lizburbank's blog

9/3/7 What Different Analyses of Global Situation Have in Common is Why They're All Wrong

CAPITALIST WAYS AND MEANS, 'VALUES', ARE NOT A MATTER OF EAST AND WEST GEOGRAPHY
Western “Values”
Lisa Karpova
It has been suggested by some haughty, arrogant westerners that Russia should adhere to or adopt "western values." What exactly are western values? Let’s take a good look. Since 1961, over eight million people from the Third World have died directly at the hands of the US military or indirectly via US-backed and funded regimes.
"They're fighting for our freedom." No crime is too unthinkable or great, it would appear, to ensure American "freedoms" and western values. The imperialists are dedicated to securing control and domination of the world’s resources and markets. All freedom loving people in the world need to struggle to defeat imperialism and give their support to all those nations and peoples who are resisting the empire and standing up to and defeating the most brutal military power in the world. Freedom loving people need to be educated and enlightened about who their enemies are: those who are sending workers to kill or be killed for this ever insatiable empire, an empire in which they have absolutely no stake, an empire which abuses and represses them and keeps them under thumb in a vacuum of deception, an empire which fails to provide for their basic needs and rights as human beings solely for the benefit and enrichment of corporate elitists.
english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/96606-westernvalues-0

"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve US and Western access to [read control of, as key to leveraging U.S. global dominance] the region's oil."
1992 U.S. "Defense Planning Guide" (Washington Post, March 11, 1992)

WELCOME THE SETBACKS AND DEFEATS OF U.S. STATE TERRORISM-- BUT DON'T CONFUSE COMPETING CAPITALIST RIVALS WITH THE REVOLUTIONARY MASS RESISTANCE OF OUR GENUINE STRATEGIC ALLIES

9/1/7: 911 'Justifying' Fascist Floodgates: National Oppression, Racism & Religion and State Terrorist Genocide

CAPITALIST-IMPERIALIST WARS FOR GLOBAL SUPREMACY GENERATE REVOLUTIONARY, JUST ANTI-IMPERIALIST WARS OF LIBERATION
“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.”
David Rockefeller in a 1994 Statement to the United Nations Business Council

“In brief, the U.S policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change...”
-Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997

"Manifest Destiny"
The United States is not... is not fighting a “war against terror.” In reality, what the United States leadership is doing, is fighting its own articulated war against the people and nations who had no animosity, nor any perceived capability to threaten the US as a global power...“ international terrorism is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services and the international media.” Remember, after the 9/11 attacks, the US official statements made no mention of involvement of the government or people of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran in the accused list of the 9/11 perpetrators. In 1997, many leading architects of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), did include the name of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, PLO as selected targets to impose the American liberal democracy. It was a strategic stunt to inject the fear into people’s mind... Emotional appeals to fear and to patriotism have led close to half of the population to accept unaccountable government in the name of “the war on terrorism.”

8/9/7 Nagasaki, Hiroshima, WW2 & "War on Terror"

On Aug. 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, that instantly killed an estimated 66,000 people in the first use of a nuclear weapon in warfare.
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/20070806.html

On Aug. 9, 1945, the United States exploded a nuclear device over Nagasaki, Japan, instantly killing an estimated 39,000 people. The explosion came three days after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Result Called Good
Foe Asserts Hiroshima Toll Is 'Uncountable' -- Assails 'Atrocity'
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/20070809.html

THE NYT IN GROTESQUE IMPERIAL FORM DESCRIBES THE JAPANESE RESPONSE TO THE HOLOCAUSTS AS 'PROPAGANDA'.
BUT ITS REPORT, ALONG WITH THE "OTHER HEADLINES" BELOW THE ARTICLE, HINT AT U.S. STRATEGIC INTERESTS: THE SOVIET UNION WAS THEN THE GREATEST OBSTACLE TO U.S. GLOBAL DOMINANCE.
Digest Commentary at the bottom of the page discusses why and how WW2 was an imperialist war for global hegemony - contrary to all the "great patriotic" "anti-fascist" mythology -- the pretext to rally support then as is the "war against terror" is designed to do .today.

Atom Bomb Loosed on Nagasaki
2d Big Aerial Blow Japanese Port Is Target in Devastating New Midday Assault
By W. H. LAWRENCE
NYT

Guam, Thursday, Aug. 9 -- Gen. Carl A. Spaatz announced today that a second atomic bomb had been dropped, this time on the city of Nagasaki, and that crew members reported "good results."

8/7/7 Bare Butt Naked: Truth You Won't Hear on TV

"Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization."
Z. Brzezinski.The Grand Chessboard, 1997

Digest commentary:
Several analyses from both neoliberal and neconservative imperialists are excerpted at length in this issue because they are laser beams slicing through the quotidian lies, mystification, obscurantism and psywar called 'news'. These 'not for mass consumption' analyses make absolutely clear what and why the U.S. agenda is, how fundamental bipartisan ruling class unity behind the U.S. agenda is hidden by the media -manipulated circus of partisan 'disunity'...fooling mostly us in the US but able to obscure reality, justify imperialist terror ,or crush resistance in most of the world. The horror and enormity of this imperial juggernaut is overwhelming. It's meant to be: Shock and awe.. stories of non-stop horror, of encroaching state -church terror, wrapped up in electoral politics propaganda to misdirect us is succeeding in suckering even genuine anti-war forces into democrat plans to continue the same global war of terror. We've been stupified into believing it's about politicians/policies, not the system they serve.

Politicians are performers and pimps whose faux partisan squabbles are magnified to maintain the illusion of real opposition, but these analyses reveal the truth these players hide: they're all on the same team.

First, an article "Reconsidering the Role of the Warrior in Our Post-Enlightenment World" by Hatem Moussa takes us inside Lee Harris' latest book The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West ,leading us to look more closely at this very influential 'philosopher' not much in public view, and a few of his 'neocon' admirers Daniel Pipes and Baron Bodissey.

8/3/7 AFRICA: U.S. Gets Darfur "peacekeepers"; Targeting Zimbabwe's Independence Struggle; Africa Fears West's Medicines

AFRICA
digest note: "AFRICOM" STRATEGY IS CRITICAL TO the U.S. GLOBAL HEGEMONY AGENDA conducted under pretexts of "anti-terrorism", "al-Qaeda" andd "humanitarian aid" : some background, followed by new developments

"The same rebellion, the same impatience, the same anger that exists in the hearts of the dark people in Africa and Asia is existing in the hearts and minds of 20 million black people in this country who have been just as thoroughly colonized as the people in Africa and Asia."
Malcolm X

"Depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World."
Henry Kissinger, National Security Memo 200, dated April 24, 1974

Internationally Paid Dogs of War in Africa
Joyce Ncube-Maccauley
New Era (Windhoek)
Pretoria, South Africa, 17/12/04
http://www.williambowles.info/africa/dogs.html
... The former director of United Nations Affairs on the National Security
Council from 2000 to 2001, Richard Wilcox, called in an article he wrote in
the New York Times on October 14, 2004, for “a top American military
commander focused solely on Africa and with significant resources at his
command”. Richard Wilcox writes in the same article, “with American
interests and military activities on the (African) continent ever
increasing, it’s time for Africa to have its own regional command”.[...]

When You Ask Ban Ki-moon a Question, You Answer to the State Department
by Cecilia Lucas / July 30th, 2007
On Thursday, I was one of a handful of activists who attended an informal conversation of 1300 people with Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon, hosted by the World Affairs Council of Northern California at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco. (Full article )

Africa: Resist the American Juggernaut
by Firoz Osman
July 03, 2003: (ZNet)

7/29/7 'Expand or Die 'Law Rules: "Axial Eurasia" & Global War for Control of "The Shifting Capital of Capital"

"Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization."
Z. Brzezinski.The Grand Chessboard, 1997

July 26, 1947, U.S. imperialist wars for global capital domination officially became 'national defense'
President Truman signed the National Security Act, creating the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/20070726.html

U.S. WEALTH & POWER INCREASED SINCE '48 ...
"We have about 60 per cent of the world's wealth but only 6.3 per
cent of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of
envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a
pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of
disparity. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury
of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about such vague
and unreal objectives as human rights, the raising of living standards and
democratisation. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in
straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic
slogans, the better."
George Kennan, ex-US State Department Policy Planning Staff Chief, Document PPS23, 24 February 1948

THE U.S. 'WAR ON TERROR', IS A GLOBAL IMPERIALIST WAR: LIKE ALL IMPERIALIST WARS, GOAL IS SECURING U.S. CAPITAL'S GLOBAL DICTATORSHIP
Digest commentary:
The U.S. strategy for global hegemony is neither new in American history nor unique to the Bushcon administration.
A brief survey of its history demonstrates the bipartisan nature of U.S. capitalism's white supremacist "manifest destiny".
It is a function of capital's basic law... "expand or die", not partisan politics. Electoral politics are a means to this end serving as a PR marketing tool for a reactionary political trap.

7/21/7 Down, Down...To a "Heroic Narrative": Militarized Society with almost "Liturgical Authority"; Religion & Politics

DIGEST COMMENTARY
The ever-deepening U.S. capitalist crisis demands an ever more draconian state to expand the war to restructure capital on a world scale under U.S. control over friends and enemies. The prize is oil/energy resources... whoever controls them controls the world, and the planet. We have only seen the beginning of this agenda. As is now clear, voting in democrats is a vote of support, an imprimatur for their imperialist promises to intensify the "war on terror" ... led by republicans only with their unstinting assistance.
The ruling U.S. finance capitalist class is bipartisan, electoral parties broaden its base and secure its control. The increasingly militarized state is getting all the fascist tools it requires from "both sides of the aisle" to pursue its agenda for global domination militarily and politically. The pivotal loss U.S. is facing in Iraq will not stop its juggernaut nor will it be "corrected" like its stock market" by bogus "terror" threats or giving its rival capitalists' crises a boost. The brief big Dow - high, mainly from [patriotic] increased buying/debt, is threatened by the continuing housing market decline produced by predatory finance capital's loans/mortgages leaving countless working class broke, deeper in debt and desperate ... fodder for the financiers and their politicians who count on state terrorist war blood-letting to expand their global capital accumulation base.

Snippets of "news" like the following, decontextualized at least, frequently disinformation, obscure the blood curdling 'big picture' spelled out below in "A Soldiering Ethos: Toward a Heroic Narrative". Read it, share it, talk about it ... decide what must be done ... because it is totally up to us, the peoples responsible for this world and the future.

Santorum Suggests New Terror Attacks Will Change View Of War
Former Senator predicts "unfortunate events within a year" that will alter perceptions

7/19/7 AN URGENT WAKE UP CALL

 
“At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is ‘not done.’ Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.”
George Orwell

digest note:
If you haven't got more than a 'gut feeling' that the ridiculous, relentless NIE psywar propaganda and 'gut feelings', signal a new heavy dose of U.S. imperialist state terror you may be brain-dead. 'al-qaeda' is a made-in-usa cipher to criminalize resistance, to justify U.S. global war of terror for global domination, and to whip up even more racist patriotic "homeland" support for historically unprecedented imperialist crimes.
[see http://www.burbankdigest.com/7/15/7 for detailed documentation]

a confession?...
"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th..."
GWB, July '07 press conference

New National intelligence report: Al-Qaida may use Iraqi network to attack homeland:
The report lays out a range of dangers - from al-Qaida to Lebanese Hezbollah to non-Muslim radical groups - that pose a "persistent and evolving threat" to the country over the next three years. http://tinyurl.com/2nt7k9

A REVOLUTIONARY'S WAKE UP CALL TO HEED
"When a cause comes along and you know in your bones it is just yet refuse to defend it--at that moment you begin to die. And I have never seen so many corpses walking around talking about justice."
Mumia Abu-Jamal

SUPPORT ALL ANTI-IMPERIALIST RESISTANCE AGAINST OUR COMMON ENEMY!

7/17/7 Bipartisan Plan Bared: Why Iraq Must Be Eliminated for U.S. World Hegemony

"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great country. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our Homeland" - Adolf Hitler (1933)

"My head also tells me that al-Qaida's a serious threat to our homeland," Bush, 7/12/7 news conference

BACKGROUND: IRAQ & ENTIRE GULF REGION IS CENTRAL TO U.S. GLOBAL GEOSTRATEGY

Excerpts From Pentagon's Plan: 'Prevent the Re-Emergence of a New Rival'
http://www.princeton.edu/~ppn/docfiles/pentagon_1992.html
NYT March 8, 1992
Following are excerpts from the Pentagon's Feb. 18 draft of the Defense Planning Guidance for the Fiscal Years 1994-1999: This Defense Planning guidance addresses the fundamentally new situation which has been created by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the disintegration of the internal as well as the external empire, and the discrediting of Communism as an ideology with global pretensions and influence. The new international environment has also been shaped by the victory of the United States and its coalition allies over Iraqi aggression -- the first post-cold-war conflict and a defining event in U.S. global leadership. In addition to these two victories, there has been a less visible one, the integration of Germany and Japan into a U.S.-led system of collective security and the creation of a democratic "zone of peace."

1996 A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
Following is the policy blueprint prepared for incoming Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu by The U.S. Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated.

1997: THE GRAND CHESSBOARD: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives
Zbigniew Brzezinski
www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/zbig.html

1997 A geostrategy for Eurasia, by Zbigniew Brzezinski
Foreign Affairs,76:5, September/October 1997 Council on Foreign Relations
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/9709brzezinski.html

1997 US Army War College: "WE HAVE ENTERED AN AGE OF CONSTANT CONFLICT'
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/97summer/peters.htm

1999 The Brookings Institution: China, Russia, Middle East, OIL & U.S. Geostrategy for Global Domination: China's Changing Oil Strategy and its Foreign Policy Implications
...the Middle East's share of China's oil imports, fluctuating roughly about 50%, could conceivably grow to 80% or more in the year 2010. Henceforth, with such a heavy dependence on the Middle East for oil, U.S. strategic domination over the entire region, including the whole lane of sea communications from the strait of Hormuz, will be perceived as the primary vulnerability of China's energy supply. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the key objective of China's oil strategy will be to avoid this strategic vulnerability.
http://www.brook.edu/fp/cnaps/papers/1999_troush.htm

Jean-François Susbielle, French author wrote a book titled Chine-USA, La Guerre Programmée claiming the USA invaded Iraq in 2003 to have power over as many major oil fields as possible so as to control China’s access to oil....China is a strategic challenge that must be contained....

''China's Distant Threat to U.S. Dominance in Asia''
http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=87

"China's Demand for Energy is Reshaping Power Structures Around the World"
Drafted by Adam Wolfe on February 25, 2004
http://www.pinr.com

China 'Frankenstein threat' to US
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/62F45F67-0096-482B-8BD0-E72D7BA9C...
5/02/07
Critics point to China's rising military power and ask who it might be aimed at. China has come in for heavy criticism from members of the US House of Representatives with one congressman labeling the country a "Frankenstein" created by the US that now threatens American interests...

The Chinese Century
By TED C. FISHMAN
July 4, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/04/magazine/04CHINA.html?th=&pagewanted=p...
China is poised for similar growth in this century. Even if China's people do not, on average, have the wealth Americans do, and even if the United States continues to play a strong economic game and to lead in technology, China will still be an ever more formidable competitor. If any country is going to supplant the U.S. in the world marketplace, China is it. ...

Opponents of China's support for Sudan joined the committee hearing [GALLO/GETTY]
Giving testimony to the committee, John Negroponte, the US deputy secretary of state, said China needed to be "more open about its military budget, doctrine, and intentions".
The motives behind China's military build-up are unclear and are of concern to both the US and China's neighbours, he said.
Negroponte is the chief adviser to Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, on China and the rest of Asia...

IRAQ: THE MEDIA WAR PLAN
A January 2003 Pentagon White Paper recommended the creation of a "Rapid Reaction Media Team" for Iraq.
White Paper and PowerPoint Briefing on "a critical interim rapid response component of the USG's strategic information campaign for Iraq - in the event hostilities are required to liberate Iraq."
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 219
Edited by Joyce Battle,
May 8, 2007

PNAC.info 1958-1991, Iraq: A Classic Case of Divide and Conquer
The CIA plotted Kassem’s assassination and U.S. generals in Turkey devised a
military plan, called “Canonbone,” to invade northern Iraq and seize its oil
http://pnac.info/index.php/2003/1958-1991-iraq-a-classic-case-of-divide-...

Arabic News Weekly Edition for Iraq, 2/9/1998
Arab diplomatic sources revealed that there is a British - US plan to divide Iraq after striking it, starting by establishing a Kurdish state...
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Weekly/Iraq/19980209.html

COHEN VISIT TO GULF: MIXED RESPONSE TOWARD U.S. POLICY ON IRAQ
March 11, 1999
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/03/wwwh9m11.htm
Amman's influential Al-Dustur: "Cohen comes with plans to divide up Iraq, while Indyk comes with plans for wasting time" in reactivating the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

2003 CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS
http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.b_PR.shtml

OIL: WMD TO LEVERAGE GLOBAL CONTROL
U.S. record of world reserves of oil and natural gas
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

Scramble to carve up Iraqi oil reserves lies behind US diplomacy
Manoeuvres shaped by horsetrading between America, Russia and France over control of untapped oilfields
Ed Vulliamy in New York, Paul Webster in Paris, and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow
Sunday October 6, 2002
The Observer
Washington's predatory interest in Iraqi oil is clear.... The US National Energy Policy Report of 2001 - known as the 'Cheney Report' after its author Vice President Dick Cheney, formerly one of America's richest and most powerful oil industry magnates - demanded a priority on easing US access to Persian Gulf supplies.
A Russian official at the United Nations in New York told the Observer last week that the $7 billion in Soviet-era debt was not the main 'economic interest' in Iraq about which the Kremlin is voicing its concerns. The main fear was a post-Saddam government would not honour extraction contracts Moscow has signed with Iraq.
US control of the Iraqi reserves, perhaps the biggest unmapped reservoir in the world, would break Saudi Arabia's hold on the oil-pricing cartel Opec, and dictate prices for the next century.

This could spell disaster for Russian oil giants, keen to expand their sales to the West. Russia has sought to prolong negotiations, official statements going between opposition to any new UN resolution and possible support for military action against an Iraqi regime proven to be developing weapons of mass destruction.
While France is thought likely to support US military action, and China will probably fall in line because of its admission to the World Trade Organisation, Putin is left holding the wild cards.

Russia recognises potential benefits of reaching a deal with the US: Saddam's regime is difficult to work with. Lukoil's billion-dollar concessions are frozen and profitless to Moscow and Baghdad under UN sanctions, leading to fears that Saddam might have declared the agreement null and void out of spite. Iraqi diplomats say Zarubezhneft won its $90bn contract only after Baghdad took it away from TotalFinaElf because of French support for sanctions.
Russia stands to profit if intervention in the Gulf triggers a hike in Middle East oil prices, as its firms are lobbying to sell millions of barrels a day to the US, at two-thirds of the current market price.
Moscow's trust of Washington may be slipping after what a Russian UN official calls 'broken promises' that followed negotiations over Moscow's support for the Afghan campaign.
Russia turned a blind eye to US troops in central Asia, on the tacit condition that US-Russian trade restrictions would be lifted. But they are still there, and other benefits expected after 11 September have also not materialised. 'They've been making this point very strongly,' a senior Bush administration official conceded to the Washington Post , 'that this can't be an all-give-and-no-get relationship... They do have a point that the growing relationship has got to be reciprocal.'

Prelude to the invasion:
After the conclusion of the Gulf War of 1991, the U.S., the UK, and the international community maintained a policy of “containment” towards Iraq. This policy involved numerous and crushing economic sanctions

In October 1998, U.S. policy began to shift away from containment and towards “regime change,” as the U.S. Congress passed and President Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act."
With the election of George W. Bush as U.S. President in 2000, the U.S. moved towards a more active policy of “regime change” in Iraq. ... former Bush treasury secretary Paul O'Neill said that an attack on Iraq was planned since the inauguration and that the first National Security Council meeting involved discussion of an invasion. O'Neill later backtracked, saying that these discussions were part of a continuation of foreign policy first put into place by the Clinton Administration.[16]

U.S. Considers Dividing Iraq Into Three Separate States After Saddam Is Gone
FORECASTS & TRENDS, Oct 1, 2002 http://www.profutures.comarticle.php/91/%20
Stratfor.com http://www.stratfor.com/ reports that one of the leading long-term strategies being considered by US war planners is to divide Iraq into three separate regions. Under this plan Iraq would cease to exist.

U.S. 2002 Pre-invasion Plan to Divide Iraq Into Three Separate States After Saddam.
by Gary D. Halbert www.profutures.com.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HAL20060...

Global Research Editor's Note:
The following text was first published in October 2002 prior to the invasion of Iraq. It suggests that dividing up Iraq along ethnic lines and redrawing national borders was part of the US foreign policy/military agenda prior to the onslaught of the war.

October 1, 2002

1. Stratfor's Latest Intelligence On Iraq.
2. Iraq Is Too Big For One New Government.
3. US Would Divide Into Three Separate States.
4. Central Iraq (Sunnis) Would Join With Jordan
5. The Shia Region Would Join With Kuwait.
6. The Kurds Get Their Own State In The North.
7. Iraq Ceases To Exist; Baghdad No Longer Capital.
8. Investment Market Implications.

A US war against Iraq appears to be only a matter of when, not if, despite the latest rumblings from a few high-level Democrats who oppose the idea. The latest Zogby poll shows that 70% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein is a legitimate threat to the safety and security of the United States, compared to 25% who believe Hussein is just another ruler whose policies are anti-American. Most Americans also have little doubt that we will win a war with Iraq handily, complete with the removal of Saddam Hussein.

But the question I have been most interested in is whether there is any group in Iraq that can successfully manage and govern that country after Saddam and his thugs are removed from power. It would be a terrible mistake for the US to clean out Saddam & Company, only to see the country fall back into the hands of tyrants, especially religious extremists who are sympathetic to al Qaeda, in another year or two.

Most observers agree that there is no one group in Iraq who could successfully govern and manage it in the post-Saddam era, given its diverse population and different religions. Given that, what are the US and our allies to do?

STRATFOR.COM released a fascinating report last Friday. Stratfor.com is one of the most respected geopolitical intelligence services in the world. Stratfor's high-level sources tell them that one of the leading long-term strategies being considered by US war planners is one that will DIVIDE Iraq into three separate regions. Under this plan Iraq would CEASE TO EXIST.

Stratfor believes the plan would divide Iraq as follows:
The central and largest part of Iraq that is populated by the Sunni Arabs would be joined with JORDAN to form one "United Hashemite Kingdom," which would be ruled by Jordan's King Abdullah. This area would include Baghdad, which would no longer be the capital.
The Kurdish region of northern and northwestern Iraq, including Mosul and the vast Kirkuk oilfields, would become its own autonomous state.
The Shia Region in southwestern Iraq, including Basra, would make up the third state, or more likely it would be joined with Kuwait.

Stratfor's sources indicate that the plan to divide (and thus eliminate) Iraq as described above is not the only plan under consideration, and it is also not finalized. However, such a plan makes a lot of sense to me.

Stratfor says that such a plan reportedly was discussed at an unusual meeting between Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan and pro-US Iraqi Sunni opposition members in London in July. Further, they say that in September, the Israeli newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, stated that the US goal in Iraq was to create a United Hashemite Kingdom that would encompass Jordan and Iraq's Sunni areas. Also, Israeli terrorism expert Ehud Sprinzak recently echoed this sentiment on Russian television on September 24.

So whose idea is this? According to Stratfor, Sprinzak stated that the authors of the "Hashemite" plan are Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, both considered the most hawkish of Bush administration officials. That is not surprising.

Why Such A Plan Might Make Sense
As noted above, the Bush administration may be considering the proposal because the current goal of replacing Saddam Hussein with a pro-US Iraqi government still would not guarantee long-term democratic stability over the territory and its oil. It may become too hard for a new government in Baghdad to effectively control the whole country, even with US troop support. An example is Afghanistan, in which the government of President Hamid Karzai still controls only the capital...

Benefits To The US
According to Stratfor's sources and the Israeli media, the richest oil areas would go not to the Hashemite kingdom but to the autonomous Kurdish region in the north. To make sure the new Kurdish state is not seen as a threat to Turkey, our ally, the US would deploy armed forces and build new military bases in the area, not only to prevent any hostilities along the border, but also to insure the free flow of oil from this area.

As a part of this plan, it is believed that the Bush administration would also negotiate new deals to build US military bases in the Hashemite kingdom and in the Shia Region to the south. This would be a huge development in the War On Terror. With US military bases in the three new states, the US would be in an ideal position should it choose in the future to go after Iran, Saudi Arabia or other states in the region that are supporting terrorism.

With Iraq divided as described above, with US aid and military assistance, and not to mention, huge oil revenues going into government coffers (as opposed to Saddam's pocketbook), this region could become very prosperous very quickly.

Benefits For Israel And Jordan
Stratfor suggests that the division of Iraq, as described above, will reap big benefits for both Israel and Jordan. Iraq, arguably Israel's most determined enemy, would be eliminated. The end of Saddam's regime would also deprive the Palestinians of much financial and other assistance, which could reduce the effectiveness of their attacks against the Jewish state.

King Abdullah of Jordan would vastly expand his role and prominence in the region with a joint Hashemite state, becoming the second-most important US ally in the region after Israel. In addition to his huge territorial gains, he also would get a chunk of Iraqi oil. And Palestinians, who currently make up half of Jordan's population, would become a minority in the new state, with much less potential to stir up trouble.

Difficult, But Not Impossible
Stratfor is quick to admit that the division plan above may not be the final strategy. Others are on the table as well. Stratfor also acknowledges that the plan will be difficult to achieve, and there are obviously some risks. Certainly, it will be difficult to get the various factions in Iraq to agree to the new arrangement. Obviously, Saudi Arabia and Iran, and perhaps others in the region, will have major heartburn over such a plan. Stratfor cautions that even Turkey could have a problem with this plan. In addition, Stratfor says:

"The plan may not be free of negative consequences for Washington, however. Iraq's Shia majority -- whose anti-Hussein opposition seems currently divided between the United States and Iran -- probably would not agree to become a part of the new kingdom. Iran may interfere by urging Iraqi Shias to join with Tehran. Washington might counter by agreeing to attach the Shia Iraqi region to Kuwait, Israeli media speculates. Turkey, despite a U.S. military presence in Kurdish areas, still might have reservations about the plan. Finally, it is unclear how Sunni tribal and other leaders inside Iraq would react."

Conclusions
As noted at the beginning, I believe a plan that involves splitting Iraq into separate entities is a very good idea. Assuming Saddam's regime is toppled, it will still be very difficult, if not impossible, for any one faction to control the entire country. If the plan includes provisions for permanent US military facilities in the new states, that will make the prosecution of the War On Terror much easier.

There are certainly arguments against a permanent US military presence in the region. Some will argue that we are setting ourselves up for another Vietnam-like conflict that could last many years. And there will be plenty of other negatives voiced if this plan is actually adopted.
Yet in the end, some type of plan that splits Iraq and eliminates Baghdad as the capital may be the best long-term solution, as Stratfor suggests.
[...].

U.S.IRAQ EXIT STRATEGY: CIVIL WAR
By Pepe Escobar
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GF10Ak03.html
The plan [to break up Iraq] allegedly conceived by David Philip, a former White House adviser working for the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC)[...]

Iraq's Partition
The U.S. will... work to dissolve the Iraqi nation and state into three independent statelets under a powerless sham national government and, of course, total U.S. control (...) As Col. Lang emphasizes, the seeds for partioning were laid when Cheney and the neocon figures around him ordered the Iraqi army to be disbanded and the de-Baathification of the Iraqi government, its total annulment. The idea of partitioning Iraq may even have been the very reason for the war. The New Middle East expression goes back to the [see above] 1996 "Clean Break" document (pdf) prepared by U.S. as a strategy for Israel's Netanyahu government. The first modern partition Iraq argument was made by Zionist strategist Oded Yinon in 1982. In A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties he recommends: In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. The now imminent, new policy of partitioning Iraq is indeed only the announcement of the result of a process that has been the plan and the policy all along. This is a real "Mission Accomplished" moment...
http://www.uruknet.org.uk/?s1=1&p=27322&s2=09

The Plan Was Always to Divide Iraq
http://www.iacenter.org/iraq-collon.htm
Michel Collon, at iacenter.org , suggests that the US plan for Iraq was to divide it up into three mini-states 'and then pit them against one another'.

Collon suggests this was also the plan for Yugoslavia.
The New York Times, 25 November 2003, refers to the plan for Iraq by Leslie Gelb of the Council of Foreign Affairs.

The objective for the USA according to Gelb:
"To put most of its money and troops where they would do the most good quickly - with the Kurds and Shiites. The United States could extricate most of its forces from the so-called Sunni Triangle, north and west of Baghdad.... American officials could then wait for the troublesome and domineering Sunnis, without oil or oil revenues, to moderate their ambitions or suffer the consequences."

In 1982, Oded Yinon, an official from the Israeli Foreign Affairs office, wrote: "To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria. In the short term, it's Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. The Iran-Iraq war tore Iraq apart and provoked its downfall. All manner of inter-Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces."

In the case of Yugoslavia, according to Michel Collon:
"Berlin, and then Washington, discreetly financed and armed racist extremists, who were nostalgic for World War II.
"This made civil war almost inevitable because the IMF and the World Bank had plunged Yugoslavia into bankrupt to make it submit to triumphant neo-liberalism after the fall of the Berlin Wall...
"All of the peoples of the former Yugoslavia have been plunged into misery and unemployment, which is worse now than it has ever been.
"Meanwhile, multinational corporations have taken the upper hand in controlling the country's wealth...

"For Gelb, the civil war in Yugoslavia was a great success for the U.S. because it permitted the breakup of a country that resisted multinationals...

"Divide in order to conquer. As always.
"The Britons carefully organized the division of Ireland, India and Pakistan as well as other places in the world.
"The influential U.S. strategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wants to divide Russia into three countries in order to isolate Moscow from oil reserves.
"The CIA also has its "own plans" to divide Saudi Arabia...

U.S. Plans to Run Iraqi Oil for A While
Published on Friday, April 11, 2003 by Reuters
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0411-09.htm
The Defense Department is considering putting in place an advisory board of former U.S. oil industry executives to help run Iraq's oil industry, the head of which is likely to be Philip Carroll, a former chief executive of Shell Oil Co., sources said.
Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday that Iraq's oil production could rise as much as 50 percent from 2002 levels by the end of the year if the country is given outside help in restoring its fields' capacity to pump crude... The country controls more than 112 billion barrels of oil, second only to Saudi Arabia in proven reserves.
Sketching out a postwar scenario now that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein appears to have lost power, Cheney, a former oil company executive, spoke of "an organization to oversee the functioning of their oil ministry."

War on Iraq: Opinion
Contributing Editor Air Marshal (Retd) AYAZ AHMED KHAN
http://www.defencejournal.com/2002/nov/war-iraq.htm
...why [is] Saddam Hussian considered a threat to US Security interests? The answer lies in Saddam Hussian’s mind set. According to Amir Taheri the celebrated Arab political analyst, Saddam Hussain’s political vision is the real threat to US and Western interests. What is Saddam’s vision? “Saddam Hussain’s vision is based on the basic assumption that there is a single Arab nation stretching from the Atlantic to the Indian ocean”. Saddam firmly believes in pan-Arabism and that is the real threat to Western interests. He is the only Arab leader capable of settling scores with Israel, for its barbarities and genocide of Palestinian Arabs. Amir Taheri states that, “At different times, history which determines the fate of nations chooses a leader with vision to assume leadership. As things stand today, it is the Iraqi part of the Arab nation that has been chosen by history to assume leadership.” American, Israeli and British intellectuals and politicians are aware that their designs for the oil in the oil rich Arab lands will be challenged if Saddam Hussian has a say in the region. This is the reason why Washington, Tel-Aviv and London want Saddam Hussian out of the way. They want to exploit the Arab oil wealth unhindered...

In an article titled “OPERATION ENDLESS DEPLOYMENT”, military analysts William D Hartung, Frida Berrigan and Michelle Ciarrocca state that, “The war on Iraq is part of the larger US plan for global dominance...
“Under the guise of fighting “terrorists and tyrants”, US military has built, upgraded and expanded military facilities in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Turkey, Bulgaria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Pentagon has authorized and expanded training missions or open ended troop deployments in Djibouti, Philippines and Georgia. Access has been negotiated to airfields in Kazakstan. The United States is engaged in major military exercises involving thousands of US military personnel in Jordan, Kuwait and India. (The writers forgot that ten thousand US military personnel are already stationed in Afghanistan). Thousands of tons of military equipment has been stock piled in Middle Eastern and Persian Gulf stations, including Israel, Jordan, Kuwait and Qatar. Discussions are underway for access to facilities in Yemen and establishing intelligence gathering installations to monitor “terrorist” activities in Sudan, and Somalia. The port of Aden is strategically located, and US Navy operations from Aden will help control of the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean. Through secretive arrangements the US has a substantial military presence of sixty thousand (60,000) troops in the Gulf, Caucus and South Asia. Twenty five thousand US troops are already poised to serve as the first wave of US invasion of Iraq. Several thousand more are on the way. The US plan clearly is for flexible military infrastructure to initiate hot wars from the Middle East, the Gulf, the Caucus and East Asia”...

Bush's Mideast Plan: Conquer and Divide
Eric Margolis
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2002/1208divide....
Toronto Sun, December 8, 2002
Arms inspections are a "hoax," said Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister, in a forthright and chilling interview with ABC News last week. "War is inevitable. Aziz is the smartest, most credible member of President Saddam Hussein's otherwise sinister regime-- my view after covering Iraq since 1976.

What the U.S. wants is not "regime change" in Iraq but rather "region change," charged Aziz. He tersely summed up the Bush administration's reasons for war against Iraq: "Oil and Israel."

Aziz's undiplomatic language underlines growing fears across the Mideast that U.S. President George Bush intends to use a manufactured war against Iraq to redraw the political map of the region, put it under permanent U.S. military control, and seize its vast oil resources.

These are not idle alarms.
Senior administration officials openly speak of invading Iran, Syria, Libya and Lebanon. Influential neo-conservative think-tanks in Washington have deployed a small army of "experts" on TV, urging the U.S. to remove governments deemed unfriendly to the U.S. and Israel.

Washington's most powerful lobbies - for oil and Israel - are urging the U.S. to seize Mideast oil and crush any regional states that might one day challenge Israel's nuclear monopoly or regional dominance.

The radical transformation of the Mideast being considered by the Bush administration is potentially the biggest political change since the notorious 1916 Sykes-Picot Treaty in which victorious Britain and France carved up the Ottoman-ruled region.

Scenarios under review at the highest levels:
--Iraq is to be placed under U.S. military rule. Iraq's leadership, notably Saddam Hussein and Aziz, will face U.S. drumhead courts martial and firing squads.

--Iraq will be broken up into three semi-autonomous regions: Kurdish north; Sunni centre; Shia south. Iraq's oil will be exploited by U.S. and British firms. Iraq will become a major customer for U.S. arms. Turkey may get a slice of northern Iraq around the Kirkuk and Mosul oil fields. U.S. forces will repress any attempts by Kurds to set up an independent state. A military dictatorship or kingdom will eventually be created.

--The swift, ruthless crushing of Iraq is expected to terrify Arab states, Palestinians and Iran into obeying U.S. political dictates.

--Independent-minded Syria will be ordered to cease support for Lebanon's Hezbollah, and allow Israel to dominate Jordan and Lebanon, or face invasion and "regime change." The U.S. will anyway undermine the ruling Ba'ath regime and young leader, Bashir Assad, replacing him with a French-based exile regime. France will get renewed influence in Syria as a consolation prize for losing out in Iraq to the Americans and Brits. Historical note: in 1949, the U.S. staged its first coup in Syria, using Gen. Husni Zai'im to overthrow a civilian government.

--Iran will be severely pressured to dismantle its nuclear and missile programs or face attack by U.S. forces. Israel's rightist Likud party, which guides much of the Bush administration's Mideast thinking, sees Iran, not demolished Iraq, as its principal foe and threat, and is pressing Washington to attack Iran once Iraq is finished off. At minimum, the U.S. will encourage an uprising against Iran's Islamic regime, replacing it with either a royalist government or one drawn from U.S.-based Iranian exiles.

--Saudi Arabia will be allowed to keep the royal family in power, but compelled to become more responsive to U.S. demands and to clamp down on its increasingly anti-American population. If this fails, the CIA is reportedly cultivating senior Saudi air force officers who could overthrow the royal family and bring in a compliant military regime like that of Gen. Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Or, partition Saudi Arabia, making the oil-rich eastern portion an American protectorate.

--The most important Arab nation, Egypt - with 40% of all Arabs - will remain a bastion of U.S. influence. The U.S. controls 50% of Egypt's food supply, 85% of its arms and spare parts, and keeps the military regime of Gen. Hosni Mubarak in power. Once leader of the Arab world, Egypt is keeping a very low profile in the Iraq crisis, meekly co-operating with American war plans.

--Jordan is a U.S.-Israeli protectorate and its royal family, the Hashemites, are being considered as possible figurehead rulers of U.S.-occupied "liberated" Iraq; more remotely, for Saudi Arabia and/or Syria.

--The Gulf Emirates and Oman, former British protectorates and now American protectorates, are already, in effect, tiny colonies.

--Libya's madcap Col. Moammar Khadafy remains on Washington's black list and is marked for extinction once bigger game is bagged. The U.S. wants Libya's high-quality oil. Britain may reassert its former influence here.

--Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, short of revolution, will remain loyal western satraps under highly repressive, French-backed royalist and military regimes.

--Yemen's former British imperial base at Aden and former French base at Djibouti will become important permanent U.S. bases.

-The White House hopes Palestinians will be cowed by Iraq's destruction, and forced to accept U.S.-Israeli plans to become a self-governing, but isolated, native reservation surrounded by Israeli forces.

The lines drawn in the Mideast by old European imperial powers are now to be redrawn by the world's newest imperial power, the United States. But as veteran soldiers know, even the best strategic plans become worthless once real fighting begins.

National Strategy for Victory in Iraq
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html
"The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected. Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more."
President George W. Bush February 26, 2003

US PLANS TO PRESERVE IRAQS OIL FOR IRAQI PEOPLE , US Department of Defense
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pden/is_200303/ai_3271024206

U.S. Plans to Run Iraqi Oil for A While
Published on Friday, April 11, 2003 by Reuters
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0411-09.htm
The Defense Department is considering putting in place an advisory board of former U.S. oil industry executives to help run Iraq's oil industry, the head of which is likely to be Philip Carroll, a former chief executive of Shell Oil Co., sources said.
Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday that Iraq's oil production could rise as much as 50 percent from 2002 levels by the end of the year if the country is given outside help in restoring its fields' capacity to pump crude... The country controls more than 112 billion barrels of oil, second only to Saudi Arabia in proven reserves.
Sketching out a postwar scenario now that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein appears to have lost power, Cheney, a former oil company executive, spoke of "an organization to oversee the functioning of their oil ministry."

3 U.S. administrators will run postwar Iraq
Pentagon taps two retired generals, ex-ambassador to Yemen
From Barbara Starr CNN
March 7, 2003
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. government will divide Iraq into three sectors for civil administration when security is established after a war, sources tell CNN... The Bush administration has selected a U.S. government official to oversee each Iraqi ministry that the U.S. plans to keep running after the war, CNN has learned.

Each official will attempt to keep his or her ministry running with Iraqi civil servants. Some changes will be made, though, the sources said:
• The Iraqi Ministry of Information, which controls the state-run media, will be disbanded and restructured with free television, radio and print elements
• Sensitive ministries such as those overseeing justice and intelligence will be overhauled
• The Special Republican Guard and Republican Guard are to be disbanded, but the plan calls for maintaining the regular army and using its manpower during reconstruction
* The plan also calls for the U.S. administration team to run a Ministry of Religious Affairs that will oversee mosques and other religious activities, the sources said.

2004 Rand study “U.S. Strategy in the Muslim World After 9/11”
By Abdus Sattar Ghazali, exec. editor American Muslim Perspective
http://www.amperspective.com/html/neo_orientalists.html
Rand study titled “U.S. Strategy in the Muslim WorldAfter 9/11” suggests exploiting Sunni, Shiite and Arab, non-Arab divides to promote the US policy objectives inthe Muslim world. [...]

The invasion and occupation of Iraq: premeditated murderous aggression
By Ghali Hassan
The U.S. plan to divide Iraq—on ethnic and religious lines—and control its wealth was prepared several years before the war. It was no secret. ...
http://www.onlinejournal.org/Special_Reports/092405Hassan/092405hassan.h...

From the big lie of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) invented in Washington and London to the big lie of Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi, the alleged Al-Qaeda mastermind, resort to deception is the art of Western powers.
Despite mounting evidence that Al-Zarqawi was killed in northern Iraq at the beginning of the war, his phantom is used to justify the ongoing atrocities in Iraq. "[Al-Zarqawi's] family, in Jordan, even held a ceremony after his death," said Jawad Al-Khalessi, a Muslim Imam in Baghdad. "Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi is thus a bogyman used by the Americans, an excuse to continue the occupation. He's simply an invention by the occupiers to divide the people," added Al-Khalessi.

The alleged presence of Al-Zarqawi has two important purposes for the U.S. Occupation: it provides a way to distort the image of the legitimate Iraqi Resistance; and it allows the occupying forces to present the war of Occupation as a war against Al-Qaeda, the created enemy. Al-Qaeda has replaced Communism...
Just before the destruction of the city of Fallujah, in which thousands of innocent men, women and children have been murdered, U.S. forces justified the assault as a necessary step to "enhance democracy" and "flush-out" Al-Zarqawi and his men. After Fallujah was destroyed, and a large number of its people were slaughtered by U.S. forces, Al-Zarqawi was not found—because he died a long time ago. Fallujah has since become the symbol of Iraqi Resistance.
During the U.S. attacks on Mosul, Ramadi and Al-Qaim, the phantom of Al-Zarqawi continues to play an important role in Western propaganda. It was reported that Al-Zarqawi had survived the assault on Fallujah and is fighting the U.S. forces on many fronts. Nothing could be further from the truth. The attacks were directed primarily against members of the Iraqi Resistance and the Iraqi population at large.

"Al-Zarqawi is nothing more than a weapon of mass deception in the hands of the US army, which enables the latter to hide its 'black propaganda' activities, used to mount the population against the [Resistance]," said Mohamed Hassan, a former Ethiopian diplomat and Middle East specialist.

The U.S. attacks on the city of Tal Afar have also been justified as a "necessary operation against Al-Zarqawi and his groups of foreign fighters." A sole journalist from the Iraqi daily Azzaman, who was the only journalist in town, refused to support the U.S. version...

We know who is waging a war of terror on the defenceless people of Iraq. It isn't Al-Qaeda or Al-Zarqawi: it is the U.S. and Britain who are terrorising the Iraqi people on a daily basis. Iraq is not the frontline of terrorism; the Iraqi people are defending themselves and their country against terrorism.
Iraqi sources argued rightly that the U.S. forces and their collaborators are behind every major sectarian killing and kidnapping in the country. The promotion of Shiite-Sunni conflict is the creation of U.S. forces. The attacks on specific religious groups, such as on Shiites, were aimed at provoking sectarian strife among Iraqis. After every large killing of civilians, the U.S. and mainstream media are deliberately blaming the Iraqi Resistance for the violence. The main aim is to distort the image of the Resistance and weaken its popular support in Iraq and abroad...
The U.S. plan to divide Iraq—on ethnic and religious lines—and control its wealth was prepared several years before the war.[...]

Iraq Resistance Threatens U.S. Plans for Middle East
http://www.geocities.com/mnsocialist/anti-war7.html
The U.S. rulers are clearly in a tighter and tighter spot. With all its political weaknesses, the Iraqi resistance is pushing them into a corner. If a political leadership emerges from it that is able to mobilize the masses of the Iraqi people and inspire the other oppressed peoples of the Middle East to combat imperialism and its local agents, the U.S. ruling class may face an explosive crisis, one that can shatter its stability at home as well as abroad....The classic recipe for political division of resistance groups is the strategy of setting up “counter gangs,” as laid out in the book “Low Intensity Operations” by British counter-insurgency expert Major General Frank Kitson. Such “counter gangs” serve as instruments for political diversion, and they can also carry out kidnappings and assassinations that the regular repressive forces would find too embarrassing.

Iraq Study Group: America ponders cutting Iraq in three
Sarah Baxter, Washington
The Sunday Times
October 8, 2006
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article664974.ece
AN independent commission set up by Congress with the approval of President George W Bush may recommend carving up Iraq into three highly autonomous regions, according to well informed sources.
The Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James Baker, the former US secretary of state, is preparing to report after next month’s congressional elections amid signs that sectarian violence and attacks on coalition forces are spiralling out of control. The conflict is claiming the lives of 100 civilians a day and bombings have reached record levels.
The Baker commission has grown increasingly interested in the idea of splitting the Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish regions of Iraq as the only alternative to what Baker calls “cutting and running” or “staying the course”.
Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations is the co-author with Senator Joseph Biden, a leading Democrat, of a plan to divide Iraq. “There was almost no support for our idea until very recently, when all the other ideas being advocated failed,” Gelb said. In Baghdad last week Rice indicated that time was running out for the Iraqi government to resolve the division of oil wealth and changes to the constitution.

The United States Institute of Peace
Download the report PDF - 519 KB
to link to the Iraq Study Group report from your Web site, http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html

Review of Other Plans for Iraq
Here is a review of some of the plans that are currently relevant to the situation. It is helpful to understand the strengths and weaknesses in each of them.
http://www.mywhitehouse.org/iraq_other_plans.html
Iraq Study Group Report (ISG report)
Joe Biden’s and Leslie Gelb’s Plan
New York Times, May 1, 2006
Plan For Iraq
www.PlanForIraq.com

Now in control, Democrats seek unified war strategy
In pushing for a bipartisan plan, they seek to avoid 'ownership' of the war.
By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
December 01, 2006
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0105/p01s02-woiq.html
WASHINGTON – After winning back control of the House and Senate largely on the basis of opposition to the war in Iraq, Democrats are ramping up to find a bipartisan way out of it.... the leading exit strategies, more troops, fewer troops, partition of Iraq, and timetables for phased or immediate withdrawal... are tied to individual sponsors... leading Democrats say that any exit strategy must be bipartisan...Democrats don't want to own a war that many believe is already beyond winning - or to be tagged with the consequences of a botched exit.
That's why the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, to be released on Dec. 6, have taken such a high profile on Capitol Hill.
In the first congressional hearings on Iraq since the elections, Senator Levin, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, renewed his call for a "phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months..."America has given the Iraqi people the opportunity to build a new nation at the cost of nearly 3,000 American lives and over 20,000 wounded. And the American people do not want our valiant troops to get caught in a crossfire between Iraqis if Iraqis insist on squandering that opportunity through civil war and sectarian strife," he said at Nov. 15 hearings...
On Nov. 14, Sen. Russ Feingold (D) of Wisconsin introduced legislation requiring US forces to redeploy from Iraq by July 1, 2007.[...]

Joe Biden for President on plan to divide the country... Direct U.S. military commanders to develop a plan to withdraw and re-deploy almost all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2007; Maintain in or near Iraq
http://www.joebiden.com/newscenter/page?id=0029

“Plan B” would divide Iraq into three semi-autonomous zones based on ...
plan for U.S. withdrawal that “reduces our military presence in Iraq ...
http://www.cnas.org/en/art/?77

Democrats Fail To Show A Clear Plan for Iraq - November 3, 2006 ...
The Democrats' pseudo-plan is the "let's divide Iraq and get out" proposal tabled by Senator Biden, who harbors presidential ...
http://www.nysun.com/article/42821

Iraq: Divide and Rule, 'Ethnic Cleansing Works': Sunni, Shia violence, death squads, and civil war in Iraq
October 10, 2006
by Enver Masud, The Wisdom Fund
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/1010-Regions.html
In a letter to President Clinton in 1998, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) -- the global domination project of the neoconservatives, which includes elements of Israel's "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" -- urged him to remove Saddam Hussein from power in order to secure "our vital interests in the Gulf" that holds "a significant portion of the world's supply of oil." This probably wouldn't happen, they said, unless "some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor" took place.

September 11, 2001 became the new Pearl Harbor.

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the Bush administration in September 2002, said: "The events of September 11, 2001, opened vast, new opportunities." But the decision to invade Iraq had been made much earlier...Thus began a campaign to deceive the world, and in particular the American people -- the high point of which was Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous presentation to the UN Security Council in February 2003 to justify the invasion of Iraq "evidence" of Iraq's possessing weapons of mass destruction conjured up by the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon.

In May 2005, the Sunday Times revealed the secret Downing Street memo: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

In June 2005, the Sunday Times revealed: "MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal."

Now a U.S. commission is about to recommend carving up Iraq as the solution to Iraq's "sectarian violence".

"Iraq's sectarian bloodshed is Made in the USA" say Erik Leaver and Raed Jarrar. Writing in Asia Times they say, "Iraq never had a history of sectarian conflicts. U.S. policy choices provided a perfect road map for starting one."

The policy choices appear to have been calculated, and deliberate.

Thomas H. Henriksen wrote in the Hoover Digest:
"From the founding of the United States, the federal government has relied on subterfuge, skullduggery, and secret operations to advance American interests. . . . The post-invasion stage in Iraq also is an interesting case study of fanning discontent among enemies, . . . Like their SOG predecessors in Vietnam, U.S. elite forces in Iraq turned to fostering infighting among their Iraqi adversaries on the tactical and operational level."

Investigative reporter and author James Bamford writes in "A Pretext for War":
"... among the things they were trained to do at Harvey Point was practice blowing up busses -- Palestinian-terrorist style. "We made a school bus disappear with about twenty pounds of U.S. C-4," said former CIA officer Robert Baer. . . . "We were also taught some of the really esoteric stuff like E-cell timers, improvising pressurized airplane bombs using a condom and aluminum foil, . . . By the end of the training, we could have taught an advanced terrorism course."

Pepe Escobar writing in Asia Times says:
"Pentagon financing of these myriad [Iraqi] militias and the active involvement of Allawi in all these operations suggest that the Pentagon itself is destabilizing the country it is supposed to control. Destination: civil war."

Robert Dreyfuss, who covers national security for Rolling Stone, says:
"Shiite death squads and about abuses by the paramilitary Badr Brigade, the secret army trained and run by Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Iraqi Sunnis and opposition leaders . . . have charged that the Iraqi government has been running assassination teams. The U.S., with its advisors, control of finances, and by the security it provides, controls the Iraqi government."

Journalist, author, film-maker, John Pilger, writing in the New Statesman says:..."in contrast to the embedded lie that the killings are now almost entirely sectarian, 70 per cent of the 1,666 bombs exploded by the resistance in July were directed against the American occupiers and 20 per cent against the puppet police force..."

So now we have this "independent commission" -- the Iraq Study Group, that wants to carve up Iraq into three regions.
The Iraq Study Group is led by co-chairs James A. Baker, III, a former Secretary of State, and Lee H. Hamilton, former Congressman. Other members of the study group include: Robert M. Gates, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Edwin Meese III , Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb, and Alan K. Simpson.
None among this group would appear to have a real appreciation for Iraq's culture and history, and the needs and aspirations of the Iraqi people. The group does have experience in covert operations, and in increasing profits for multinational corporations, and the military-industrial complex. In doing so, some have enriched themselves.

History leads us to believe that the recommendations of this "independent commission" will be designed to further the interests of their constituencies, and not of the Iraqi people.

Most of today's conflicts in present day Asia and Africa may be traced to imperial/colonial powers that occupied these lands, and carved them up for the benefit of the conquering Europeans. Carving up Iraq will continue this policy of divide and rule.

"The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing", wrote Ralph Peters in the U.S. Army War College Quarterly in the Summer 1997.
In June 2006, Ralph Peters, writing in the Armed Forces Journal:
"As for those who refuse to 'think the unthinkable,' declaring that boundaries must not change and that's that, it pays to remember that boundaries have never stopped changing through the centuries. Borders have never been static, and many frontiers, from Congo through Kosovo to the Caucasus, are changing even now (as ambassadors and special representatives avert their eyes to study the shine on their wingtips). Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works",
SOURCES [...]

Whose Bombs were They
Mike Whitney
February 23, 2006
www.uruknet.info?p=2093
"The only viable strategy, then, may be to correct (Iraq’s) historical defect and move in stages toward a three-state solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south" Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations; from "Three-state Solution" NY Times 11-25-03.

"We are facing a major conspiracy targeting Iraq’s unity." Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

[The destruction of the Samarra shrine] was a bold assault that strongly suggests the involvement of highly-trained paramilitaries conducting a well-rehearsed plan....Is the bombing of the al-Askariya Golden Mosque the final phase of a much broader strategy to inflame sectarian hatred and provoke civil war?
Clearly, many Sunnis, Iranians, and political analysts seem to believe so... the Bush administration’s own documents support the general theory that Iraq should be broken up into three separate pieces...
The final confirmation of Washington’s sinister plan was issued by Leslie Gelb, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a New York Times editorial on 11-25-03. The CFR is the ideological headquarters for America’s imperial interventions providing the meager rationale that papers-over the massive bloodletting that inevitably follow. Gelb stated:
"For decades, the United States has worshipped at the altar of a unified Iraqi state. Allowing all three communities within that false state to emerge at least as self-governing regions would be both difficult and dangerous. Washington would have to be very hard-headed and hard-hearted, to engineer this breakup. But such a course is manageable, even necessary, because it would allow us to find Iraq’s future in its denied but natural past." ...

the belief that the attack was the work of American and Israeli covert-operations (Black-ops) is widespread throughout the region as well as among leftist political-analysts in the United States. Journalist Kurt Nimmo sees the bombing as a means of realizing "a plan sketched out in Oded Yinon’s "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" (the balkanization of Arab and Muslim society and culture.) Nimmo suggests that the plan may have been carried out by "American, British or Israeli Intelligence operatives or their double-agent Arab lunatics, or crazies incited by Rumsfeld’s Proactive Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG) designed to 'stimulate’ terrorist reaction."...

...prominent analysts including, Pepe Escobar, Ghali Hassan, AK Gupta, Dahr Jamail, and Christian Parenti all agree that the Bush administration appears to be inciting civil war as part of an exit strategy. Certainly, the Pentagon is running out of options as well as time. Numerous leaked documents have confirmed that significant numbers of troops will have to be rotated out of the theatre by summer. A strategy to foment sectarian hostilities may be the last desperate attempt to divert the nearly 100 attacks per day away from coalition troops and finalize plans to divide Iraq into more manageable statlets.

The division of Iraq has been recommended in a number of documents that were prepared for the Defense Department. The Rand Corporation suggested that "Sunni, Shiite and Arab, non-Arab divides should be exploited to exploit the US policy objectives in the Muslim world." The 2004 study titled "US Strategy in the Muslim World" was "to identify key cleavages and fault-lines among sectarian, ethnic, regional, and national lines to assess how these cleavages generate challenges and opportunities for the United States" (Abdus Sattar Ghazali; thanks Liz Burbank)

This verifies that the strategy to split up Iraq has been circulating at the top levels of government from the very beginning of the occupation.
A similar report was produced by David Philip for the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) financed by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation a conservative think-tank with connections to the Bush administration and the American Enterprise Institute. According to Pepe Escobar:
"The plan would be 'sold’ under the admission that the recently elected, Shi’ite dominated Jaafari government is incapable of controlling Iraq and bringing the Sunni-Arab guerillas to the negotiating table... the plan is an exact replica of an extreme right-wing Israeli plan to balkanize Iraq—an essential part of the balkanization of the whole Middle East."

Historically Speaking: A 'Plan B' for Iraq
By Brig. Gen. John S. Brown, U.S. Army retired
07/01/2007
A benign partition of Iraq is unlikely to occur without our help. We could start by redesigning assistance to the Iraqi Army along ethnic lines, fielding units prepared to police and defend their own ethnic enclaves. We could deal with the ethnic leadership as it now exists, providing the reasonable assistance and advice... This could include aid to militias we have heretofore spurned—or even fought. Fortuitously, the ethnic leadership that has risen to the top does have some electoral legitimacy, which we should encourage. We could assist in identifying sensible zones of separation and assist in developing the defenses that will secure them...
Since the Shiites and Kurds will get far more oil than the Sunnis, targeted economic assistance would be part of the equation as well. We could remove our soldiers from the streets of Iraq and as far into inaccessible deserts and mountains as possible. Their jobs would be to train Iraqis in secure locations, foray against identifiable international terrorists and respond to requests to bring massive firepower to bear on those who violate zones of separation or international boundaries... foreigners should not be allowed to preclude the right to national self-determination within Iraq. If in 10 years oil flows and three stable Mesopotamian nations are tied to the United States by gratitude and dependency, is that not a victory of sorts?

Plan B for Iraq [Archive] - Armed Forces Journal Forums
Remember the old English rulers golden formulae of ‘divide and rule’.
The odds of Iraq surviving as a constitutional democracy with its present borders intact are down to 50/50. While it's still too soon to give up on the effort to let free elections decide the future of one Arab-majority state, 2007 will be the year in which the Iraqis themselves determine whether our continued sacrifice is justified, or if Iraq is fated to become yet another catastrophic Arab failure.
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/11/2129512

US Turnabout?
by Nicola Nasser
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17209.htm
...Rice noted her administration was just responding to a "new diplomatic initiative" by the Government of Iraq because "Prime Minister (Noori) Maliki believes and President Bush and I agree that success in Iraq requires the positive support of Iraq's neighbours." She did not miss the opportunity to remind that, "This is one of the key findings, of course of the Iraq Study Group." In fact this finding was also recommended recently by Prime Minister Tony Blair, German Chancellor Angela Merkel among other world powers, mainly Russia, and by friendly Arab states as well as the U.S. bipartisan James Baker-Lee Hamilton Iraq Study Group.

However Rice stressed that this "turnabout" was just an "additional component" to a U.S. "diplomatic offensive" aimed at cementing concrete action on the ground, including upgraded military naval presence in the Arabian Gulf ("Persian" to Iran) and a surge of 21.000 troops in Iraq, to guarantee "the security and stability of the Gulf region" and the success of the recently-launched "security plan" in Iraq. ...
The instrumental role played in Baghdad,s security plan by the pro-Iran militias who dominate the army, police and security agencies of the Iraqi government (5), could only be interpreted as using the American involvement to serve their own ends, i.e. to "clean" the Iraqi capital from both the national resistance and their sectarian foes alike. Once that is done Baghdad would be secured as their pro-Iran sectarian capital....

Iran has gained her prominent role in Iraq thanks to the U.S. Washington has adopted, financed, equipped and promoted pro-Iran militias as the alternative to the Saddam Hussein-led regime, knowing beforehand they were without exception nurtured militarily, financially and logistically by Iran and were either drawing on sectarian or ethnic divides for recruitment and support against the secular and the Pan-Arab ideology of the ruling Baath party, the only ideology other than the Islamic one that could secure a national majority consensus uniting all sects and ethnicities against foreign threats....

Ironically also Iraq,s regional role was one of the main targets of the U.S. occupation. The sectarian power struggle in Iraq in the post-Saddam era was exactly the US-sought pretext to stay in the country and use the divide as a realistic excuse to promote federalism as solution and accordingly install a weak central governing authority that depends internally more on regional federal security than on a strong national central source of authority and externally on the U.S. occupying power, which entails both a small Iraqi army and a weak federally-divided economy, thus dooming a major Arab state that was a founder of the League of Arab States and the United Nations to a minor regional role or no role at all in regional, especially Arab, politics.

Five months ahead of the invasion, Michael Eisenstadt, a senior fellow military and security expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said: "A government organized along federal lines would rely on local law enforcement for internal security, alleviating the need for a large army or security apparatus. Such changes could foster a less aggressive Iraq that is less likely to assert a leadership role in the Arab world. The United States, not Iraq, will ensure regional stability and provide a counterbalance to Iran." (6)

Like many Arab governments, Iran has converged with the U.S. strategy of containing the Iraqi regional role. Tehran maintained armed formations, such as the Badr Corps, inside Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. In 2004, the assistant commander of the Iranian Republican Guard announced, during his visit to London, that Iran has two brigades and other militia in Iraq in order to protect the national security of Iran. Tehran anticipated and welcomed the U.S. invasion since it would destroy her chief enemy in the region. Now that the Iraqi enemy has been destroyed as a state irrespective of the ruling regime, "Iraq is considered to be the first line of defense for Iran against any foreign invasion." (7)

All U.S. administrations whether Republican or Democrat have been always ready to confront the regional roles of non-Middle Eastern powers, like Russia, or of Arab and Islamic states in Middle East in two cases: When those roles are in conflict with the Israeli security prerequisites and when they could compromise the American free access to the "vital" oil interests.
Saddam Hussein and Jamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt did both. [...]
The "containment strategy" has been always a national bipartisan U.S. strategy against what she labels as "rogue" states, which do not identically fall in line with the American strategies abroad. This strategy has become dangerously destabilising worldwide after the collapse of the balancing and deterring power of the former USSR and the emergence of the United States as the world,s only super power because the military intervention has been added as a feasible risk-free addition to sanctions within the containment strategy.The United States however tolerates even military regional roles played by strategic allies like Israel and encourages political roles regionally by friendly allied Arab states, which move and act within the U.S. strategy in the Middle East.

Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Ramallah, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.

FM 3-24: America's new masterplan for Iraq
from Divide and Rule: Bush's Doomed Plan for Baghdad
by Robert Fisk, April 13, 2007
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12569

FM 3-24 comprises 220 pages of counter-insurgency planning, combat training techniques and historical analysis. The document was drawn up by Lt-Gen David Petraeus, the US commander in Baghdad, and Lt-Gen James Amos of the US Marine Corps, and was the nucleus for the new US campaign against the Iraqi insurgency. These are some of its recommendations and conclusions: ...
FM 3-24 quotes Lawrence of Arabia as saying: "Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them."
FM 3-24 points to Napoleon's failure to control occupied Spain as the result of not providing a "stable environment" for the population. His struggle, the document says, lasted nearly six years and required four times the force of 80,000 Napoleon originally designated.
Do not try to crack the hardest nut first. Do not go straight for the main insurgent stronghold. Instead, start from secure areas and work gradually outwards... Go with, not against, the grain of the local populace.

US drive in Iraq 'a lost cause'
Gulf News Report
Published: July 09, 2007
http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10138029.html
Dubai: President George W. Bush faced mounting calls yesterday to pull US troops immediately out of Iraq, where coalition troops are dying every day and where the military campaign has turned into a "lost cause" according to the New York Times....

'Plan to divide nation'
Shiite columnist Halim Al Araji said in a statement to Gulf News that Al Qaida is "the evil that everything is blamed upon" ... plans for the division "were prepared long ago".
With additional reports from Jumana Al Tamimi, GCC & Middle East Editor

Why the US has lost
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875
21 - 27 June 2007
By Abdul Ilah Albayaty and Hana Al Bayaty

The United States in Iraq is confronted by the force of a geopolitical society united for thousands of years
Resistance in Iraq is reported to be growing in size and spreading in its capacity to operate in an increasing number of provinces, blooming in further parts of the Iraqi territory. According to the US, it is by the intervention of foreign fighters. In reality, it is the revival of Iraqi nationalism and dignity. While the occupation and its lackey government continues to indiscriminately and massively incarcerate Iraqi citizens "suspected" of ties with the resistance, it seems unable to break its different expressionsarmed, political and popularor to break the sympathy it enjoys from the population. Daily, ever larger movements of opinion express their rejection of the occupation and its puppet government. Despite spending billions in war funding and propaganda, how did the American imperial plan fail in Iraq?

First of all, its failure is due to the inability of the US administration to recognise the impossibility of breaking Iraq up into smaller conflicting states. The neocon adventure and miscalculation is based on several factors, including taking their wishes as realities, their blind and sole reliance on military force to achieve their agenda, the gathering of information from some marginal and alienated Iraqi exiles, and their avoidance of studying the historical, cultural and social characteristics of the country they were about to invade and aimed to control. Prior to the invasion, and throughout these four disastrous years of occupation, the US underestimated the strength and deep-rooted character of Iraq's nationalism and culture, which was bound to face US imperialist plans with steadfast resistance, emanating from all sections of Iraqi society, including the supposed bases of their allies.

The US naively thought that it could use the richness of Iraqi society, characterised by its historic cosmopolitanism and multi-confessionalism, in the attempt to divide it along sectarian lines and in order to control the entire society. It is running after a mirage. Iraq has been for thousands of years composed of numerous ethnicities and religious confessions living in solidarity with each other regardless of their differences: the Christians, the Sabbits, the Yeziidies are equally as attached to Iraq as Muslims, and they are as Iraqi as their Muslim brothers. All Iraqis, whatever their ethnicity, religion, sect or social appurtenance, are inheritors of all successive Iraqi civilisations and their history. The values of a common life in a geographical area called Iraq or Mesopotamia unifies them. Those who know Iraq, its unifying Arab Muslim identity and its history, are aware that those who wish to divide Iraq and subjugate it to the will of foreign powers will be confronted by the force of thousands of years of a united society, in addition to the geopolitical united interests of its regions and of its social constituents. Never in history could two states cohabitate the basin that is now called Iraq. It has always been in the interest of the people settling in this basin, throughout successive civilisations, to unite in a common geopolitical future. If, in the past, the two rivers were the unifying factors of all aspects of life in this entity called Iraq, now are added the role of culture, geopolitical interests and the common ownership of the land and its riches.

It is true that in Iraq there were several political groups who opposed the leadership of the Iraqi government prior to the invasion and destruction of Iraq. They have, as all oppositions, the right to oppose their national government. But some proposed themselves as collaborators with the imperial US and allies and their criminal plan of dividing their land, either by ignorance, greed, or for personal or sectarian reasons. They will be thrown with their paymaster's plan into the rubbish of history. They ignored Iraq's ancient and complex relation to its identity and its common relations to its neighbours, as well as its contemporary experience regarding imperialist policies towards its progress and development, especially those of the United States after being subject to 13 years of US-led crippling sanctions. Unlike these sectarian groups, the population itself, regardless of its confessional, ethnical or political affiliations, as has been proven by its heroic resistance to attempts to break up and divide Iraq, was not opposed to the unity and integrity of the Iraqi state.

Iraq is the area that used to be called Mesopotamia. All Iraqis are the daughters or sons of this history and are inheritors of all the successive civilisations that emerged in this land. Where the Sumerians invented writing, the Babylonians invented law; the Assyrians unified the region, followed by the Abbasid who introduced the advance of the "state of all its citizens" and of social solidarity in society, opening the path for the unifying Arab Muslim civilisation that survives proudly to this day. Since then, being Iraqi is based not on ethnicity or religion or sect but on being Iraqi. The Iraqi people are the expression of this heritage, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. Whenever Iraq could live in peace and have a stable state it proved it could participate in the enhancement of human culture and development and created great civilisations and regional orders. Baghdad is the cradle of the Arab Muslim civilisation. Iraq's destiny continues to be one of the markers that will decide Arab destiny. For Iraqis and Arabs in general, to destroy Baghdad is in fact an attempt to destroy their memory, identity and interests.

The geopolitical characteristics of Iraq have been, and will always be, a great influence on Iraq's history. It is of no surprise that the US chose to occupy Iraq in order to try to ensure its regional and world domination. By occupying Iraq, the US thought it could control the entire region and by extension maintain its unipolar hegemony. First, Iraq is a country rich in natural resources, whether in oil, gas or water. Second, it enjoys a median geographical position in the region. This position has always made it the centre of outside ambitions. No regional power could be considered as such without attempting either to control or weaken Iraq. Indeed, Iraq is a crossroads. Its land provides the necessary route and influence for Iran to access Syria, Jordan and the Mediterranean, and for Syria and Jordan as they look towards Iran and the Arabian Gulf basin. It is also the natural path from Turkey to the Gulf, and vice versa. Consequently, while being the centre of foreign designs, the security, stability and unity of Iraq are also a necessity for all these countries. Indeed, the slightest deterioration in relations between Iraq and any of its neighbours is automatically a setback for cooperation throughout the whole region while, on the other hand, any hegemony of one neighbour over Iraq is a setback for Iraq and all its neighbours.

The only equation that serves Iraq's interests is to insist on its Arab Muslim appurtenance and maintain good and fraternal relations with both Turkey and Iran. If Iraq were to break off relations with any neighbouring state, this would reduce its own ability to benefit from its median position, and thus from regional cooperation and the development of infrastructure. It would penalise its industry and its agriculture, and cut it off from the regional trade necessary to its growth and progress. The more its neighbours flourish and progress, the more Iraq can acquire opportunities to develop by cooperating with all of them. The myth that the economic, social and political development of Turkey and Iran might constitute a danger for Iraq rests on a superficial and ignorant analysis of the relations between these states, and of the laws governing development between neighbouring countries. In fact, the more Iran and Turkey develop and the richer they become, the more they will need a stable, prosperous and unified Iraq. For such an Iraq would represent both purchasing power for their goods, and a source of production factors.

No one can extract Iraq from its geopolitical and cultural circumstance. Iraq cannot have relations with the US, Russia, Europe or Israel and ignore its concrete Arab Muslim appurtenance and interests. It is against the interest of Iraq and of Iraqis to be a mere protectorate of Iran or any other country. It is a failed dream that Iraq could be subjugated to US-Iran co-occupation. The free will of Iraq and the Iraqi people refuses and will refuse, by culture and interest, to be subjugated to any foreign state, be it regional, superpower or combined. History proved this. In fact, the US's plans to destroy Iraq as a nation and as a state are not only against the interests of all Iraqis but also those of neighbouring states. It is a delusion, a non-workable plan. It is being resisted by all sections of Iraqi society. It creates so much instability that it makes it impossible to control, invest or even exploit Iraq's resources. By opening the door to all sorts of foreign interference, the occupation could only result in an unspeakable crime against humanity and a military, economic, political and moral disaster for the occupation itself.

What the US occupation and its allies did to Iraq does not only constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity; it will always be remembered as the first genocide of the 21st century. That the world, due to the bias of international media, is currently unaware of this does not change the reality that all Iraqis and Arabs know it. In perpetrating civilisational genocide, the US has committed moral suicide. Without attempting this genocide, American plans could not succeed. While perpetrating genocide, the US announced its moral ruin, and its plans will not succeed.

In order to divide Iraq, an ancient society existing for thousands of years, into three or more weak and conflicting protectorates, the US has to destroy all that unites the Iraqis; in other words, to conduct a policy that amounts to tabula rasa. This intended destruction necessarily encompasses: the state, culture, history, material heritage, society, economic sustainability, institutions, army, education system, health system, judicial system, infrastructure, communication facilities, national identity, indeed the very essence of Iraq. It must disrupt and destroy the existence of the living people and its moral values. It must ruin them for generations, if not all of history. It even needs to destroy the physical forms of cities. The occupation has offered nothing to the Iraqi people but an organised project of extermination based on the insanity of "creative chaos".

No statistic can embody the destruction the United States brought to Iraq. It decimated the Iraqi state and an entire popular classthe progressive middle class of Iraq that had proven its capacity to manage Iraqi resources independently and to the benefit of all, thereby saving Iraqis from poverty, disease, backwardness and ignorance; it pushed civil liberties, of men and women alike, back 50 years, destroying social guarantees; it killed more than a million while sending millions more into exile; it orchestrated death squads and looting and invented new horrors in torture and rape; in the name of bringing democracy, it brought material destruction on a mass scale to a people, aiming also to efface their psyche, culture, memory, social fabric, institutions and forms of administration, commerce, and everyday life; it even attacked Iraq's unborn generations with the 4.7 billion-year death of depleted uranium. The occupation resulted in the complete breakdown of public services, leaving unavailable even those as basic as water and electricity. In a land with a natural patrimony of 210 billion barrels of oil, under occupation Iraqis suffer shortages in fuel. It created a state of terror in which families are confined to their homes, waiting to be kidnapped or killed at any moment. People are summarily executed because their father named them Omar, Hussein or Jean.

Before the invasion and destruction of Iraq, the majority of Iraqis sustained lives working in public institutions. Iraq was a welfare state based on the cultural understanding common to all in the Orient that the land and its riches is the property of the nation. Supported by the resources natural to the land, a large part of the population was employed in the education and health systems, nationalised industries, and the national army. Since the agricultural reform of 1959, followed by the nationalisations of 1964, the middle class guided state and society. Seventy per cent of the Iraqi population was living in towns. The nationalisation of the oil sector in 1971 led to the enlargement of the middle class and elevated the living standards of the poorer section of the population. The US plan of extermination was aimed at destroying this middle class that naturally is the inheritor of Iraqi culture, science, unity and dignity, striving for freedom, progress and development. It tried to subjugate it to a cabal and feudal class of new and old thieves, rapists, marginal politicians, backward religious extremists, criminal gangs, and warlords that appeared or reappeared in the situation created by the occupation.

It was evident that the US and its allies, even before the invasion were running after an illusion. Why would the Iraqi people accept and welcome a plan that would deprive them and only benefit a few? The marginalised and impoverished, the educated middle classes, the working classes, which lost the benefit of nationwide services, women and the youth, which suffers from unemployment and the absence of civil liberties, all reject US policy in Iraq. This is the source of what now and into the future will be a never-ending social struggle against the occupation and eventually its defeat, and the defeat of its policies. Without the middle class, the US cannot build a functioning state; the Iraqi middle class, all parts included, clearer and bolder, and with it the labouring classes, rejects the US occupation and its plans.

The Iraqi people are resisting and will continue to do so. If, due to its superiority in military power, the US can continue to control bases like the "Green Zone", the Iraqis are compelled to continue to live in resistance. However, in parallel, the longer the US continues to occupy Iraq, the more it will pay in the blood of its young soldiers, the more money it will waste serving the needs of its bloodied war machine, the more its image and reputation will be rubbished worldwide by its genocidal policies, and the more it will jeopardise its future and the future of its children.

Why all this waste? American strategists, while building their model for Iraq, missed or disregarded the fact that social movements are based on solid realities and lived experience, and cannot just be created on the whim of a political decision, through insidious forms of pressure or by an all-out military assault on a poor population. By thinking that they could win in Iraq, US administrators, think tanks, strategists and tacticians have only proven their simple arrogance and ignorance. They should read history, and analyze the objective realities. No foreign power was ever able to control Iraq. Iraq is a small country with great dignity, a sophisticated ancient civilisational legacy, and a very experienced national patriotic movement. The US cannot break this people's will to live free and sovereign on its land, and over its resources, as all other peoples in the world. They should have asked the British.
Abdul Ilah Albayaty is a political analyst living in France; Hana Al Bayaty is a member of the Executive Committee of the B Russell s Tribunal.

America plans to give Southern Iraq to Iran
by Abid Mustafa
Media Monitors Network
Monday, July 16, 2007
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/37434
(Sunday, November 5, 2006)
"After the fall of Saddam, America has become the chief perpetrator in fostering sectarian violence through employing military operations and promoting defunct political processes that by their very nature engender sectarian strife."

Over the past few months talk about the division of Iraq has gained currency amongst America’s political establishment. Most notable is the plan advocated by Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Biden purports to decentralise Iraq and give the country's three major sectarian groups, the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, their own regions, distributing oil revenue to all. Another US official Peter Galbraith, a former State Department employee who's advised Iraqi Kurdish leaders on political issues and is the author of “The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War without End” , said in an interview, “The country has already broken up. And actually, I'm opposed to using U.S. resources to try to put it back together again. Kurdistan in the north is already a de facto independent state. It has its own elected government. It has its own army. It flies its own flag. The Iraqi army is not allowed to go to Kurdistan. The Iraqi flag is banned there. The Shiite south is governed by the Shiite religious parties who enforce an Iranian-style Islamic law with militias. It's also not governed from Baghdad. Baghdad itself is the front line of a civil war divided between a Shiite east and a Sunni west, and the Sunni center is a battleground between the coalition and Sunni insurgents. So the country has already broken up, and this result is actually incorporated into the Iraqi constitution. The constitution creates a virtually powerless center…”...
...State James Baker who is currently the Republican co-chairman of a bipartisan panel that is reassessing Iraq strategy for President George W. Bush is critical of Biden’s plan, but is open to the prospect of dividing Iraq between Syria and Iran. In an interview to ABC News television Baker said, “I believe in talking to your enemies.”
The debate amongst America’s political establishment to partition Iraq has caused consternation amongst some Arab states who are avid supporters of the old British policy to preserve Iraq’s integrity. Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal in a speech delivered in Washington on 30/10/06 said,” To envision that you can divide Iraq into three parts is to envision ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, sectarian killing on a massive scale...
Hitherto Washington has not officially endorsed the plan to divide Iraq and give Southern Iraq to Iran, but the facts on the ground speak volumes about America’s intentions.
Since the first gulf war, America has worked tirelessly to isolate Baghdad from the Kurdish areas to the North of Iraq and Shiite dominated areas to the South of Iraq. America instigated the infamous Operation Northern Watch to enforce the no-fly zone north of the 36th parallel in Iraq and monitor Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council resolutions 678, 687, and 688. Operation Southern Watch was enforced to protect the no-fly zone south of the 33rd parallel in Iraq and monitor compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 687, 688, and 949.
After the fall of Saddam, America has become the chief perpetrator in fostering sectarian violence through employing military operations and promoting defunct political processes that by their very nature engender sectarian strife.
In the aftermath of Baath regime’s sudden collapse, America sure of Kurdish support for autonomous rule began to garner support amongst the Shias for a pseudo federalist state. To accomplish this feat, America enlisted the help of Ayatollah Sistani and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution. Both Ayatollahs’ have close ties with Iran; the only difference between the two is that the latter has 10,000 soldiers at his disposal. The Badr army as they are known is tolerated by the Americans and conduct operations under American tutelage. Hakim has aggressively pushed for federalism for the southern regions, calling for nine provinces to merge.
In October 2006, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution after a controversial vote, agreeing to revisit how to create a federalist state in 18 months. Sunni parliamentarians boycotted the vote, saying it would divide the country, and the measure passed 140-to-0 by the largely Shiite and Kurdish members still present. Shortly after the parliament vote, Hakim said in a news conference that dividing Iraq into three regions would stop the violence, citing the relatively peaceful Kurdish regions. "There is a clear point of view gleaned from our Kurdish brothers, and that is, the Iraq problem can only be solved with regions," Hakim said.
Hakim’s declaration for greater Shiite autonomy coincides with Bush’s abandonment of promoting democracy in the region, drawing Iraq—Vietnam parallels and signaling US troop withdrawal to start as early as 2007. Unsurprisingly then that Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Iraq, recently said that the unity government of Nouri al-Maliki, had only two months left to get a grip on the situation. It appears that the option of cut and run will be replaced by cut Iraq and watch Iran take southern Iraq.
But Washington has three major problems with this scheme. Firstly, Europe led by Britain has considerable influence over the various Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite factions- So any partitioning of Iraq may not result in oil rich regions falling completely under America’s hegemony. Secondly, Ahmadinejad is proving to be a real nuisance towards American policy in the region, despite US attempts to curb his ambitions through the likes of Khatami and Rafsanjani. Thirdly, the most worrisome matter for Washington— is what if the division of Iraq fails and leaves a vacuum only to be filled in by the Caliphate- something which Bush and his acolytes have profusely warned about.
Abid Mustafa contributed this article to MMN. He is based in the UK and specialises in Muslim affairs.

Sinister Plan to Divide Iraq
Hassan Tahsin
Arab View Guest Contributor
http://arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=84596&d=29&m=8&y=2006

... US wanted to guarantee the implementation of its secret scheme to divide the Arab world into small petty states that could be easily brought to obedience in order to protect the US and Israeli interests forever.

Those familiar with the American behavior in recent times could view the White House statement only as a preliminary step on the road to Iraq’s division into three states — Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish. This division would also pave the US road to Iran and Syria.

There are some naïve people who believe that Washington would not break
its promise of maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq.

It is not yet time to forget that the US intervention in Somalia threw its people to a protracted civil war until the country was split on tribal lines. Further to the north in Sudan the US has been provoking the people of southern Sudan to cut the country to two and create a Christian nation.
As the US failed in the attempt, it is now striving to exploit the Darfur issue ... and thus destabilize and debilitate Sudan.
Voices of partition between the south and north could be heard from Yemen as well. Some suggestions about a separate region for Egyptian Christians with Asyut as its capital has also been circulated.
The idea came from certain Egyptian Christians based in the US and Canada. It is hardly possible to divide Egypt. There is no single region with Christian majority in Egypt. Asyut cannot be made a capital for a Christian state as the Muslims outnumber the Christians there.

In the above-mentioned security meeting, the US mention of Iraq’s division means it is a secret design.

The linking of the president’s rejection of the idea of partition with his disapproval of the rising Iraqi death toll that reached 3,500 in July alone — apart from 1,666 explosions — means it is a warning that the violence will not stop without the partition.

The president’s disapproval of the increasing violence could be viewed as a step toward dividing the country as the only solution to the issue.

His public rejection of the idea of the partition could be dismissed as a political ploy... the US, seemingly, wants the chaos to deepen so that a situation would emerge in which everybody would clamor that “Iraq should
be divided if peace is to be achieved.”

In such a situation the world would accept the US proposal of the Iraqi partition. It would also signal the beginning of the implementation of the US scheme to divide other large Muslim countries...

Iraqis reject the US military presence in their country. They also reject the US plans including the imposition of a spurious American democracy.
The Iraqi resistance ... is being undertaken jointly by the Sunnis and Shiites because their goal is one: Oppose the occupying forces and their supporters... leave Iraq to Iraqis letting them decide their future.

Brownback's pushes plan formulated with Leslie Gelb, former head of the private Council on Foreign Relations, to divide Iraq into Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish states...part of an unlikely Senate duo that's promoting the plan to partition Iraq with Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware...Peter Galbraith, former U.S. ambassador to Croatia who's advised the Kurds, also backs the plan. ...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003696515_brownback07...

====

PAKISTAN

Lal Masjid: What really happened?
by Abid Ullah Jan
(Sunday, July 15, 2007)
"Musharraf wanted to diffuse the multi-parties conference in London [a meeting of dozens of Pakistani politicians]. Before that he was using Lal Mosque to distract [from] the judicial crisis."

The so-called Lal Masjid operation is officially over but it leaves the military regime and Pakistan in a major security, political, moral and religious crisis. Based on the available information, we can clearly see as to what really happened. Following are the bare minimum facts that can be accommodated in a short article. It is, however, not difficult to dig the associated facts and prepare a legal case against the culprits of this bloody adventure.
The pro-regime analysts claim that all the damning information that exposes the regime is fantastic and damning allegations, facts mixed with fantasy to create dramatic PR affects. They want to make the public believe that the following are mere perceptions and have nothing to do with the reality:
That there are over 1000 casualties of students, mostly women and children and the government have removed the bodies for secret burials.
There were no weapons in the complex and the governments have planted them after the operation.
There were no terrorists or foreign fighters inside the complex and the government is only using this excuse to build its cases.
The operation has been carried out on the orders of US by General Musharraf to please West to seek a re-election for next five years.

Abid Ullah Jan is the author of seven books on international affairs, including: “The Ultimate Tragedy: Colonialists Rushing to Global War to Save the Crumbling Empire,”“Afghansitan: The Genesis of the Final Crusade,”“The Musharraf Factor: Leading Pakistan to its inevitable demise,”“From BCCI to ISI: The Saga of Entrapment Continues” and “After Fascism: Muslims and the Struggle for Self-Determination.” He is a regular contributor to Media Monitors Network (MMN) from Canada.

====

Israel planning to assassinate Haniyeh, Nazareth-based paper says
Ma'an News
An Arabic-language newspaper published in Nazareth, in northern Israel, reported on Friday that the Israeli cabinet has approved plans to assassinate Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of the Hamas movement. According to the paper's Israeli sources, the Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, has also approved the decision. The As-Sennara newspaper added that sources "close to the Israeli decision-makers" affirmed that the Israeli security bodies have drawn up plans to "eliminate" Haniyeh. According to the Nazareth-based paper, the Israeli security bodies have handed over these plans to Barak, who, in turn, has agreed from a preliminary point of view to the plans...
http://www.uruknet.de/?p=34471

PUPPET'S LAST DANCE CHANCE
Maliki Says His Forces Are Able to Secure Iraq
Prime Minister al-Maliki declared Saturday Iraqi forces could secure the country on their own "any time" American troops decided to withdraw.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/world/middleeast/15iraq.html?th&emc=th

CHINA WON'T PLAY: U.S ONLY MAY BAN/BOYCOTT/CRIMINALIZE
China Blocks Some Imports of U.S. Chicken and Pork
China suspending imports of some chicken and pork [AGAIN] after inspectors found shipments from 8 major meat indutry producers contaminated with chemicals or bacteria. Officials at Tyson Foods in Springdale, Ark., the world’s largest meat producer, could not be reached for comment early Saturday. A spokesman for Cargill, which is based in Minneapolis, was also unavailable for comment.
Beijing officials suggested that the international news media and American regulators are exaggerating or misleading the public about the quality and safety of some Chinese imports....:The country should not be put on trial because of the problems of a particular company.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/business/worldbusiness/15china.html?th...

ONE MASTER CHURCH
New Vatican document affirms centrality of Catholic Church
Christ "established here on earth" only one Church and instituted it as a "visible and spiritual community"5, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.6 "This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him"7.
home/vpr/web/docs-released/news_services/bulletin/news/20581.php

Deal Reported in Abuse Cases in Los Angeles
If approved, a settlement of $660 million will be by far the largest payout by any single Roman Catholic diocese in scandals over sexual abuse.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/us/15abuse.html?th&emc=th

Russia Suspends Arms Agreement Over U.S. Shield
Russia said it would suspend its obligations under a cold war-era arms control treaty over a missile shield plan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/world/europe/15russia.html?th&emc=th

7/15/7 Not a 'Gut Feeling': Detailed Documentation: "al-Qaeda" a WMD of Bipartisan Global Domination Strategy

Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.
Frederick Douglass

KNOW YOUR FRIENDS & ENEMIES:
'OUR' STATE TERRORIST IMPERIALIST-ZIONIST ENEMY HAS MADE IT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR: ALL RESISTANCE TO IT IS "TERRORISM". ' WE' ARE THE ENEMY : "IF YOU ARE NOT WITH US, YOU ARE WITH THE TERRORISTS" ... AND 'WE' ARE DEFEATING THE PEOPLES' ENEMY IN IRAQ. STAND WITH RESISTANCE EVERYWHERE!

CIA Said Instability [SIC] Seemed 'Irreversible'
  "The government is unable to govern," Hayden concluded. "We have spent a lot of energy and treasure creating a government... and it cannot function."
http://tinyurl.com/ytaynq

"Terrorists" Thriving in Iraq, Senior Military Official Says:
 While the military has maintained that al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, by any number of measures the terror group and its affiliates are as strong as ever, and June was the most violent month since the start of the war, a senior U.S. military official told ABC News.
http://tinyurl.com/ysa7ft
 
 

Insurgents [SIC] in Iraq same as 9/11 attackers:
 Bush, defending his troop surge in Iraq, insisted Thursday that the insurgents attacking US troops in Iraq "are the same ones who attacked us on Sept. 11." http://tinyurl.com/ysjo2g
 

Iraq police colluded in Kerbala attack:
  U.S. Army investigation concluded Iraqi police assisted insurgents in assault in the Shi'ite holy city of Kerbala in January that killed five U.S. soldiers, USA Today reported
http://tinyurl.com/2x9bme
 

Philippine army recovers beheaded bodies
 "Muslim insurgents" ambushed a Philippine marine convoy searching for a kidnapped Italian priest and killed at least 14 troops, beheading at least 10 of them, a military spokesman said Wednesday.
http://tinyurl.com/yp2hve

Al Qaeda': they get around
'Al Qaeda' in Iraq... 'Al Qaeda' in Somalia... 'Al Qaeda' in Afghanistan... 'Al Qaeda' in Europe... 'Al Qaeda' in London... 'Al Qaeda' in Indonesia...
'Al Qaeda' in China... 'Al Qaeda' in Palestine... they have some extremely cool technology: sonic departiculifiers, teleporters, and transporter beams supplied by the Enterprise to project themselves across hugely disparate political matrices, uploading their virtual selves into the bodies of local militants like Agent Smith, insinuating themselves effortlessly into the most complex conflicts. Why stop at Palestine? Surely it must be obvious that they are responsible for every other planetary problem as well ... invaded Iraq, overthrew Allende, occupied the Philippines, rigged the 2000 elections, created the Contras, fought on both sides of the Opium Wars... Lenin's Tomb leninology.blogspot.com/2007/07/al-qaeda-they-get-around.html

DETAILED DOCUMENTATION OF THE BIPARTISAN USE OF MADE-IN-USA "AL-QAEDA" TO ACHIEVE U.S. HISTORICAL BIPARTISAN GLOBAL DOMINATION :

The Central Role of Al Qaeda in National Security Doctrine:
How "Revealing the Lies" on 9/11 Perpetuates the "Big Lie"
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, July 12, 2007
Text of Michel Chossudovsky's keynote presentation at the opening plenary session (27 May 2004) to The International Citizens Inquiry Into 9/11, Toronto, 25-30 May 2004. (First published by Global Research, 27 May 2004

"Revealing the lies" of Bush officials regarding these "intelligence warnings" has served to uphold Al Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an "outside enemy", which threatens the security of America, when in fact Al Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus....

9/11 is the justification.
According to Homeland Security "the near-term attacks will either rival or exceed the 9/11 attacks"...would lead to the suspension of civilian government and the establishment of martial law. In the words of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge: "If we go to Red [code alert]... it basically shuts down the country," "You ask, 'Is it serious?' Yes, you bet your life. People don't do that unless it's a serious situation." (Donald Rumsfeld). 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 the criminals.

Revealing a lie does not necessarily lead to establishing the truth.
In fact the experience of the 9/11 Commission which has a mandate to investigate the September 11 attacks has proved exactly the opposite.... the Bush administration had numerous "intelligence warnings"...which confirmed that terrorists had the capacity of hijacking aircrafts and using them to target buildings. Attorney General John Ashcroft had apparently been warned in August 2001 by the FBI to avoid commercial airlines, but this information was not made public. (See Eric Smith at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SMI402A.html )
The Pentagon had conducted a full fledged exercise on an airplane crashing into the Pentagon.(See http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RYA404A.html )
We also know that senior Bush officials including Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice lied under oath to the 9/11 commission, when they stated that they had no information or forewarning of impending terrorist attacks.

But we also know, from carefully documented research that:
*There were stand-down orders on 9/11. The US Air force did not intervene. see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ELS305A.html , Szamuely at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SZA112A.html )
*There was a cover-up of the WTC and Pentagon investigation. The WTC rubble was confiscated. (See Bill Manning at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAN309A.html
*The plane debris at the Pentagon disappeared. (See Thierry Meyssan, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MEY204C.html )
*Massive financial gains were made as a result of 9/11, from insider trading leading up to 9/11 (See Michael Ruppert, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP110A.html)
*There is an ongoing financial scam underlying the 7.1 billion dollar insurance claim by the WTC leaseholder, following the collapse of the twin towers (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO403B.html
*Mystery surrounds WTC building 7, which collapsed (or was "pulled" down in the afternoon of 9/11 mysteriously (For details see WTC-7: (Scott Loughrey at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html ).

The unfolding consensus "They knew but failed to act":
The White House is being accused by the critics of "criminal negligence", for having casually disregarded the intelligence presented to president Bush and his national security team, and for not having acted to prevent the 9/11 terrorist attack. This line of reasoning is appealing to many 9/11 critics and "Bush bashers" because it clearly places the blame on the Bush administration.

Yet in a bitter irony, the very process of revealing these lies and expressing public outrage has contributed to reinforcing the 9/11 cover-up. "Revealing the lies" serves to present Al Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an "outside enemy", which threatens the security of America, when in fact Al Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus...

Meanwhile, the history of Al Qaeda and the CIA has been shoved to the background. The fact that successive US governments since the Soviet-Afghan war have supported and abetted the Islamic terror network is no longer mentioned, for obvious reasons. It would break the consensus regarding Al Qaeda as the outside enemy of America, which is a crucial building block of the entire National Security doctrine.

This central proposition that Islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11 serves to justify everything else including the Patriot Act, the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, the spiraling defense and homeland security budgets, the detention of thousands of people of Muslim faith on trumped up charges, the arrest and deportation to Guantanamo of alleged "enemy combatants", etc.

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.

No Al Qaeda, No war on terrorism, No rogue States which sponsor Al Qaeda, No pretext for waging war, No justification for invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, No justification for sending in US special forces into numerous countries around the World, No justification for developing tactical nuclear weapons to be used in conventional war theaters against Islamic terrorists, who according to official statements constitute a nuclear threat. (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html).

"The Pentagon must prepare for all possible contingencies, especially now, when dozens of countries, and some terrorist groups, are engaged in secret weapon development programs." (quoted in William Arkin, Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable, Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002)

Central Role of al Qaeda in US Military Doctrine
Al Qaeda constitutes the justification for a pre-emptive war against rogue states and terrorist organizations. It is part of the indoctrination of US troops fighting in the Middle East. It is also being used to justify the so-called "abuse" of POWs.

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."
(National Security Strategy, White House, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html )

To justify pre-emptive military actions, including the use of nuclear weapons in conventional war theaters (approved by the Senate in late 2003), 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."... it also means that the various "massive casualty-producing events" allegedly by Al Qaeda (the fabricated enemy) are also part of the propaganda ploy which consists in upholding the Legend of an outside enemy.

9/11 and War Propaganda
In other words, the forewarnings sustain the Al Qaeda legend, which constitutes the cornerstone of the "war on terrorism". And the latter serves as a justification for America's "pre-emptive wars" with a view to "protecting the homeland".

One year before 9/11, the Project for a New American Century (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. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html )...

The PNAC's declared objective is "Defend the Homeland'' and "Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars", perform global constabulary funcitons including punitive military actions around the World, and the so-called "revolution in military affairs", essentially meaning the development of a new range of sophisticated weaponry including the militarisation of outer space,the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons, etc. (nuclear weapons see http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html; on PNAC, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html )

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 Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:.

"…it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, 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). (See Brzezinski at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.print.html )

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 [will occur] somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." (Ibid)...

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.

Actual Terrorist Attacks
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 «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.... 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. (See below in relation to the Balkans)

Foreknowledge is a Red Herring
Foreknowledge implies and requires the existence of this "outside enemy", who is attacking America. Amply documented, the Islamic brigades and Al Qaeda including the madrassas and the CIA sponsored training camps in Afghanistan are a creation of the CIA. The Taliban were "graduates" of the madrassas, which formed a Us sponsored government in 1996.

During the Cold War, but also in its aftermath, the CIA using Pakistan's Military Intelligence apparatus as a go-between played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam.

Every single US administration since Jimmy Carter has consistently supported the so-called "Militant Islamic Base", including Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, as part of their foreign policy agenda... the Democrats and the Republicans have worked hand in glove....

Media Reports on 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.

In other words, the focus on foreknowledge has served to usefully distract attention from the US government's longstanding relationship to the terror network since the Soviet-Afghan war, which inevitably raises the broader issue of treason and war crimes. The foreknowledge issue in a sense erases the historical record because it denies a relationship between Al Qaeda and successive US administrations.

The administration is accused of not acting upon these terrorist warnings...
Richard Clarke who was in charge of counter terrorism on the National Security Council until February 2003 "apologized" to the American people and the families of the victims. Had they acted in a responsible fashion, had they taken the intelligence briefings seriously, 3000 lives would have been saved on September 11, 2001. But bear in mind that Richard Clarke was part of an intelligence team which was at the time providing support to Al Qaeda in the Balkans. (See below)
This anti-Bush consensus concerning the 9/11 attacks has engulfed part of the 9/11 truth movement. The outright lies in sworn testimony to the 9/11 Commission have been denounced in chorus; the families of the victims have expressed their indignation. The debate centers on whether the administration is responsible for an "intelligence failure" or whether it was the result of "incompetence."In both cases, the al Qaeda legend remains unchallenged. The fact that Al Qaeda hijackers were responsible for 9/11 remains unchallenged.

Source of Terrorist Warnings
...nobody questioned the source of these warnings emanating from an intelligence apparatus, which is known to have supported Al Qaeda throughout the entire post cold War era. In other words, are the terrorist warnings emanating out of the CIA a "true" representation of the terrorist threat or are they part of the process of disinformation which seeks precisely to uphold Al Qaeda as an "Enemy of the Homeland".

Meanwhile, the issues of "cover-up and complicity" at the highest levels of the Bush administration, which were raised in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks have been shoved out... (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html

"The Saudis Did It"
What the media, as well as some of the key 9/11 investigators are pushing is that "The Saudis did it". The outside enemy Al Qaeda is said to be supported by supported by the Saudis. This line of analysis, which characterizes the 1 trillion dollar law suit by the families of the victims led by Lawyer Ted Motley, is evidently flawed. While it highlights the business ties between the Bushes and the bin Ladens, in does not challenge the legend of the outside enemy.
"The Saudis did it" is also part of the US foreign policy agenda, to be eventually used to discredit the Saudi monarchy and destabilize the Saudi financiers, who oversee 25 percent of the World's oil reserves, ten times those of the US. in fact, this process has already begun with the Saudi privatization program, which seeks to transfer Saudi wealth and assets into foreign (Anglo-American) hands. The Saudi financiers were never prime movers. They were [U.S.] proxies. They played a subordinate role. They worked closely with US intelligence and their American financial counterparts. They were involved in the laundering of drug money working closely with the CIA. Thew Wahabbi sects from Saudi Arabia were sent to Afghanistan to set up the madrassas. The Saudis channeled covert financing to the various Islamic insurgencies on behalf of the CIA... the "Saudis did It" consensus essentially contributes to whitewashing the Bush administration, while also providing pretext to destabilize Saudi Arabia.

"The Bush Lied" Consensus upholds "The Big Lie"
This emerging 9/11 consensus ("Outside enemy", intelligence failures, criminal negligence, "the Saudis did it", etc.) which is making its way into American history books, is "they knew, but failed to act". It was incompetence or criminal negligence but it was not treason. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were "just wars", they were undertaken in accordance with the National Security doctrine, which views Al Qaeda as the outside enemy. It is worth noting that at the outset of the war on Afghanistan, a number of prominent Western intellectuals, trade union and civil society leaders supported the "Just War" concept. While the Bush administration takes the blame, the "war on terrorism" and its humanitarian mandate remain functionally intact... everybody has their eyes riveted on the fact that Bush officials lied under oath regarding the terrorist warnings.... the key question:

What is the significance of these warnings emanating from the intelligence apparatus, knowing that the CIA is the creator of Al Qaeda and that Al Qaeda is an "intelligence asset"... the CIA is the sponsor of Al Qaeda and at the same time controls the warnings on impending terrorist attacks....

The Legend of the "Outside Enemy"
The 1993 WTC bombing was heralded by the Bush Administration as one of the earlier Al Qaeda attacks on the Homeland. Since 9/11, the 1993 WTC bombing has become part of "the 9/11 legend" which describes Al Qaeda as "an outside enemy."

In the words of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (April 2004) in sworn testimony at the 9/11 Commission:

"The terrorist threat to our Nation did not emerge on September 11th, 2001. Long before that day, radical, freedom-hating terrorists declared war on America and on the civilized world. The attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985, the rise of al-Qaida and the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the attacks on American installations in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, the East Africa embassy bombings of 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, these and other atrocities were part of a sustained, systematic campaign to spread devastation and chaos and to murder innocent Americans." (complete transcript of her testimony at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC404A.html )

Evidence of US-Al Qaeda collaboration from official sources which confirms unequivocally that Al Qaeda was a US sponsored "intelligence asset" during the entire post Cold War era.

1993-1994 POST COLD WAR ERA: Clinton Administration collaborates with Al Qaeda
At the time of the 1993 WTC bombing, the Clinton Administration and al Qaeda were actively collaborating in joint military operations in Bosnia, as confirmed by an official congressional report emanating from the Republican Party. The Clinton Administration's "hands-on" involvement with the Islamic network's arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials. The Militant Islamic Network (page 5): Along with the weapons, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and VEVAK intelligence operatives entered Bosnia in large numbers, along with thousands of mujahedin ("holy warriors") from across the Muslim world. Also engaged in the effort were several other Muslim countries (including Brunei, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Turkey) and a number of radical Muslim organizations. For example, the role of one Sudan-based "humanitarian organization," called the Third World Relief Agency, has been well documented. The Clinton Administration's "hands-on" involvement with the Islamic network's arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials (...)

In short, the Clinton Administration's policy of facilitating the delivery of arms to the Bosnian Muslims made it the de facto partner of an ongoing international network of governments and organizations pursuing their own agenda in Bosnia...For example, one such group about which details have come to light is the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization which has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia. ["How Bosnia's Muslims Dodged Arms Embargo: Relief Agency Brokered Aid From Nations, Radical Groups," Washington Post, 9/22/96; see also "Saudis Funded Weapons For Bosnia, Official Says: $ 300 Million Program Had U.S. 'Stealth Cooperation'," Washington Post, 2/2/96] TWA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Binladen, a wealthy Saudi emigre believed to bankroll numerous militant groups. [WP, 9/22/96]

Clinton Administration supported the "Militant Islamic Base", Senate Press Release, US Congress, 16 January 1997, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html [original Senate Document http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm]

The alleged terrorist Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman was sentenced as the mastermind behind the 1993 WTC bombings and subsequently convicted to life imprisonment... the same individual Omar Abdul Rahman was identified in the 1997 Report of the Republican Party Policy Committee of the US Senate (see above) as collaborating with Clinton officials in bringing in weapons and Mujahideen into Bosnia. In other words, the Republican party confirms that Omar Abdul Rahman and Al Qaeda were US sponsored "intelligence assets".
When Bill Clinton, appeared before the 9/11 Commission (April 2004), was he questioned on his links to the terror network, including the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing? No. We can conclude: A Clinton-Osama-Abdel Rahman Triangle. The Foreknowledge issue falls flat on its face. What we are dealing with is "Treason" and Cover-up" on the history of the Clinton Administration's links to the alleged "Outside Enemy".

1995-1999 NATO AND THE US MILITARY COLLABORATED WITH AL QAEDA IN KOSOVO
We provide below several statements from Congressional records which point to US support to the terror network in Kosovo (1995-1999) and which amply refute the existence of an "Outside Enemy"

Frank Ciluffo of the Globalized Organized Crime Program in a testimony presented to the House of Representatives Judicial Committee:
What was largely hidden from public view was the fact that the KLA raise part of their funds from the sale of narcotics. Albania and Kosovo lie at the heart of the Balkan Route that links the "Golden Crescent" of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the drug markets of Europe. This route is worth an estimated $400 billion a year and handles 80 per cent of heroin destined for Europe. (U.S. Congress, Testimony of Frank J. Cilluffo, Deputy Director of the Global Organized Crime Program, to the House Judiciary Committee, Washington DC, 13 December 2000)

Ralf Mutschke of Interpol's Criminal Intelligence division, also in a testimony to the House Judicial Committee:
The U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Osama bin Laden. Another link to bin Laden is the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Jihad organization and also a military commander of Osama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict. (U.S. Congress, House Judicial Committee, Washington DC, 13 December 2000)

Rep. John Kasich of the House Armed Services Committee: "We connected ourselves [in 1998-99] with the KLA, which was the staging point for bin Laden." (U.S. Congress, Transcripts of the House Armed Services Committee, Washington, DC, 5 October 1999)

In 1999, Senator Jo Lieberman stated authoritatively that "Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values."... he knew that the KLA was supported by Osama bin Laden.

What can we conclude from these and other statements? The transcripts from Congressional documents refute the existence of the "outside enemy". Al Qaeda (our "intelligence asset") supported and continues to support the KLA. The Clinton administration supported the KLA. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright coveted KLA leaders Hashim Thaci. Military Professional Resources (MPRI), a mercenary company on contract to the Pentagon was involved in the training the KLA. The KLA was also trained by US and British Special Forces. But the KLA was also trained by Al Qaeda. The US collaborated in training a terrorist organization which has with links to al Qaeda, the drug trade and organized crime.

The Bush Administration has followed in the footsteps of the Clinton administration. The KLA is supported by the US military, while also being backed by Al Qaeda.

2000-2001: 8/01 THE ISLAMIC MILITANT NETWORK, NATO AND THE US MILITARY JOIN HANDS IN MACEDONIA
Barely a few weeks before 9/11, in August 2001, senior U.S. military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on contract to the Pentagon (MPRI), were advising the self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA) of Macedonia. Mujahideen detached by Al Qaeda from the Middle East and Central Asia were fighting in a paramilitary army, which was also supported by the US military and NATO. The NLA is a proxy of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In turn, the KLA and the UN-sponsored Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC) are identical institutions with the same commanders and military personnel. KPC Commanders on UN salaries are fighting in the NLA together with the Mujahideen....while supported and financed by Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, the KLA-NLA is also supported by NATO and the United Nations mission to Kosovo (UNMIK). In fact, the Islamic Militant Network also using Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) as the CIA's go-between still constitutes an integral part of Washington=s covert military-intelligence operations in Macedonia and Southern Serbia.

The KLA-NLA terrorists are funded from U.S. military aid, the United Nations peace-keeping budget, as well as by several Islamic organizations including Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Drug money is also being used to finance the terrorists with the complicity of the U.S. government. The recruitment of Mujahideen to fight in the ranks of the NLA in Macedonia is implemented through various Islamic groups.
U.S. military advisers mingle with the Mujahideen within the same paramilitary force; Western mercenaries from NATO countries fight alongside the Mujahideen recruited in the Middle East and Central Asia. And the U.S. media calls this a >blowback= where so-called "intelligence assets" have gone against their sponsors!... It happened in Macedonia in the months leading up to 9/11. And it is confirmed by numerous press reports, eyewitness accounts, photographic evidence as well as official statements by the Macedonian Prime Minister, who has accused the Western military alliance of supporting the terrorists. Moreover, the official Macedonian News Agency (MIA) has pointed to the complicity between Washington's envoy Ambassador James Pardew and the NLA terrorists. In other words, the so-called "intelligence assets" were still serving the interests of their U.S. sponsors.

8/06 PRESIDENTIAL INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING (PDB)
The August 6 2001 intelligence briefing (PDB) prepared for President George W. Bush was entitled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US".
PDBs are prepared at CIA headquarters at Langley and are presented to President Bush on a daily basis in the form of an oral briefing by CIA Director George Tenet. Below are selected excerpts from the PDB. The complete text of the August 6, 2001 PDB can be consulted at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WHI404A.html

The presumption in media reports is that this August 6 PDB is based on an actual terror threat. In fact, what the PTB does is to fabricate a terror threat. Below are few selected excerpts.
"Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US."
[This statement is disinformation. During that period the US was collaborating with Al Qaeda in the Balkans, see above]

"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (redacted portion) ... service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Shaykh” ’Umar ’Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
[Does the CIA Director inform the president that a proxy organization of Sheik Abdu Rahman was actually collaborating with US military inspectors in Bosnia as confirmed by the 1997 Republican Party Committee report.]

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.
[Does the CIA Director advise the president that Osama bin Laden was in the UAE in July of that year receiving treatment for a kidney condition at the American Hospital in Dubai and that the American hospital has close links to the US embassy (See the report published in Le Figaro, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html )]

8/27-8/30 2001 MISSION TO ISLAMABAD AND RAWALPINDI FOR INTELLIGENCE CONSULTATIONS
From the 27th to the 30th of August 2001, barely a couple of weeks before 9/11, the chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees, respectively Senator Bob Graham and Representative Porter Goss together with Senator Jon Kyl, were in Islamabad for "consultations". Meetings were held with President Musharraf and with Pakistan's military and intelligence brass including the head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) General Mahmoud Ahmad. (see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html

An AFP report confirms that the US Congressional delegation also met the Afghan ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef. At this meeting, which was barely mentioned by the US media, "Zaeef assured the US delegation [on behalf of the Afghan government] that the Taliban would never allow bin Laden to use Afghanistan to launch attacks on the US or any other country." (Agence France Presse (AFP), 28 August 2001.)

The September FBI Report
An FBI report released to ABC news in late September 2001, which was subsequently confirmed by a Times of India report, suggests that Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI), headed by General Mahmoud Ahmad, played a key role in transferring money to the 9/11 hijackers.
General Mahmoud Ahmad had allegedly ordered the transfer of $100.000 to the alleged 9/11 ring-leader Mohamed Atta. (See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization, The Truth behind 9/11, http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html )

As to September 11th, federal authorities have told ABC News they have now tracked more than $100,000 from banks in Pakistan, to two banks in Florida, to accounts held by suspected hijack ring leader Mohammed Atta. As well, this morning, Time magazine is reporting that some of that money came in the days just before the attack and can be traced directly to people connected to Osama bin Laden. It's all part of what has been a successful FBI effort so far to close in on the hijacker=s high commander, the money men, the planners and the mastermind.21

Note the sequencing of these meetings. Bob Graham and Porter Goss were in Islamabad in late August 2001, meeting General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money man" behind 9/11. The meetings with President Musharraf and the Afghan Ambassador were on the 27th of August, the mission was still in Islamabad on the 30th of August.

9/ 4- 9/13 HEAD OF PAKISTAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE (ISI) ARRIVES IN WASHINGTON ON SEPTEMBER 4, DEPARTS ON SEPTEMBER 13
General Mahmoud Ahmad arrived in Washington on an official visit of consultations barely a few days later (September 4th). During his visit to Washington he met his counterpart CIA director George Tenet and high ranking officials of the Bush administration including Richard Armitage and Colin Powell. At the US congress, the General meets up with Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee (13 Sept), Senator Bob Graham and Representative Porter Goss. Graham and Goss, the men who hosted the general will alter be called upon to set up the Joint Senate-House Inquiry on 9/11.

9/9 THE ASSASSINATION OF THE LEADER OF THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE AHMAD SHAH MASSOOD
The leader of the Northern Alliance Commander Ahmad Shah Masood was mortally wounded in a kamikaze assassination on September 9, 2001. It happened two days before the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. Masood later died from wounds suffered in the suicide attack on the Saturday (9/15) following 9/11.

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the killing of Ahmad Shah Masood was barely mentioned. The broad media consensus was that the two events (9/9 and 9/11) were totally unrelated. Yet the Northern Alliance had informed the Bush administration through an official communiqué that Pakistan's ISI was allegedly implicated in the assassination:
"A Pakistani ISI-Osama-Taliban axis [was responsible for] plotting the assassination by two Arab suicide bombers.. 'We believe that this is a triangle between Osama bin Laden, ISI, which is the intelligence section of the Pakistani army, and the Taliban'" (The Northern Alliance's statement was released on 14 September 2001, quoted in Reuters, 15 September 2001)

'Pakistan's ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), the Taliban and Osama bin Laden appear to be behind this plot.'" (AFP, 10 September 2001)

In other words, there is reason to believe that the 9/9 and 9/11 are not isolated and unrelated events.
According to official statements and reports, the ISI was allegedly implicated in both events: the September 9, 2001 assassination of Shah Masood and the financing of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Both these events directly implicate senior officials in the Bush administration.
While the US media tacitly acknowledges the role of Pakistan's ISI in the assassination of Shah Masood, it fails to dwell upon the more substantive issue: How come the head of the ISI was in Washington, on an official visit, meeting Bush administration officials on the very same day Masood was assassinated?
Had Masood not been assassinated, the Bush administration would not have been able to install their political puppet Hamid Karzai in Kaboul.

9/10 OSAMA IN HOSPITAL ONE DAY BEFORE THE ATTACKS ON THE WTC
Don Rumsfeld states that the whereabouts of Osama are unknown. Yet, according to Dan Rather, CBS, Bin Laden was back in Hospital, one day before the 9/11 attacks, on September 10, this time, courtesy of America's indefectible ally Pakistan. Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) told CBS that bin Laden had received dialysis treatment in Rawalpindi, at Pak Army's headquarters:
[transcript of CBS report, see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CBS203A.html ,
see also http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml ]

It should be noted, that the hospital is directly under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani Armed Forces, which has close links to the Pentagon. U.S. military advisers based in Rawalpindi. work closely with the Pakistani Armed Forces. Again, no attempt was made to arrest America's best known fugitive, but then maybe bin Laden was serving another "better purpose". Rumsfeld claimed at the time that he had no knowledge regarding Osama's health. (see CBS transcript above)....
the CBS report is a crucial piece of information in the 9/11 jigsaw. It refutes the administration's claim that the whereabouts of bin Laden are unknown. It points to a Pakistan connection, it suggests a cover-up at the highest levels of the Bush administration. Dan Rather and Barry Petersen fail to draw the implications of their January 2002 report. They fail to beg the question: where was Osama on 9/11? If they are to stand by their report, the conclusion is obvious: The administration is lying regarding the whereabouts of Osama. If the CBS report is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the Pakistani military hospital on September 10, courtesy of America's ally, he could still be in hospital in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, when the attacks occurred. In all probability, his whereabouts were known to US officials on the morning of September 12, when Secretary of State Colin Powell initiated negotiations with Pakistan, with a view to arresting and extraditing bin Laden.

These negotiations, led by General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's military intelligence, on behalf of the government of President Pervez Musharraf, took place on the 12th and 13th of September in Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's office. The general also met Colin Powell in discussions at the State Department on the 13th.

9/11 THE FOLLOW-UP BREAKFAST MEETING ON CAPITOL HILL WITH GENERAL MAHMOUD AHMAD
On the morning of September 11, the three lawmakers Bob Graham, Porter Goss and Jon Kyl (who were part of the Congressional delegation to Pakistan) were having breakfast on Capitol Hill with General Ahmad, the alleged "money-man" behind the 9-11 hijackers. Also present at this meeting were Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S. Maleeha Lodhi and several members of the Senate and House Intelligence committees were also present. This meeting was described by one press report as a "follow-up meeting" to that held in Pakistan in late August. (see above) "On 8/30, Senate Intelligence Committee chair Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) 'was on a mission to learn more about terrorism.' (…) On 9/11, Graham was back in DC 'in a follow-up meeting with' Pakistan intelligence agency chief Mahmud Ahmed and House Intelligence Committee chair Porter Goss (R-FL)" 3 (The Hotline, 1 October 2002):

While trivializing the importance of the 9/11 breakfast meeting, The Miami Herald (16 September 2001) confirms that General Ahmad also met Secretary of State Colin Powell in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Again the political significance of the personal relationship between General Mahmoud (the alleged "money man" behind 9/11) and Secretary of State Colin Powell is casually dismissed. According to The Miami Herald, the high level meeting between the two men was not planned in advance. It took place on the spur of the moment because of the shut down of air traffic, which prevented General Mahmoud from flying back home to Islamabad on a commercial flight, when in all probability the General and his delegation were traveling on a chartered government plane. With the exception of the Florida press (and Salon.com, 14 September), not a word was mentioned in the US media's September coverage of 9-11 concerning this mysterious breakfast reunion.
Eight months later on the 18th of May, two days after the "BUSH KNEW" headline hit the tabloids, the Washington Post published an article on Porter Goss, entitled: "A Cloak But No Dagger; An Ex-Spy Says He Seeks Solutions, Not Scapegoats for 9/11". Focusing on his career as a CIA agent, the article largely served to underscore the integrity and commitment of Porter Goss to waging a "war on terrorism". Yet in an isolated paragraph, the article acknowledges the mysterious 9/11 breakfast meeting with ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, while also confirming that "Ahmad :ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban":
While the Washington Post scores in on the "notoriously close" links between General Ahmad and Osama bin Laden, it fails to dwell on the more important question: what were Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham and other members of the Senate and House intelligence committees doing together with the alleged 9/11 "money-man" at breakfast on the morning of 9/11. In other words, the Washington Post report does not go one inch further in begging the real question: Was this mysterious breakfast venue a "political lapse", an intelligence failure or something far more serious? How come the very same individuals (Goss and Graham) who had developed a personal rapport with General Ahmad, had been entrusted under the joint committee inquiry "to reveal the truth on 9-11."
The media trivialises the breakfast meeting, it presents it as a simple fait divers and fails to "put two and two together". Neither does it acknowledge the fact, amply documented, that "the money-man" behind the hijackers had been entrusted by the Pakistani government to discuss the precise terms of Pakistan's "collaboration" in the "war on terrorism" in meetings held behind closed doors at the State department on the 12th and 13th of September. 11 7(See Michel Chossudovsky, op cit)

9/12-9/13 THE AFTERMATH, THE ALLEGED MONEYMAN MEETS COLIN POWELL AND RICHARD ARMITAGE
Bear in mind that the purpose of his meeting at the State Department on the 13th was only made public after the September 11 terrorist attacks when the Bush administration took the decision to formally seek the cooperation of Pakistan in its "campaign against international terrorism." despite the links of Pakistan's ISI to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban and its alleged role in the assassination of Commander Massoud. 2 days before 9/11.

Meanwhile, the Western media in the face of mounting evidence had remained silent on the insidious role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence agency (ISI). The assassination of Massoud was mentioned, but its political significance in relation to September 11 and the subsequent decision to go to war against Afghanistan was barely touched upon. Without discussion or debate, Pakistan was heralded as a friend and an ally of America. In an utterly twisted logic, the U.S. media concluded in chorus that:
U.S. officials had sought cooperation from Pakistan [precisely] because it is the original backer of the Taliban, the hard-line Islamic leadership of Afghanistan accused by Washington of harboring bin Laden. 9

The Bush Administration had not only provided red carpet treatment to the alleged "money man" behind the 9-11 attacks, it also had sought his ‘cooperation' in the "war on terrorism". The precise terms of this ‘cooperation' were agreed upon between General Mahmoud Ahmad, representing the Pakistani government and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, in meetings at the State Department on September 12 and 13. In other words, the Administration decided in the immediate wake of 9-11, to seek the ‘cooperation' of Pakistan's ISI in "going after Osama", despite the fact (documented by the FBI) that the ISI was financing and abetting the 9-11 terrorists. Contradictory? One might say that it's like "asking Al Capone to help in going after organized crime"

9/11 [HISTORICAL] Timeline

1. AL QAEDA IS BORN, THE COLD WAR ERA
1979, LARGEST COVERT OPERATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE CIA LAUNCHED IN AFGHANISTAN, CREATING THE ISLAMIC BRIGADES TO FIGHT IN THE SOVIET AFGHAN-WAR. AL QAEDA IS BORN

1985, PRESIDENT REAGAN SIGNED NATIONAL SECURITY DECISION DIRECTIVE 166 AUTHORIZING STEPPED UP COVERT MILITARY AID TO THE MUJAHIDEEN

1989- END OF THE SOVIET-AFGHAN WAR, END OF THE COLD WAR, STEPPED UP COVERT OPERATIONS IN THE (FORMER) SOVIET UNION AND THE BALKANS

1996 THE TALIBAN FORM A GOVERNMENT WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE US

2. POST COLD WAR SUPPORT TO AL QAEDA IN THE BALKANS
1991 BEGINNING OF CIVIL WAR IN YUGOSLAVIA

1993-1994 CLINTON ADMINISTRATION COLLABORATES WITH AL QAEDA IN BOSNIA

1995-1999. NATO AND THE US MILITARY COLLABORATE WITH AL QAEDA IN KOSOVO

2000-2001. THE ISLAMIC MILITANT NETWORK, NATO, THE US MILITARY AND THE UNITED NATIONS MISSION IN KOSOVO JOIN HANDS IN MACEDONIA IN SUPPORTING THE NLA

3. [SHORT] TIMELINE (JULY- SEPTEMBER 2001
7/01 JULY 2001: OSAMA BIN LADEN IN THE AMERICAN HOSPITAL IN DUBAI, UAE

8/06 THE AUGUST 6, 2001 THE PRESIDENTIAL INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING (PDB)

8/27-8/30 2001 AUGUST 27-30 MISSION OF SENATOR BOB GRAHAM AND REP PORTER GOSS TO ISLAMABAD AND RAWALPINDI FOR INTELLIGENCE CONSULTATIONS WITH PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF AND ISI CHIEF GENERAL MAHMOUD AHMAD

9/ 4- 9/13: HEAD OF PAKISTAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE (ISI) ARRIVES IN WASHINGTON ON AN OFFICIAL VISIT. ARRIVES ON SEPTEMBER 4, DEPARTS ON SEPTEMBER 13

9/9: THE ASSASSINATION OF THE LEADER OF THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE AHMAD SHAH MASSOOD

9/10 OSAMA IN HOSPITAL ON 9/10, ONE DAY BEFORE THE ATTACKS ON THE WTC

9/11. 11 SEPTEMBER: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON WTC AND PENTAGON. FOLLOW-UP BREAKFAST MEETING ON CAPITOL HILL WITH GENERAL MAHMOUD AHMAD HOSTED BY SENATOR BOB GRAHAM AND REP PORTER GOSS. THE "WAR ON TERRORISM" IS OFFICIALLY LAUNCHED

9/12-9/13 THE AFTERMATH, THE ALLEGED "MONEYMAN" GENERAL MAHMOUD AHMAD MEETS COLIN POWELL & RICHARD ARMITAGE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO DISUCSS TERMS OF PAKISTAN’S COOPERATION IN THE WAR ON TERRORISM .

The Bush administration accuses people of having links to al Qaeda. This is the doctrine behind the anti-terrorist legislation and homeland Security. This relationship of the Bush Administration to international terrorism, which is a matter of public record, indelibly points to the criminalization of the upper echelons of US State apparatus:

Colin Powell's Role: From Iran-Contra to September 11
Both Colin Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, who 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.

[Coronel Oliver] North set up a team including [Richard] Secord; Noel Koch [Armitage's deputy] , then assistant secretary at the Pentagon responsible for special operations; George Cave, a former CIA station chief in Tehran, and Colin Powell, military assistant to U.S. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger...(The Guardian, December 10, 1986)

Although Colin Powell was not directly involved in the arms' transfer negotiations, which had been entrusted to Oliver North, he was among "at least five men within the Pentagon who knew arms were being transferred to the CIA." (The Record, 29 December 1986). Lieutenant General Powell was directly instrumental in giving the "green light" to lower-level Irangate officials in blatant violation of Congressional procedures. According to the New York Times, Colin Powell took the decision (at the level of military procurement), to allow the delivery of weapons to Iran: Hurriedly, one of the men closest to Secretary of Defense Weinberger, Maj. Gen. Colin Powell, bypassed the written ''focal point system'' procedures and ordered the Defense Logistics Agency [responsible for procurement] to turn over the first of 2,008 TOW missiles to the C.I.A., which acted as cutout for delivery to Iran" (New York Times, 16 February 1987)

Richard Armitage held the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration. He was in charge of coordinating covert military operations including the Iran-Contra operation. He was in close liaison with Coronel Oliver North. His deputy and chief anti-terrorist official .Noel Koch was part of the team set up by Oliver North. Following the delivery of the TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran, the proceeds of these sales were deposited in numbered bank accounts and the money was used to finance the Nicaraguan Contras. (UPI. 27 November 1987). A classified Israeli report provided to the Iran- contra panels of the Congressional enquiry confirms that Armitage ''was in the picture on the Iranian issue.'' (New York Times, 26 May 1989):

"With a Pentagon position that placed him over the military's covert operations branch, Armitage was a party to the secret arms dealing from the outset. He also was associated with former national security aide Oliver L. North in a White House counterterrorism group, another area that would also have been a likely focus of congressional inquiry" (Washington Post, 26 May 1989)
CIA Director William Casey with the collaboration of Richard Armitage in the Pentagon "ran the Mujahideen covert war against the Soviet Union…" (quoted in Domestic Terrorism: The Big Lie The "War") "Contragate was also an off-the-shelf drug-financed operation run by Casey." (Ibid ).

Financing the Islamic Brigades
The Iran Contra procedure was similar to that used in Afghanistan, where secret aid was channeled to the militant Islamic brigade (US News and World Report, 15 December 1986). In fact part of the proceeds of the weapons sales to Iran had been channeled to finance the Mujahideen. : ":The Washington Post reported that profits from the Iran arms sales were deposited in one CIA-managed account into which the U.S. and Saudi Arabia had placed $250 million apiece. That money was disbursed not only to the contras in Central America but to the rebels fighting Soviet troops in Afghanistan."(U.S. News & World Report, 15 December 1986)

The Irangate Cover-up
Reagan's National Security Adviser Rear Admiral John Pointdexter, who was later indicted on conspiracy charges and lying to Congress was replaced by Frank Carlucci as National Security Adviser. And Maj. General Colin Powell was appointed deputy to Frank Carlucci, namely "'number two" on the National Security team. "Both came to the White House after the Iran contra revelations and the NSC housecleaning [i.e. coverup] that followed [the Irangate scandal]" (The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, 16 June 1987).
Needless to say, this housecleaning was a cover-up: Colin Powell was in on the Irangate affair While several Irangate officials including John Pointdexter and Oliver North were accused of criminal wrongdoing, the main actors in the CIA and the Pentagon, namely Armitage and Casey, were never indicted, neither was Lieutenant General Colin Powell who authorized the procurement of TOW missiles from the Defense Logistics Agency .Moreover, while weapons were being sold covertly to Iran, Washington was also supplying weapons through official channels to Baghdad. In other words, Washington was arming both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. And who was in charge of negotiating those weapons sales to Baghdad? Donald Rumsfeld

September 11 has been used...as a justification for waging a preemptive war without borders... part of the Administration’s doctrine of "self-defense"... that justification is based on a lie...that America is under attack by an outside enemy.

The so-called "War on Terrorism" is a lie.
Realities have been turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards restoring democracy. Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping operations." The derogation of civil liberties by imposing the so-called anti-terrorist legislation is portrayed as a means to providing domestic security and upholding civil liberties.

This system relies on the manipulation of public opinion. The fabricated realities... must become indelible truths, which form part of a broad political and media consensus. In this regard, the corporate media is an instrument of a de facto police state, which has carefully excluded, from the outset, any real understanding of the September 11 crisis. Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of September 11.

When people across the US and around the World find out that Al Qaeda is... a creation of US foreign policy and the CIA, the legitimacy of the Bush Administration will tumble like a deck of cards...when the lies emanating from the seat of political authority are fully revealed, the perceived enemy will no longer be Al Qaeda but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, et al.... the Democrats are complicit....This relationship of successive US Administrations to international terrorism, which is a matter of public record, indelibly points to the criminalization of the upper echelons of US State apparatus... when the truth trickles down, the leaders' war and homeland security plans will not have a shred of legitimacy in the eyes of millions of Americans who believe that Al Qaeda is "A Threat to America" and that their president is committed to their security. At this crucial juncture in our history, we must understand that antiwar sentiment in itself does not undermine the war agenda...to unseat the rulers is to break their legitimacy in the eyes of the people.... to fully reveal the lies concerning the so-called "war on terrorism" to our fellow citizens, which were used to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and impose the police State in the US... This objective can only be achieved by effectively curbing its propaganda campaign and spreading the truth through a grassroots citizen's information campaign....

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best America’s "War on Terrorism" Second Edition, Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization.

The Bloodthirsty Murderers of a Million
Arthur Silber, Once Upon a Time...
In the manner of a soulless ghoul without conscience, the United States government dispatches its lethal military to wreak death and destruction across the world. So convinced are we that we embody the Good, we believe we may invade anywhere and everywhere, whenever we declare our "national interests" are imperiled. Our "national interests" are intentionally and infinitely elastic: they enable us to "justify" any military incursion anywhere, at any time. Because we represent the Good, it is inconceivable that we would act in ways that are monstrous and criminal on a scale that defies comprehension. In the winter and spring of 2002-2003, it was obvious to any basically well-informed lay person that Iraq constituted no serious threat to the United States, or to anyone else. An "ordinary" citizen had no need of "secret information" or government "intelligence" to reach the conclusion that was entirely accurate, a conclusion that over four years of futile, unforgivable havoc and death have proven over and over again to be true...
Just Foreign Policy has attempted to update the Lancet estimate in the best way we know. We have extrapolated from the Lancet estimate, using the trend provided by the tally of Iraqi deaths reported in Western media compiled by Iraq Body Count. Our current estimate is that 974,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S. invasion. The web counter and fuller explanation are here...

our governing class and the foreign policy establishment have not begun to question even one element of the bipartisan policy of American world hegemony. Everyone -- from Bush, to Congressional Democrats, to liberal bloggers -- supports a "bigger military,"... Leading Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are more militant about imposing our arbitrary will on Iran than even Bush and many conservatives .... most liberals continue to share the identical worldview and have surrendered none of their belief in our unchallengeable "Goodness," "the avoidable bungling of Iraq." If only it hadn't been "bungled," murder would not be murder. And so Obama insists, as he simultaneously insists on a still more powerful American military and on our unilateral "right" to use it however we may see fit:
I reject the notion that the American moment has passed. I dismiss the cynics who say that this new century cannot be another when, in the words of President Franklin Roosevelt, we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good. I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth.
And so, when we attack Iran -- either at the command of Bush, or Clinton, or Obama... we will refuse to see the monstrous nature of what we have done, even as millions of innocent people die and destruction spreads across the globe. We may indeed turn out to be the "last" agent of profound change on Earth -- Let your concern and reverence for peace and the value of human life determine your answer. Is there anything to be done? Yes. Almost no one is remotely interested in doing even part of that... the United States has already committed crimes that are identical in principle to those committed by Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia -- and it might do so again, and in the near future...
Massive public protest...might help to prevent it. http://www.uruknet.de/?p=34426

U.S. escalates Iraq war, crisis deepens
Richard Becker, Party for Socialism and Liberation
As the Iraq crisis deepens, several Republican senators have joined Democratic Party leaders in calling for a "change of course." In a lengthy July 12 press conference, President Bush refuted those calls, expressing the determination on the part of his administration and the Pentagon generals to achieve "victory." The press conference coincided with the administration’s release of a highly fictionalized "progress report" on the war in Iraq since the addition of 30,000 additional troops brought total U.S. forces to more than 160,000.

What does the widening struggle within the ruling class establishment mean for the anti-war movement and all those opposed to war and occupation?

What they want, above all, is to avoid a catastrophic U.S. defeat in Iraq. Such a defeat, they believe, could lead to the unraveling of U.S. domination in the region as a whole. The congressional leaders—Democrats as well as Republicans—calling for a changed course are not advocating withdrawal from Iraq, but instead moving away from a failed strategy. They want to cut the number of U.S. troops in combat and reduce U.S. casualties, now at the highest level since the March 2003 invasion. At the same time, there is near unanimity at the top about retaining the huge U.S. bases spread across the country and the massive U.S. embassy under construction in the center of Baghdad. When completed, it will be the largest embassy in the history of the world. It is intended to serve as the real center of power and decision making in that country far into the future.

Washington’s determination to control Iraq has everything to do with that country’s vast oil resources and key strategic position. That determination has not been diminished by the severe setbacks inflicted on the U.S. occupation by Iraqi resistance forces. Domination of the Persian Gulf region, which holds an estimated 70 percent of global petroleum reserves, remains a central objective of U.S. imperialist foreign policy.

Just keep repeating 'al-Qaida’
One of the objectives of the Iraq invasion was the "demonstration effect." Crushing Iraq and reducing it to the status of a colony was supposed to intimidate other governments that had not been toeing the U.S. line and allowing the unfettered exploitation of their resources. Instead, it has been demonstrated that it is possible to resist the most powerful military machine in history. That outcome is intolerable to the rulers of the empire.

The latest public opinion polls show support for the war at an all-time low. Seventy-one percent want to get out of Iraq—an all-time high.
Seeking to bolster support for continuing and, in fact, escalating the war, Bush turned to his most reliable weapon in his July 12 press conference. In over an hour of answering reporters’ questions, Bush never uttered the words "occupation" or "resistance," but did mention al-Qaida no less than 39 times Nor, of course, did Bush ever refer to the inconvenient fact that al-Qaida did [sic] not exist in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion and destruction of the country’s existence as an independent state.

Iraq’s history since World War I, when it became a colony in the British Empire, has been one of fierce resistance to foreign occupation.

Sept. 15, the attention of the world will be focused on Washington...when Gen. Petraeus must submit his report on the "surge" in Iraq. A debate in Congress on another $145 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will follow. A mass march from the White House to Congress on Sept. 15 will be followed by direct action demanding that Congress end funding of the war.
Oct. 21, will mark the 40th anniversary of the historic march on the Pentagon against the Vietnam War, under the banner, "From protest to resistance." [http://www.answercoalition.org/]

IT'S NOT IRAQI NATIONAL RESISTANCE AGAINST U.S. OCCUPATION, IT'S "AL-QAEDA" & "IRAN" "AGAINST IRAQ"
'POLICE' ARE PART OF IRAQI RESISTANCE!!!
U.S. Troops Battle Iraqi Police
LEE KEATH, AP
U.S. troops battled Iraqi police killing six in a rare firefight between American soldiers and their Iraqi partners[SIC]. Friday's clash underscored the deep infiltration of militants in the country's security forces.. The U.S. military has accused Iran of arming Shiite extremists drawn from the ranks of militias and organizing them into a network to carry out attacks on the troops. Friday's statement, however, was the first time the military has spoken of the Iranian efforts extending into the Iraqi police. It was unclear whether the lieutenant was a militiaman who joined the police or a policeman who later joined the militia..

Cranking up the scare level, at home and abroad
Arablink
Mahmoud Abbas (in statements made during his visit to Italy) accused Hamas of having introduced AlQaeda into Gaza and protecting them there... the purpose of this kind of baseless accusation is to support the planned pressure for an international force to occupy Gaza, by raising the scare level. And the editorialist scolds Abbas thus: It is understandable that you have personal animosity as a result of what has happened, but please try to keep separate and distinguished in your mind what is in your personal interest and what is in the national interest. When you use scare tactics aimed at laying the groundwork for turning Gaza into an international protectorate you are not hurting only your personal enemies, but the Palestinian cause as a whole.

In the same vein, there was a posting at Daily Kos on Monday yesterday titled: "Hamas threatens to fire on 6000 stranded Palestinians", a ludicrous charge made up out of whole cloth, and yet there it is backed up with the Daily Kos brand. It's all in the interests of raising the Hamas scare level. http://www.uruknet.de/?p=34417

The P.I. might go out of business at this rate...
Homeland Security: Scaring us silly
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD
Time to freak out, America: U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's got a "gut feeling" that you'll be facing a possible terrorist attack this summer. In his comments, made Tuesday, he included an observation that there wasn't really much in the way of evidence pointing to an imminent plot. But hey, who needs evidence when you have a gut with feelings? Does this vague comment seem like the sort of thing a security official should share with the general public? Does it seem like a good idea to spread fear and panic among the population without a sound reason?
Forgive us for saying so -- actually don't -- but we, too, have a gut feeling. With Republican senators withdrawing their support for the Iraq war and a president practically besieged by scandal (a botched war, the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, a CIA leak case, warrantless wiretapping, operating foreign prisons and torture camps, etc.), could it be that Chertoff is trying to scare the bejeezus out of Americans to rally support for the president and the war?
We base our gut feelings on the past behavior of this administration (such as scaring the country into going to war against Iraq by telling us they had mobile bio-weapons labs).
Furthermore, we base our doubts of Chertoff's gut feelings on the fact that he didn't seem to have any when it came to Hurricane Katrina. His Spidey senses weren't tingling even after he knew -- thanks to damage forecasts gathered by his own agency -- that the storm would destroy the levees in New Orleans. How did that one get away?...

Report: Al-Qaida's power is back
A new top-level intelligence assessment concludes that the al-Qaida terrorist network has rebounded and is at its greatest strength since Sept.11...
http://www.seattletimes.com

Al-Qaida strength downplayed
Chertoff stoked concerns Tuesday about another attack in the United States when he told the Chicago Tribune editorial board that he had a "gut feeling that we are in a period of increased vulnerability" this summer. "I'm not predicting there will be an attack or that if there is an attack, it will be successful," Chertoff told USA Today on Thursday. " ... What I'm saying is we shouldn't assume this is over with."
The concerns Chertoff raised were amplified by media reports of threat assessments from U.S. intelligence officials indicating al-Qaida is getting stronger.

Al-Qaeda: A CIA protégé
After embezzling $110000 from Qaeda al-Fadl "defected". He contacted the CIA via the US's Eritrean embassy and, after receiving limited assurances from the ...
www.geocities.com/libertystrikesback/afghans.html - Similar pages
Disinformation: CIA Posing as Al-Qaeda?
Disinformation: CIA Posing as Al-Qaeda? 08/21/03: (Liberty Forum) This professionally managed website [Jihad Unspun] with eyecatching design and graphics ...
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4513.htm - Similar pages
Fake Al Qaeda
CIA reins in loose cannons, and keeps their Al Qaeda creation alive and well · CIA "Arranged" for Passports for Al Qaeda Terrorists & Brought Them to the ...
www.whatreallyhappened.com/fakealqaeda.html - Similar pages
al-Qaeda or al-CIA-duh!
When people across the US find out that Al Qaeda is not linked to Saddam but is in fact a creation of the CIA and that the terrorist warnings are fabricated ...
www.oilempire.us/qaeda.html - Similar pages
'Al-Qaeda' is a Manufactured Intelligence Front
In fact the C.I.A is using the terrorist actions of its proxy Al-Qaeda in order to give the U.S. an excuse to extend their power into and invade the Arab ...
prisonplanet.tv/articles/ june2004/062504manufacturedfront.htm - Similar pages
CRG -- Who Is Osama Bin Laden?
... that 'Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organisation were prime suspects'. CIA Director George Tenet stated that bin Laden has the capacity to plan ...
www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html - Similar pages
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,730 from www.williambowles.info for al qaeda with Safesearch on. (0.15 seconds)
Just In Time Terrorism: Al-Qaeda in Palestine by Kurt Nimmo
Good old al-Qaeda. It is a mostly illusory booga-booga terrorist “network” that can be conveniently pulled out of a hat and flapped in the face of millions ...
www.williambowles.info/isrl-pal/ 2005/just_in_time_terrorism.html - Similar pages

A Different 'Gut Feeling': Israel Attacking Iran:
One of Israel's top officials says he's got the go-ahead from NATO's U.S. and European officials to attack Iran. Chertoff, aware of a longstanding, fierce debate in the White House over attacking Iran, admits a "gut feeling," saying it's about Al Qaeda but probably feeling queasier about what an attack on Iran would do http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/2007/07/gut_feeling_of.ph...

U.S.Approved Israeli Attack on Iran
Israel’s Minister of Strategic Affairs said he has received approval from the U.S. and Europe for an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/7/13/100257.shtml?s=ic

Iran's Jews reject cash offer to move to Israel:
The incentives — ranging from £5,000 a person to £30,000 for families — were offered from a special fund established by wealthy expatriate Jews in an effort to prompt a mass migration to Israel from among Iran's 25,000-strong Jewish community.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2125155,00.html

NYT: US murder a "clash":
2 Journalists Among 16 Killed in Clash in Iraq
By ALISSA J. RUBIN
According to a Reuters report after the incident, some people at the scene said that American troops fired into the area from a helicopter, and a police report stated that the American bombardment killed the two journalists and nine other people... two Reuters staffers, both of them Iraqis .... “They had arrived, got out of the car and started taking pictures and people gathered,” Mr. Sahib said. “It looked like the American helicopters were firing against any gathering in the area because when I got out of my car and started taking pictures, people gathered and an American helicopter fired a few rounds, but they hit the houses nearby and we ran for cover.”

Lessons From the U.S. Stance Towards Iran
by Jeremy R. Hammond
Prior to the military invasion of Iraq in 2003, the government and media engaged in a propaganda campaign that effectively deceived the American people on a massive scale. The propaganda continues to this day, such as the implausible denial that there ever was such a campaign and the fabricated myth that there was an “intelligence failure” leading up to the war. Iran has become a major focus of U.S. propaganda efforts.... One front in the propaganda war is to blame Iran for the situation that exists today as a result of U.S. actions. Iran, we are told, supports the resistance against the U.S. occupation and is intent upon destabilizing the country. We are told this at the same time that it is acknowledged that Iran’s best interests lie in maintaining friendly relations with the current Shiite-dominated government of Iraq. No attempt to reconcile the contradiction is ever made The basic framework for present debate concerning Iran is founded upon the assumption that any Iranian involvement in Iraqi affairs is illegitimate and wrong. The legitimacy of our own actions is unquestionable, and it’s accepted as an axiom that, though we may make mistakes from time to time, our presence in Iraq is one of benevolence. The U.S. waged a war of aggression, “the supreme international crime” as defined at Nuremberg, inflicting death and destruction upon the country and resulting in almost total destabilization (Iraq was recently ranked second only to Sudan in Foreign Policy’s annual failed states index). But, still, the U.S. is basically good and her intentions benign; and no one must ever question that basic assumption. To point out the obvious, Iraq is a country on the other side of the world from the U.S. while it shares a border with Iran. We may imagine the U.S. reaction to the invasion and occupation of, say, Canada, by, say, Russia or China. The assumption, were the Iranian and U.S. roles to be reversed, would be precisely the opposite; it would be assumed that the U.S. would have a “right” to interfere in the affairs of its neighboring country. There’s been no shortage of claims made against Iran by the government and media attempting to demonize the country. In one particularly noteworthy example, U.S. News & World Report ran a story that claimed Iranian troops had “surrounded and attacked” American soldiers “well within the border of Iraq”. The claimed source for this sensational “exclusive” was a U.S. Army report. The interesting thing is that the Army report contained no such information... a New York Times headline tells us that “Iran Helped Iraqis Kill Five G.I.’s”, at least according to the U.S. government. The article was based on a Pentagon press conference in which spokesman Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner detailed the extent of Iran’s alleged involvement in what the Times called “the most specific allegation of Iranian involvement in an attack that killed American troops”... The Pentagon was trying to present that “smoking gun” image of “an Iranian standing over an American with a gun”... Bergner went further, adding that “the senior leadership in Iran is aware of this activity.” Of course, no evidence was provided to support any of these claims, and the public is expected to take the word of government spokespersons at face value. That this state of affairs continues demonstrates the failure of the American people to learn the most obvious lessons that led us to be in Iraq in the first place. . . .
(Full article …)

U.S. Firm On Trial in Colombia Slayings
Civil Suit Alleges Coal Producer Had Union Leaders Shot
LA LOMA, Colombia -- In 2001, paramilitary hit men pulled three union leaders off buses in this roasting-hot swath of northeastern Colombia and shot them dead. In a shadowy conflict where gunmen often kill union activists, the slaying generated little attention, even as the dead men's families accused their American employer of having ordered the hits... Filed by lawyers for the Washington-based International Labor Rights Fund, the suit comes in the midst of a long scandal in Colombia that has exposed ties between illegal paramilitary groups and the political, military and business establishment. Investigators in Colombia have shown how paramilitary members expanded their operations across much of the northern coast, including this region, with the help of corrupt politicians and army officers.
The slayings of union members has increasingly attracted attention in the U.S. Congress, which in a hearing last month scrutinized evidence that Drummond, along with Chiquita Brands International, an Ohio banana firm, allegedly helped support paramilitary groups. (In March, Chiquita admitted in D.C. federal court that it had paid paramilitary groups $1.7 million but asserted it did so to protect its workers.)... Drummond, a company that is close to the administration of President Álvaro Uribe and central to the production of one of Colombia's most important exports, coal. Drummond has sunk more than $1 billion into developing its mine here and produces more than 25 million tons of coal a year. Several new witnesses have surfaced in recent months to allege that in an effort to fight back against Marxist guerrillas who attacked the company's coal trains in Cesar state, Drummond came to depend on fighters from Colombia's coalition of paramilitary groups, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, or AUC. Funded by ranchers and businessmen, the AUC morphed into a terrorist group engaging in drug trafficking and mass murder... Among the witnesses who have come forward here is Edwin Guzman, a former Colombian army sergeant whose unit, the Popa battalion, deployed hundreds of men inside Drummond's installations. Guzman said in an interview that Drummond provided transportation to paramilitary units and that the company's chief of security coordinated military-paramilitary operations. The Popa's former commander, Col. Hernán Mejía, was cashiered and is being investigated for having allegedly collaborated with paramilitary groups. Guzman said Drummond officials knew full well how the paramilitary groups operated. "Seven hundred soldiers can't do what two paras can do, since the paras don't capture, they just assassinate," he said."They dominated military, massacring people, dismembering people, leaving people dead on the highways," said Alfonso Palacio, candidate for mayor in the town of La Jagua and a government witness against paramilitary commanders. "They generated a collective psychological terrorism in the region." By Juan Forero, The Washington Post, 7/13/7

True friends stab you in the front.
Oscar Wilde
YOU THOUGHT THEY WERE ONLY MINOR CROOKS?
Part 19
Act 14, Scene 1: A True Friend
It is hard to imagine a friend truer than the United States if one uses Oscar Wilde's definition of “friend”. Of course, with our brand of “friendship” no one would ever need enemies either.
At this point, those whose sole entertainment is not American Idol may remember Richard Armitage as being the former United States Under Secretary of State. Things in our Pyongyang on the Potomac got rather hot for Armitage after “Scooter” Libby was convicted of lying and obstructing the investigation of “outing Valerie Plame” - especially after Armitage confessed that he had outed Plame. So, our former State Department Official took a small vacation to that really swinging place – Kabul Afghanistan – where all the “movers and shakers” meet. It seems that the CIA's heroin production and distribution business needed some organization. And who would be better qualified for such a task than Richard Armitage. After all, Armitage's expertise and experience in drug/arms smuggling, procurement and financing stretched from the “Golden Triangle” in Southeast Asia to the Nugan-Hand banking/money laundering operations in Australia .[2][5]
Armitage set up an export-import business in Kabul and began paying the Afghan farmers to raise more poppies. “After re-establishing the Afghan drug business and making a further fortune for himself, he re-inserted himself back into clandestine USG operations back home”[2]. I'm sure Mr. Armitage is far too modest to claim credit for the increase in opium production in Afghanistan, but the opium trade is booming.[3] The opium/heroin trade is to Afghanistan what oil is to Iraq.[4] They both need democracy! We Americans supply the money, the puppets to run a country and the purple ink for the voting finger and the CIA does the rest – sets up drug production, export and import networks, establishes money laundering networks, sets up “off-the-books” untaxed personal and government accounts and uses the proceeds from their drug/arms business to fund revolutions/wars and topple “uncooperative” regimes of the world – works the same way as “democracy” in America. [...]
Nolan K. Anderso nkanders@bellsouth.net

sick joke...
Top Secret: We're Wiretapping You
Ryan Singel, Wired
It could be a scene from Kafka or Brazil. Imagine a government agency, in a bureaucratic foul-up, accidentally gives you a copy of a document marked "top secret." And it contains a log of some of your private phone calls. You read it and ponder it and wonder what it all means. Then, two months later, the FBI shows up at your door, demands the document back and orders you to forget you ever saw it.
By all accounts, that's what happened to Washington D.C. attorney Wendell Belew in August 2004. And it happened at a time when no one outside a small group of high-ranking officials and workaday spooks knew the National Security Agency was listening in on Americans' phone calls without warrants. Belew didn't know what to make of the episode. But now, thanks to that government gaffe, he and a colleague have the distinction of being the only Americans who can prove they were specifically eavesdropped upon by the NSA's surveillance program...

Syndicate content