The Coming Wars...what the pentagon can now do in secret...

[Makalakumu]

Here is an article that raised my eyebrows...

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”

Straight from the horses mouth...

The President’s decision enables Rumsfeld to run the operations off the books—free from legal restrictions imposed on the C.I.A. Under current law, all C.I.A. covert activities overseas must be authorized by a Presidential finding and reported to the Senate and House intelligence committees. (The laws were enacted after a series of scandals in the nineteen-seventies involving C.I.A. domestic spying and attempted assassinations of foreign leaders.) “The Pentagon doesn’t feel obligated to report any of this to Congress,” the former high-level intelligence official said. “They don’t even call it ‘covert ops’—it’s too close to the C.I.A. phrase. In their view, it’s ‘black reconnaissance.’ They’re not even going to tell the cincs”—the regional American military commanders-in-chief. (The Defense Department and the White House did not respond to requests for comment on this story.)

I'm not suprised...

In my interviews, I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran. “Everyone is saying, ‘You can’t be serious about targeting Iran. Look at Iraq,’” the former intelligence official told me. “But they say, ‘We’ve got some lessons learned—not militarily, but how we did it politically. We’re not going to rely on agency pissants.’ No loose ends, and that’s why the C.I.A. is out of there.”

"The whole notion of aggression against Iran is rediculous. Yet, all options remain on the table..." George W. Bush.

That is called doublespeak folks...

The Europeans have been urging the Bush Administration to join in these negotiations. The Administration has refused to do so. The civilian leadership in the Pentagon has argued that no diplomatic progress on the Iranian nuclear threat will take place unless there is a credible threat of military action. “The neocons say negotiations are a bad deal,” a senior official of the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.) told me. “And the only thing the Iranians understand is pressure. And that they also need to be whacked.”

The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer. Much of the focus is on the accumulation of intelligence and targeting information on Iranian nuclear, chemical, and missile sites, both declared and suspected. The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids. “The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible,” the government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon told me.

The Pentagon’s contingency plans for a broader invasion of Iran are also being updated. Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military’s war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. Updating the plan makes sense, whether or not the Administration intends to act, because the geopolitics of the region have changed dramatically in the last three years. Previously, an American invasion force would have had to enter Iran by sea, by way of the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Oman; now troops could move in on the ground, from Afghanistan or Iraq. Commando units and other assets could be introduced through new bases in the Central Asian republics.

Or from all sides.

Iran can now be invaded by enemy forces from the central Asian republics in the north, Iraq in the west, Afghanistan in the east, and amphibiously from the south.

In my interviews over the past two months, I was given a much harsher view. The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans’ negotiated approach cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act. “We’re not dealing with a set of National Security Council option papers here,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “They’ve already passed that wicket. It’s not if we’re going to do anything against Iran. They’re doing it.”

“Congress believes it voted to include all such covert activities carried out by the armed forces. The military says, ‘No, the things we’re doing are not intelligence actions under the statute but necessary military steps authorized by the President, as Commander-in-Chief, to “prepare the battlefield.”

“It’s a finesse to give power to Rumsfeld—giving him the right to act swiftly, decisively, and lethally,” the first Pentagon adviser told me. “It’s a global free-fire zone.”

“Rumsfeld will no longer have to refer anything through the government’s intelligence wringer,” the former official went on. “The intelligence system was designed to put competing agencies in competition. What’s missing will be the dynamic tension that insures everyone’s priorities—in the C.I.A., the D.O.D., the F.B.I., and even the Department of Homeland Security—are discussed. The most insidious implication of the new system is that Rumsfeld no longer has to tell people what he’s doing so they can ask, ‘Why are you doing this?’ or ‘What are your priorities?’ Now he can keep all of the mattress mice out of it.”

 

[ginshun]

Oooooo look at our evil government!!

 

[Makalakumu]

Oooooo look at our evil government!!

‘Fear & Loathing in America,’ Sept.12, 2001. Hunter S. Thompson

"The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War now -- with somebody -- and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives."

