn various lines in the sand (eg, Straits of Taiwan) across
which China is not to pass.
In order for the US to have a "credible threat" against a potential Chinese
consolidation of Asian hegemony, Uncle Sam must have nukes in his kitbag,
and he must upgrade his electronic capability to so that China could be
prevented from launching successful strategic strikes on Japan or the US.
Desert Storm 2 is necessary preparation so that all options in the China
Scenario can be carried to a successful globalist conclusion. This final
consolidation of the globalist regime, the taming of China, is not
something globalist leaders want to leave to chance - all scenarios must be
fully accounted for.
-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
With this perspective, I hope it is clear that little Billy and his
dalliances are so far down on the list of considerations that they amount
to less than a feather on the scales in determining what will happen in
Iraq or when. He's only the tail on the dog. He has little more control
over events than does Saddam, and he is equally expendable.
Which brings me to my third observation. Recall my comments of 28 Jan:
cj#763> re: WHO IS PUSHING CLINTON OUT?
>In particular, Democrats are not allowed to preside over successful
>(glorious) military campaigns, that's the prerogative of Republican
>presidents. When Reagan was given the Grenada project, or Bush allowed to
>invade Panama and Iraq, the media resonated with "respect for the chief".
>Coverage was filtered to glorify events, attitudes of respect were
>projected, awe surrounded press conferences, etc. Given the same war, the
>media COULD have emphasized civilian casualties, the wasteful expense of
>the whole affair, and pointed out that Bush had sold weapons to Iraq - the
>glory is in the media, not on the ground.
>
>By contrast, with Carter (the helicopter rescue attempt) or Clinton
>(Ethiopia or was it Somalia), they're given puny military opportunities,
>bungled by the Pentagon, and the media covers it with mockery.
Rather than Desert Storm 2 being a Clinton stratagem to divert attention
from his scandals, I suggest that his scandals are an elite stratagem to
prevent the Democrats from benefitting from a war that happens to be
scheduled during their shift. Even though the war will be a "successful"
one, Clinton will nonetheless end up disgraced. In his wake, as in
Carter's, some reactionary Republican neandrathal can be elected to preside
over the next stage of US destabilization and the further consolidation of
the globalist NWO regime.
-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
My fourth and final observation regards the international opposition that
is mounting against Desert Storm 2.
Some of the opposition arises simply from the injustice of the situation,
the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, the absurdity of the always more
humiliating demands made on Iraq by Washington, and the unnecessity of
another attack. But some of the opposition, especially among China,
Russia, and Arab nations, must surely arise from a recognition of the fact
that everyone's sovereignty falls with Iraq's - a recognition of the same
clear precedent I've been talking about in this posting.
The US will, for the reasons we've discussed, hang tough on this one. Once
again the scenario has been portrayed for us on screen. "Independence Day"
shows a determined America, held back by short-sighted and timid
international diplomats, but finally victorious over the deadly enemy
through the use of nuclear weapons. The story has been written, the stage
has been set, and history has only to unfold as scripted.
With or without international approval, the US will get its weapons test
and will establish, with China in mind, the legitimatizing of tactical
nukes. The US can afford to ignore international scorn (as it has so often
in the postwar era), especially when Britain and Germany are standing in
its corner.
And, as foretold in Independence Day, the scorn will ultimately be
transformed into political embarrassment and Uncle Sam will once again
become the globally popular "hero of democracy", the role he so enjoyed
playing in World War 2. The final implementation of the US-led NWO
strike-force regime will then be a mere formality.
How will the scorn be transformed into embarrassment? The answer, Dr.
Watson, is elementary... an appropriate incident will be arranged, an
incident in the tradition of the sinking of the Maine, Pearl Harbor, the
Tonkin Gulf Incident, the shooting of a GI in Panama, or the invasion of
Kuwait itself. One cannot predict the exact incident, anymore than one can
correctly answer the question "Is this bird in my hand alive or dead?" -
the options are with the initiator.
Perhaps Saddam will be manipulated into launching an Anthrax attack, or
perhaps he'll be blamed for a dramatic terrorist explosion in the First
World (UN headquarters?), or perhaps he'll take to shooting down airliners.
