America's War For Global Domination {MUST READ}

[Widgetsfriend]

Posted in its entirety; permission given at end of article for full posting. Excellent overview and a reminder of what it is we're fighting. Perhaps needed as this infighting seems to have reached epidemic proportions.


America's War For
Global Domination
By Michel Chossudovsky
globalresearch.ca
1-20-4


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 (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 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, 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 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" 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." 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 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 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 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 Order."


Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:.


"it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus 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, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html ).

Franks identifies the precise scenario whereby military rule will be established:


"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event 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 democracy.

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: "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 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 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 Homeland.

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 sponsors.

The fundamental question is who is behind them? Through what sources are they being financed? What is the underlying network of ties?

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 intelligence.

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 think tanks.

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, September 2003)

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 to office.

Criminalization of the State

The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are criminals.

In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda and there are war criminals in both parties. Both parties are complicit in the 9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world domination. All the evidence points to what is best described as "the criminalisation of the State", which includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan corridors of the US Congress. .

Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military, the US Congress and the Judiciary have been granted the authority not only to commit criminal acts, but also to designate those in the antiwar movement who are opposed to these criminal acts as "enemies of the State."

More generally, the US military and security apparatus endorses and supports dominant economic and financial interests - i.e. the build-up, as well as the exercise, of military might enforces "free trade". The Pentagon is an arm of Wall Street; NATO coordinates its military operations with the World Bank and the IMF's policy interventions, and vice versa. Consistently, the security and defense bodies of the Western military alliance, together with the various civilian governmental and intergovernmental bureaucracies (e.g. IMF, World Bank, WTO) share a common understanding, ideological consensus and commitment to the New World Order.

To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems like WMDs) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled. More generally we must reverse the "free market" reforms, dismantle the institutions of global capitalism and disarm financial markets.

The struggle must be broad-based and democratic encompassing all sectors of society at all levels, in all countries, uniting in a major thrust: workers, farmers, independent producers, small businesses, professionals, artists, civil servants, members of the clergy, students and intellectuals.

The antiwar and anti-globalisation movements must be integrated into a single worldwide movement. People must be united across sectors, "single issue" groups must join hands in a common and collective understanding on how the New World Order destroys and impoverishes.

The globalization of this struggle is fundamental, requiring a degree of solidarity and internationalism unprecedented in world history. This global economic system feeds on social divisiveness between and within countries. Unity of purpose and worldwide coordination among diverse groups and social movements is crucial. A major thrust is required which brings together social movements in all major regions of the world in a common pursuit and commitment to the elimination of poverty and a lasting world peace.

-
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original CRG articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text and title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca . The active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article and the author's copyright note must be clearly displayed. (For articles from other news sources, check with the original copyright holder, where applicable.) For publication of CRG articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [e-mail] .

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky 2003 For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO312A.html

[enough]

1. If all of this is true,

an election isn't going to change it.

[IrateCitizen]

3. Elections never really change much anyway

Real change comes from below, not from above. Read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present for a good demonstration of this.

The myth that elections actually produce great change is one of the biggest self-defeating canards ever hoisted upon the American mass-consciousness.

[Selwynn]

6. Boy isn't that the truth - however, it wouldn't have to be this way

The reason it is this way, is because elections really aren't popular elections that represent a broad spectrum of choice. They are instead a facade exercise - like a little show - in which the pro-life wing of the corporate party and the pro-choice wing of the corporate party have a little contest, the outcome of which matters little.

People like to say, "you don't think of Al Gore was (s)elected instead of George Bush, we'd be in better shape?" And my answer is, I believe that if Al Gore has been made present instead of Bush we would be in different bad shape. We might not be in a war with Iraq, but we'd still be pushing toward the downfall of this great society.

The real change that is so desperately needed, change for the poor, toward real education, true human rights, health care, housing, living wages for all, is not a part of the agenda of any candidate presented to us for election in election years. It's too radical.

Therefore the real change is going to begin in popular movements. What we meed are people like Dr. King in American and speaking out today. Real change begins on the ground...

[Charlls]

19. elections WILL change things

once we stablish a real election system

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=25124

[IrateCitizen]

2. My thoughts on the article...

War and Globalization go hand in hand. Militarization supports the conquest of new economic frontiers and the worldwide imposition of "free market" system.

This has even been admitted by a certain mouthpiece of the establishment, Mr. Thomas Friedman of the NYT. Friedman said, "The invisible hand of the market will not function without the hidden fist of McDonnell Douglas...."

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.

Actually, this stance goes back to the Carter administration, when it was declared that the United States will act rapidly and decisively to defend its interests in the Middle East. But it's important to note that the "multilateralist" Clinton represented not a shift, but a continuation of the previous policy. Bush, OTOH, represents the policy on both methamphetamines and steroids.

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.

It's statements like this that highlight the pure insanity of the neoconservatives. Where the US was able to maintain a certain degree of hegemony throughout the world -- especially after the fall of the USSR -- through a minimal exercise of multilateralism along with maintaining the facade of democracy at home, neither of these scenarios are acceptable for the neocons. Their greed and arrogance by reaching too far will eventually be their undermining -- the only question is how much damage they will do before it happens. Additionally, with the damage done to US reputation around the world by the neocons, there is no possible return to the half-hearted multilateralism of old. The US will eventually be forced to address the EU and Pacific Rim as equals -- if not superiors -- on the world stage.

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.)

Major miscalculation on their part, as other parts of the world either a) have much more of a free press so that they recognize blatant propaganda when they see it, or b) live under repressive regimes so that they recognize blatant propaganda when they see it. I am reminded of a story a friend told me once about visiting with students in the former USSR who was amazed at how well-informed the students were on world affairs with their only source of news being the Soviet-controlled Pravda. Their response was, "Ahhh, but you just have to know HOW to read Pravda." Similar roadblocks to the successful dissemination of propaganda throughout the rest of the world will be encountered and stop such campaigns in their tracks.

In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda and there are war criminals in both parties. Both parties are complicit in the 9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world domination. All the evidence points to what is best described as "the criminalisation of the State", which includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan corridors of the US Congress.

Overall, I believe this to be an accurate statement. But it was the Democrats and moderate Republicans who embraced the mirage of multilateralism that sustained this campaign for so many years. Now that the cabal of neoconservatives in the present Administration has pulled the veil completely off, the Democrats and moderate Republicans were faced with a choice: either go along, or turn away completely from the former patterns of US foreign policy. They chose to go along, because turning away completely would have been a much more drastic departure from their previous agenda. The thing is, even though the citizenry of the US is oblivious to this pulling back of the curtain, much of the rest of the world sees it for what it is -- and the other emerging centers of world power (the "old Europe" vanguard of the EU and the Pacific Rim countries) are realizing that they do not have to go along on this folly of a "crusade". The end results for the United States, in the long run, will be disastrous.


In closing, I like the author's optimism and commitment to at least the basis of a plan. However, I don't think that it will necessarily be the complete "dismantling" of the international structure that will cause this to happen. While parts will need to be done away with, I believe the ultimate victory simply lie in the spirit of great masses of people around the world to create a new global order -- one that is not based on wastefulness, militarism or exploitation; but rather one that is based on cooperation, compassion and nonviolence. Where I agree most with the author is the need to establish local organizations in the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands to start countering the actions of the arrogant and wicked who seek to lead us down the path of assured destruction.

All in all, a thought-producing article.

[Widgetsfriend]

4. Thanks for a thoughtful and well-reasoned reply.

It would be nice if we could get past the flaming and think carefully about what it is we need to do to stop the neocons and their ilk. While I agree that elections don't usually solve much, this election could do a lot towards solving the neocon problem.

[IrateCitizen]

5. I disagree

While I agree that elections don't usually solve much, this election could do a lot towards solving the neocon problem.

I don't necessarily believe this to be true. I happened to read an excellent article in the most recent issue of The Nation this morning on the train to work (I wish I could post it, but it's a "subscriber only" article -- I could PM it to you if you wish). The central premise of the article was that the US, from the time of Nixon through Clinton, relied on a strategy of "soft multilateralism" to further its own "interests". Up until the 1990's, the USSR helped this aim -- because it united all of Western Europe and the Pacific Rim with the US. The Clinton administration kept this going with the idea of "globalization". But, under the Bush II administration, the wheels have come completely off due to the insanity of the neocons.

Look at it this way -- if a person finds a way to embezzle funds in a general sense, they can usually get away with it so long as they don't get too wild with it. When they usually get caught is when they become greedy and overreach. US foreign policy is no different in this regard. The US was able to maintain a certain degree of global hegemony due to the lip service it paid to ideas like "multilateralism" and "democracy". But in the current realm, the neocons have overreached in their greed and arrogance. Any pretense of adherence to these concepts has been smashed into oblivion.

This also occurs at a time in which Western Europe, led by France and Germany, has emerged as a major player (particularly economically) on the world stage. The countries of the Pacific Rim (led by Japan, South Korea and China), despite their deep and long-standing differences, are starting to feel their oats and realize that they do NOT have to simply go along with the Washington consensus. Economically speaking, this realization came about in 1997 with the Asian economic crisis and the faulty advise of the IMF (which is essentially an arm of the US Treasury). The Asian country that felt the crisis the least was Malaysia, simply because they basically told the IMF to go pound salt. Japan, S. Korea and China definitely took notice. On the issue of militarism, the current state of affairs has driven a pretty deep wedge between the EU powerhouses of Germany and France, and the US.

There is no going back to "the way things were". It simply can't be done, any attempts by the US to pay simple lip service to multilateralism will be seen clearly for the ruse that it is. The US reputation throughout the world has been damaged to the point that we really have very little credibility left. A Democratic administration, in order to correct this, will have to go all the way, past the old strategies of "soft multilateralism" and to the embrace of true multilateralism. Of course, in the current climate, the neoconservatives will never allow this to happen, seeking a return to their unabated (and insane) quest for full global domination.

[icymist]

7. The cure may be just as bad as the affliction.

What a hole we all have dug for ourselves. Outside of living in a cave on some mountain somewhere, what can we do other than be dragged along while protesting? I'll have to go sleep on this one for a while.

[IrateCitizen]

8. There are lots of things we can do

But sleeping through everything is definitely NOT one of them -- as attractive as it may sound. ;-)

Start establishing those community networks out there, getting in touch with the people around you. Cut back on your consumerism and instead find a lifestyle that gives you maximum fulfillment out of each and every day (and offers the opportunity to save lots of money). Instead of spending money on every service under the sun, use your community networks to establish "bartering" of services with each other -- for example: if you can fix a car, fix your neighbor's in exchange for, say, a period of them watching your kids. Move away from agribusiness and instead become a member of a food cooperative that supports locally-grown organic produce, or start growing and canning some yourself. Live in an area where you don't have to jump in a car for every trip you have to take, but can instead ride a bicycle or walk.

Important in the article of this post is the author's suggestion of organizing community "peace groups" and the like. I'd take that a step further, and just say "community groups" like the one I tried to explain above.

Just remember, if the present order collapses, there will be the space for a new order to rise in its place. We just have to do the work to lay the groundwork for this new order NOW.

[dudeness]

16. excellent analysis..

..

[Emillereid]

15. I think it's particularly instructive to read this article together with

Arundhati's address to the World Social Forum.
See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discussduboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=31144

As you said in the end, ultimately a new global order will emerge -- unfortunately I think many millions will end up paying the ultimate price before all is said and done.

Gandhi is our guide to overthrowing the empire. Don't buy their salt, make your own. What would ultimately take the wind out of the neocon sails is the development of viable alternative energy sources. Then the rest of the world could just thumb their nose.

[Moderator]

9. Copyright rule violation

To comply with DU rules on copyright protection, please only excerpt 4 or 5 paragraphs when citing copyrighted articles published on other websites.

DU Moderator

[Widgetsfriend]

10. Okay.

Sorry, but I tried to edit the original article and couldn't...time elapsed. Do what you must.

[IrateCitizen]

11. This article is permitted cross-post in entirety -- see end (below)

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original CRG articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text and title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca . The active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article and the author's copyright note must be clearly displayed. (For articles from other news sources, check with the original copyright holder, where applicable.) For publication of CRG articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [e-mail] .

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky 2003 For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO312A.html

[Widgetsfriend]

12. Well thanks Irate...

but I went back and actually reread the posting rules and they specifically ask that we only post four paragraphs. Soooo, I goofed. The reason I posted the whole thing (other than because it was okay with the author) was because so many times, I post an article and people who respond only respond to the four paragraphs posted. That makes for some very disjointed entries and never a very good discussion. It's this soundbite society in which we live. I really did appreciate your very thoughtful replies. Sometimes I feel a desperate need to know.

[teryang]

13. Chossudovsky is brilliant

The American "war on terror" is an American "war of terror." The proximity of American/ "Al qaeda" operations in the Balkans to 911 is damning. There goes the "that was twenty years ago" refrain.

Democratic politicians are definitely involved in the coverup of 911, just as Clinton was involved in protecting CIA drug trafficking during Iran Contra and then covering it up. His inside knowledge of these activities is what prevented his removal from office by impeachment. His testimony could have put half the Washington establishment in prison for decades. Senator Graham chairman of the intel committee also spent time with the ISI paymaster of Mohommed Atta.

However, the notion that spontaneous anti war and anti globalization organizing will bring down the criminal government is naieve. Only a military defeat (or election) will bring this regime down (and virtual no one will be prosecuted for anything). It is the overwhelming costs of a failed military venture which will mobilize an anti regime movement in America. Unfortunately, for this to occur, an expansion of the war to Syria or Iran (or Korea) is required. It is my opinion that these will not occur.

The attack on Syria by Israel to which he refers was the booby prize for the attack on Iran that was really desired by neo-cons/Israel. Syria is not strategically vital to anyone but Israel. The American regime is simply not interested. An American regime change attack on Syria would effectively result in the permanent loss of Turkey from the American orbit. It would be costly and of virtually no economic benefit. The attack on Iran was not authorized because such an attack would result in a long bloody conflict which would mobilize the great Asian powers against us and eventually result in an American political and military defeat. The BFEE and the neoconservatives and their covert ops proxies would be removed from power for a generation.

[Emillereid]

14. A Must Read. Keep kicking this article --

absolutely brilliant.

[JoblessRecovery]

17. I didn't realize

Washington had adopted a policy of "preemptive" use of nuclear weapons. My God.

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)

I wonder if this phase will be escalated just before the General Election.

[Widgetsfriend]

18. Funny you should mention that.

Read this article that's posted at www.Buzzflash.com.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1074745158639&p=1008596981749

Report: Rumsfeld considers striking Hizbullah to provoke Syria

US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is considering provoking a military confrontation with Syria by attacking Hizbullah bases near the Syrian border in Lebanon, according to the authoritative London-based Jane's Intelligence Digest.

In an article to be published on Friday, the journal said multi-faceted US attacks, which would be conducted within the framework of the global war on terrorism, are likely to focus on Hizbullah bases in the Bekaa Valley of eastern Lebanon.

It noted that the deployment of US special forces in the Bekaa Valley, where most of Syria's occupation forces in Lebanon are based, would be highly inflammatory and would "almost certainly involve a confrontation with Syrian troops."

Such a conflict might well prove to be the objective of the US, said the journal, which described Washington's strategic benefits from a confrontation with Syria. These include:

Go read this!!

[PATRICK]

20. Already failed, but still forging ahead

The miracle and success that were to really springboard this crusade was a massive quick victory in Iraq(actually very much dependent on Baghdad traitors who had to wait while the military made some effort to be "prudent" in a slogging blitzkrieg upcountry). All concessions to conditions and nations, like the Kurds and Turks, the UN etc. shot holes in the seminal "miracle" that would drive the other conquests by bluff on the cheap.

Pretexts and credibility are in reality proven non-existent and worse. PNAC would have to have group prayers every morning that their indifference to real security and endless fear and provocations would create another 911 incident. PNAC itself is exposed as a bunch of hacks and crazies, none of whom any soldier would follow, none of whom inspire any confidence in planning. To put it mildly. A draft is becoming quickly inevitable and it will smoothly slide into place with a few bleats of surprise or anger if Bush steals another term.

Bush's Crusade comment may have had connection to real connections made by empire minded "conservatives", where success would awe the shocked USA and give the army purpose and morale as simple success often does. Instead the army is demoralized. We have no ring of space terror to substitute. The budget is busted and more cuts on veterans are the serpent devouring its own tail. There is no religious backing except from fringe Christians of questionable intelligence, compromised morality and lacking awareness of their role as a simple tool.

Do not broaden the blame, as miserable and dishonest and bloody-handed as the parties and American media have been. Nor let any of those privileged arbiters of society escape generic guilt themselves by broadening it out to include the nation they partly duped and fully clouded. First focus on the manipulators of our weaknesses, our homebred Milosovics, whop created this war out of nothing and plan more wars even as the gaze is averted or preoccupied with Iraq, its liberation and elections.

No more murders for the White House squatters. I think it high time, since we have no just cause for war to do what other countries did in trying to stop or slow the march. Shut it down. Block it. Boycott it. Get in their face and out of the free speech gulags. Shut down the propaganda for murder. But he's the president! So? He is not the God who he professes to believe in and betrays with substantive crimes against humanity. He has broken all contracts with us. Are we to break our solidarity with humanity and with the very soul of America? For Bush? for the tender sensitivities of power and money clinging GOPers and their pious media priesthood of deceit?

They really want the world to be cowed buy our missiles and dominance so that a brutalized, professional, extremely privatized army, can be used against us.

In shutting things down the hard thing- besides people actually doing it or wanting to!- is not to fall into their gleeful spiral trap of violence breeding repression breeding excuses cycles that they use to destroy other countries.

How many children's arms and legs do you want to amputate for Bush? How many soldiers sacrificed to emulate the armies of past despotic conquerors? How much liberty and democracy and legacy are you willing to flush down the toilet of chickendom?

The Democrats know we are not ready for any such mass revolt, nor are they qualified to lead or even contemplate one. They intend to tap the whole oppressed subconscious and channel it into a vote and quiet removal of Bushco. And let it end there so it can come back again like last time? Once again, an angry deflected minority cannot demand the cure or let anger and violence in that weird way enable the garbage to sneak back.

People are still dying. Many many more will die in the second round. But even more horrendous deaths will occur because these Armageddon warriors have no thought to better our future, no hope in alleviating calamities. Massive dying out will occur in one fashion or another to make the wars look very small affairs for all their drama.

Are we going to lazily die, besotted with senile relivings of monstrous past barbarities and outdated male dominance games? Are we going to let the absolutely worst people lead us to the abortion of this world? This happened in the past when people had no power, little education, no control over the military, no widespread communication- in brutal hopelss times. Our only excuse now is stupidity and laziness, encouraged, and nurtured almost as a patriotic right.

[reprehensor]

21. That's an eye-opener.

I'm familiar with Chossudovsky's work, but this is a nice summation of what he's all about.

There's a lot of work to be done.