"Iraq is Act II in a Five Act play called WWIV. I expect it will last longer then the cold war." (40 years) Norman Podhoretz.

One of the saddest things I can think of is that 50% of the people in this country have absolutely no clue regarding this stuff...

 

[Makalakumu]

They already told us what was going on and few paid attention...

1. World War IV: How it started, What it Means, and Why We Have to Win.

www.commentary-magazine.com/podhoretz.htm

2. Project for a New American Century (1997) Statement of Principles.

www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

3. Project for a New American Century (2000) Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, forces and resources For a New Century.

www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

"The process of transformation even if it brings revolutionary change is likely to be along one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." (PNAC 2000, p 51)

Connect the dots...

 

[ginshun]

What point are you even trying to make?


Why don't you put something coherant together in your own words instead of just linking and quoting random stuff?

I'm not trying to be a prick, but reading your posts is like looking at a JAckson Pollock painting.

 

[Makalakumu]

What point are you even trying to make?


Why don't you put something coherant together in your own words instead of just linking and quoting random stuff?

I'm not trying to be a prick, but reading your posts is like looking at a JAckson Pollock painting.

The point is to discuss the Seymour Hersch article and compare its points with the others posted. The quotes speak for themselves just like Jackson Pollock's art.

 

[Makalakumu]

I suspect very few people have actually read the PNAC information. If one did, one would find a play by play description of the administration's foriegn policy. I've spent a lot of time reading about this and I'll try to handle it fairly...

Here are my concerns;

1. The administration has not been straitforward about this with the American people. There are all sorts of misconceptions out there about what is really going on. There have been a lot of smoke and mirrors and outright falsehoods. Why? The administration is afraid to put a radical plan like PNAC up for public comment.

2. There are large conflicts of interest regarding the outcome of this plan and the people involved in the administration. In four years, many of the people in the administration will leave public life and enter the private. They will do this knowing that they may have reshaped the middle east and made it more "business friendly". There are some pet projects that have been on hold for 20 or more years that will not be possible. Some people in the administration stand to make billions of dollars if PNAC is successful.

3. The price of failure is absolutely catastrophic. When President Bush says, "We must not fail," he is absolutely right. The US CANNOT AFFORD TO FAIL now. If Iraq erupts into a civil war and the American hating radical islamists succeed in spinning the war into one of domination (based on knowledge of the above) the entire region could emerge worse off then before and absolutely united against us. Our economy, as it stands, could almost totally be shut down if a slew of american hating middle eastern nations decided to shut off the oil. Our livelihoods and our standing in the world would forever be altered. THAT is truly what is at stake.

The Project for the New American Century is a radical plan. For the people of the middle east, if all the card fall correctly, the plan could eventually bring peace and democracy. For the people in the middle east, the plan could bring in large foriegn investments that would build up there countries and their standards of living to something of that which most of the poor in those countries only dream. And right now, it seems to be working. We've had elections in Afghanistan and Iraq and now Saudi Arabia and Egypt are talking. Lebenon and Palestine are both pushing for democratic reforms. Our military presence in both countries and our pressure on Iran is causing a buzz in the entire region. It may be to early to tell, but this buzz may be success.

Is PNAC too radical though? Should the military be used as a world constabulary force? Are the stakes to high? Could this have been accomplished differently? Can we trust people who obviously have so much to gain with the success of this plan? American lives are being lost for this now and many more will be lost before this plan is complete. Norman Podhoretz wrote that the time table for completion (the democratizaion of the entire middle east) is about 40 years. Like it or not, with PNAC we are in it for the long haul.

Thoughts???

upnorthkyosa

 

[Phoenix44]

I am familiar with PNAC. While it certainly explains a lot, I find it chilling.

I don't really see it "working" for the countries of the middle east either. Yes, Iraq has had elections, but in fact, no one's really in charge. Large parts of the country are lawless, nearly 1500 American soldiers are dead, tens of thousands of Iraq civilians are dead, terrorists are pouring into the country, and they can't get the Iraqi police force to report for duty on a regular basis. They are lacking basic services. And as far as foreign investment, well, so far that seems to mean that we install our companies to sell all the goods and services, while even IRAQI business are shut out.

Afghanistan? They've had elections, too. But the only viable business in Afghanistan is the opium trade.

Here's one principle of PNAC:
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. [/font]

Get it? That's OUR security, OUR prosperity, and OUR principles. Not international security, prosperity or principles. Not Iraqi security, prosperity, or principles. Sounds a lot like imperialism to me.

 

[Makalakumu]

I am familiar with PNAC. While it certainly explains a lot, I find it chilling.

I don't really see it "working" for the countries of the middle east either. Yes, Iraq has had elections, but in fact, no one's really in charge. Large parts of the country are lawless, nearly 1500 American soldiers are dead, tens of thousands of Iraq civilians are dead, terrorists are pouring into the country, and they can't get the Iraqi police force to report for duty on a regular basis. They are lacking basic services. And as far as foreign investment, well, so far that seems to mean that we install our companies to sell all the goods and services, while even IRAQI business are shut out.

Afghanistan? They've had elections, too. But the only viable business in Afghanistan is the opium trade.

Here's one principle of PNAC:
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. [/font]

Get it? That's OUR security, OUR prosperity, and OUR principles. Not international security, prosperity or principles. Not Iraqi security, prosperity, or principles. Sounds a lot like imperialism to me.

Right on! Check out this article...

The Project for a New American Empire
By Jeremiah Haynes
Reader Weekly

In the days following the collapse of the Soviet Union Paul Wolfowitz, an erudite underling, was ushered into the Secretary of Defense’s office for a long-planned discussion on the state of American foreign affairs. The subsequent conversation ran over its allotted time and necessitated the canceling of an appointment with the then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, who had been constructing a differing proposal. In this discussion Wolfowitz laid out the blueprints for the creation of the American empire to Dick Cheney.



After the elder Bush’s loss to Clinton, his draconian soldiers melded back into civilian life. Malcontent at the loss of power, they formed a think tank in 1997 that sought to regain an ideological foothold in the mainstream political machine. This think tank was aptly named the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). A quick perusal of the membership list leaves one with a good idea of which way the group’s political orientation sways.



Aside from George W. Bush’s brother, Jeb Bush, the list also boasts his Vice President (Dick Cheney), his Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld), his deputy Secretary of Defense (Paul Wolfowitz), his father’s Vice President (Dan Quayle), and the current Chairman of the Defense Policy Board (Richard Perle). Other than this nuclear family we find numerous powerful and influential names also gracing the publications of PNAC such as Steve Forbes, an ex-presidential candidate and head of the elite publication Forbes; William Kristol, who founded the Weekly Standard, a neo-conservative rag that has been bankrolled from the outset by Rupert Murdoch; and Zalmay Khalizad, who became Bush’s ambassador to Afghanistan after the U.S. invasion. As this is the intellectual wing of the Bush band, Yale is well represented by the Kagan family, which includes two eminent professors and a Skull & Bones Brother of W’s. These personages are simply the tip of the iceberg, as PNAC boasts a literal who’s who of neo-conservative thinkers and players.



Who could have foreseen that only nine years later a “second Pearl Harbor,” or neo-Reichstag, would usher in a Brave New World Order as Americans marched along to the tune piped by these relentless Hegelian Hawks. This cadre would envision a radical grasp for global power that would eventually restructure global politics and introduce the world to the “Bush doctrine,” which gave a paranoid country the right to preemptively strike any opponent it saw fit.



All of these jingoistic politicos congealed under the aegis of PNAC ostensibly to support “a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities” (PNAC 1997).



This declaration, however, amounts to little more than eloquent double-speak. PNAC’s goal is quite simply to retain the hegemonic Pax Americana, or “American peace,” that we achieved after the fall of the Soviet Union. Through a careful reading of their published white papers one begins to realize the magnitude and scope of these hawk’s plans, namely: a New World Order under American control ala George Orwell’s prophetic vision “1984.”



In September 2000 PNAC released an infamous “project paper” entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century. In it contributors unflinchingly laid out their modus operandi for maintaining our “arsenal of democracy.” This document is a must-read for anyone interested in the direction the Bush Administration is leading the world. In it the contributors lay out the essential functions and changes necessary for the U.S. military to retain this Pax Americana.



• Defend the American Homeland (remember, this is pre-9/11)

• “Fight and decisively win multiple simultaneous major theater wars” (code phrase for World War IV)

• “Perform the constabulary duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions” (i.e. increase our global policing powers).

• “Transform U.S. forces to exploit the ‘revolution in military affairs.’”



It seems odd that a document published a year before 9/11 would have “homeland security” as its number one military goal. Aside from a few insignificant attacks during World War II, the geography of mainland United States, and our shared border with friendly countries, has afforded us adequate protection from conventional military attacks. It makes one wonder if these warmongers knew something we did not.

In order to attain these goals the contributors implore that we must radically revamp our military, arguing that we must:



a) maintain our nuclear superiority

b) restore the personnel strength of our military to the levels of the Reagan years

c) reposition military bases from cold war strategic positions to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia (presupposing a “major theater war with China and recalcitrant Muslim regimes”)

d) selectively modernize U.S. forces

e) cancel “roadblock” programs (i.e. funding black holes)

f) develop and deploy global missile defense (Star Wars and HAARP)

g) “control the new ‘international commons’ of space and ‘cyberspace,’ and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control.”

h) exploit the “revolution in military affairs”

i) “increase defense spending gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 percent to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product”(PNAC 2000, IV)



Some of these changes seem a little more innocuous to the post-9/11 reader as “defending the homeland” has become the Orwellian chimera of 21st century America. Conversely, the sections dealing with global missile defense and controlling the new “international commons of space and cyberspace” read like a science fiction novel, concluding that NASA is a roadblock to its implementation.



That the PNAC hawks urgently pushed the U.S. invasion of Iraq will come as no surprise. Aside from wresting control of the Iraqi oil fields, the war in Iraq serves numerous strategic advantages in PNAC’s next World War. Most people don’t realize that the U.S. occupation of Iraq effectively surrounds Iran and Syria with U.S.-friendly regimes, thereby choking them off.



Now that Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya are out, two-and-a-half terrorist states remain: Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, the latter being a Syrian colony. […] As a result of the conquest of Afghanistan and Iraq, both Iran and Syria are now totally surrounded by territories unfriendly to them. Iran is encircled by Afghanistan, by the Gulf States, Iraq, and the Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union. Syria is surrounded by Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. This is a significant strategic change and it applies strong pressure on the terrorist countries. It is not surprising that Iran is so active in trying to incite a Shiite uprising in Iraq. I do not know if the American plan was actually to encircle both Iran and Syria, but that is the resulting situation. (Podhoretz 2004, pp.52-53)



In retrospect the invasion of Afghanistan can be likened to Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939 in that it signaled the beginning of Nazi Germany’s push towards empire. Seymour Hersh, a distinguished reporter from the New Yorker, recently caused a ruckus in Washington with his January 24, 2005 article in the entitled “The Coming Wars.” In the article Hersh claims to have spoken with many anonymous high-ranking Pentagon officials who informed him that the Pentagon has been “conducting secret reconnaissance mission inside Iran at least since last summer.” (Hersh 2005) The mission is ostensibly to accumulate “…intelligence and targeting information on Iranian nuclear, chemical, and missile sites…”(Hersh 2005). Hersh claims that this is simply an example of the Pentagon operating unilaterally without congressional approval or oversight under the aegis of conducting the “War on Terror.” Fittingly, Special Forces are increasingly becoming unfettered and allowed to use terrorist tactics to the extent of starting up cells in order to destabilize terrorist recruitment. According to Hersh this gives the Pentagon liberal license to strike with impunity. A senior Pentagon advisor succinctly sums up the bellicose attitude in the giant pentagram, “it’s a global free-fire zone”(Hersh 2005). Hersh captures the prevailing mood at the Pentagon:



“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”



Don’t expect the Bush administration to use the ubiquitous “weapons of mass destruction” card again, as “there’s no education in the second kick of a mule.”(Hersh 2005) In all likelihood there may be no actual war declaration or even a visible war, as 9/11 did away with those the necessity of those inconveniences.



Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this grand chessboard is the China maneuver. Rebuilding America’s Defenses repeats the monotonous mantra of repositioning our forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia in a thinly veiled attempt at reining in the rising Asian Tiger. China has been an area of the world that holds a special place in the elder Bush’s heart since he was the ambassador from 1974-1975. Many researchers claim that ambassadorships, more often then not, are simply covers for CIA station chiefs. Fittingly, Bush moved from China to head the CIA, an organization that the Skull & Bones Bush family has had an intimate relationship with since its inception (Allen Dulles, the first head of the CIA, and his brother John Foster Dulles represented the Bush junta in their trading with the Nazi’s trial).



In contemporary geopolitics the straight of Taiwan constitutes perhaps the most volatile “hotspot” on the planet. The Chinese consider Taiwan a renegade province that it promises to reign in. The United States, on the other hand, is bound by the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act to protect the democratic island. One cannot read Rebuilding America’s Defenses without being left with the foreboding feeling that this urgent repositioning of forces is simply a pretext to the dawn of the final World War. Republican policy regarding Taiwan was set out clearly in 2000:



“Our policy is based on the principle that there must be no use of force by China against Taiwan. We deny the right of Beijing to impose its rule on the free Taiwanese people. All issues regarding Taiwan's future must be resolved peacefully and must be agreeable to the people of Taiwan. If China violates these principles and attacks Taiwan, then the United States will respond appropriately in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act. America will help Taiwan defend itself”(Brookes 2003).



W has echoed this policy on numerous occasions, claiming that in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan that the United States would do “whatever it took to help Taiwan defend itself”(Brookes 2003). All eyes will certainly be on Taiwan during the 2008 Olympics as China hosts the event for the first time. If the games are held, there will either be an oppressive, tense mood underlying the event, like the 1936 games in Berlin, or jubilation at the diffusion of a ticking bomb. Given that George W. Bush will be a lame duck in a presidential election year, look for China to make a bold grasp at superpower status. If America is to retain or expand its current hegemony the PNAC cabal know that they must nip China in the bud. If the Chinese were to quash Taiwanese democracy, the blow would signal the downfall of our Pax Americana, and usher in the next World War. Given the fear/warmongering vision of PNAC, don’t plan any trips to Beijing to watch Mark Phelps make another go at the gold.



In 2000 PNAC lamented the possibility of the implementation of these aggressive changes as sort of a major catastrophe. “The process of transformation even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” (PNAC 2000, p.51) It is one of history’s most stunning “coincidences” that, less then one year after this document was published, with their puppet at the helm, America would conveniently endure another Pearl Harbor on September 11, 2001. The dust had literally not settled as these PNAC neo-conservative hawks set into motion a coup planned after the fall of the Berlin Wall and refined during the 2000 election. George W. Bush, whose grandfather managed a plant that used Auschwitz slaves during World War II, set World War III into motion using a Goebbels-inspired campaign of fear and terror.





Brookes, Peter (2003) U.S.-Taiwan Defense Relations in the Bush Administration. Heritage Lecture #808 (Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/hl808.cfm)



Hersh, Seymour (2005) The Coming Wars: What the Pentagon can now do in Secret. (New York US. New Yorker Magazine, January 24, 2005. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact)



Podhoretz, Norman. (2004) World War IV: How it Started, What it Means, and Why We Have to Win. (US, Commentary Magazine, September 2004, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm)



Project For a New American Century (1997) Statement Of Principles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)



Project For a New American Century (2000) Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)

http://www.reader-weekly.com/issue/307/Jeremiah_Haynes.html