But one way or another, mark my words, Saddam will once again walk into a
well-laid trap, and political leaders will rue the day they urged
compromise. This incident might occur in the next week or so, or it might
be deferred to enable a Desert Storm 3, if such better fits the agenda of
the various globalist programs being moved forward by the cat-and-mouse
game with Saddam.
-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
The primary issue for humanity, vis a vis Iraq, is that of national
sovereignty. Just as neoliberalism, the IMF, and the WTO represent the end
of economic sovereignty, so does the Iraq episode represent the end of
territorial sovereignty.
Successful opposition to the US/globalist sovereignty-destroying game plan
cannot come by simply resisting each increment of the script. Such
reactive responses have been anticipated and appropriate countermeasures
pre-arranged. This indeed describes how we've gotten to where we are.
Only a radical response can be effective, a response which emphasizes the
sovereignty issue and which calls the US to account for its not-very-secret
manipulations in setting up the whole Desert Storm scenario. To
effectively oppose Desert Storm The Sequel, one must undertake a more
comprehensive indictment: one must condemn US war crimes in Iraq and one
must demand an end to the sanctions. Only by a direct frontal opposition
to the pattern of legitimatizing interventionism is there any hope of
building a sufficiently broad coalition, with sufficient moral weight, to
induce Uncle Sam to take notice.
China and Russia, in protection of their own necks, have an imperative to
take the high ground in this confrontation, and to do all they can to rally
the rest of the world against the advance of globalism's military regime.
Western governments, even without advice from China and Russia, need to
wake up to the demise of their sovereign states, and say enough is enough.
Even the US (and its UK Bulldog sidekick) cannot ignore all the countries
all the time.
-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
I'd like to close with a note to activists. I urge you, whatever your
favorite cause might be, to take on board that the multi-front globalist
blitzkrieg makes all other political issues irrelevant. Whether it be
environment, womens rights, abortion (pro or con), guns (pro or con),
prayers in schools (pro or con), or whatever - the triumph of globalism
will make it much worse, and only the defeat of globalism generally can
enable societies to address the problems that plague them.
The time has come to drop the struggles against symptoms, and to focus our
attention on the disease itself. The disease is capitalist domination of
societies globally, and the terminal stage of that disease is called
globalization. Either capitalism will be subjugated, or it will subjugate
us. The capitalist elite is forcing the showdown, and if we go down, we
should at least go down aiming our struggle at the appropriate adversary.
By my count there are three significant front lines in the resistance to
globalism - three fields of battle where the issues have been (or can be)
drawn radically, and where activist energy and support globally deserves to
be focused. Those three are (1) opposing the persecution of Iraq
(territorial sovereignty), (2) supporting and emulaing Canada's anti-MAI
movement (economic sovereignty), and (3) defending Cuba's revolution
(political sovereignty).
The engines of globalism are awesome, and many dismiss opposition as futile
- "globalization is inevitable" they say, echoing the constant media messge
to that effect. Resistance may be ultimately futile, but we don't know
that, and in the meantime we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by
making a bold effort to respond to the emergency.
In fighting a formidable enemy, and with only limited resources, we must
focus our forces in well-timed actions against vulnerable points. I
suggest that the three front lines mentioned above are where our forces
should be rallying.
-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
Tomorrow I'll post some informational material about the Iraq situation,
including illustrations of various media spins, and some highly-crticial
Arab pieces. Some of the material will be from Parveez Syed's latest
report "Clinton-Blair to provoke WW3".
After that, I'll leave Iraq reporting to other channels, and move back to
the revolution thread - starting with a posting of reader responses to that
thread announcement.
regards,
rkm
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland
www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal (USA Citizen)
* Non-commercial republication encouraged - Please include this sig *
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
To join cyberjournal, simply send:
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: (ignored)
---
sub cyberjournal John Q. Doe <-- your name there
To leave cyberjournal, simply send (from the account at which you're
subscribed):
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: (ignored)
---
unsub cyberjournal
Share: