Excerpts From Pentagon's Plan: 'Prevent the Re-Emergence of a New Rival'
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
A policy blueprint for incoming Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu prepared by The U.S. Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000."

1997 A Geostrategy For Eurasia, by Zbigniew Brzezinski (now an Obama foreign policy advisor)
Foreign Affairs,76:5, September/October 1997 Council on Foreign Relations Inc.

1997 THE GRAND CHESSBOARD: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives
Zbigniew Brzezinski

2000 Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century: A Report of The Project for the New American Century September 2000
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is a neo-conservative think tank with strong ties to the American Enterprise Institute, established spring of 1997 as "a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership."

2002 United States Government, National Security Strategy of the United States (NSS of USA)

The Empire's New Middle East Map: ethnic cleansing to control the oil using sectarian divisions to split Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia to control oil rich provinces. Cheney Energy Task Force view of Persian/Arabian Gulf oil resources.

2004 THE PENTAGON’S NEW MAP: War & Peace in the 21st. Century 
by Thomas P.M. Barnett, U.S. Naval War College
NOTE: The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century is
published by G.P. Putnam's Sons on 26 April 2004 (448 pages)
Esquire, March 2003 issue  explains why we're going to war and why we'll keep going to war
 Since the end of the cold war, the United States has been trying to come up with an operating theory of the world—and a military strategy to accompany it. Now there’s a leading contender.  It involves identifying the problem parts of the world and aggressively shrinking them.  Since September 11, 2001, the author, a professor of warfare analysis, has been advising the Office of the Secretary of Defense and giving this briefing continually at the Pentagon and in the intelligence community.  Now he gives it to you.

Separate CONPLAN 8022 Preemption Strike Plan - conventional and nuclear weapons) now merged with the main U.S. strategic war plan http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/07/globalstrike.php

''China's Distant Threat to U.S. Dominance in Asia''

The geopolitical stakes of 'Saffron Revolution'
Oct 17, 2007
Asia Times
By F William Engdahl
A relevant question is why the US government has such a keen interest in fostering regime change in Myanmar at this juncture. We can dismiss rather quickly the idea that it has genuine concern for democracy, justice, human rights for the oppressed population there. Iraq and Afghanistan are sufficient testimony to the fact Washington's paean to democracy is propaganda cover for another agenda. The question is, what would lead to such engagement in such a remote place as Myanmar? Geopolitical control seems to be the answer - control ultimately of the strategic sea lanes from the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea. The coastline of Myanmar provides naval access in the proximity of one of the world's most strategic water passages, the Strait of Malacca, the narrow ship passage between Malaysia and Indonesia. The Pentagon has been trying to militarize the region since September 11, 2001 on the argument of defending against possible terrorist attack. The US has managed to gain an airbase on Banda Aceh, the Sultan Iskandar Muda Air Force Base, on the northernmost tip of Indonesia. The governments of the region, including Myanmar, however, have adamantly refused US efforts to militarize the region. A glance at a map will confirm the strategic importance of Myanmar.

The major actors
The tragedy of Myanmar, whose land area is about the size of George W Bush's Texas, is that its population is being used as a human stage prop in a drama scripted in Washington by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the George Soros Open Society Institute, Freedom House and Gene Sharp's Albert Einstein Institution, a US intelligence asset used to spark "non-violent" regime change around the world on behalf of the US strategic agenda.

Myanmar's "Saffron Revolution", like the Ukraine "Orange Revolution" or the Georgia "Rose Revolution" and the various color revolutions instigated in recent years against strategic states surrounding Russia, is a well-orchestrated exercise in Washington-run regime change, down to the details of "hit-and-run" protests with "swarming" mobs of monks in saffron, Internet blogs, mobile SMS links between protest groups, well-organized protest cells which disperse and re-form. CNN made the blunder during a September broadcast of mentioning the active presence of the NED behind the protests in Myanmar.

In fact the US State Department admits to supporting the activities of the NED in Myanmar. The NED is a US government-funded "private" entity whose activities are designed to support US foreign policy objectives, doing today what the CIA did during the Cold War. As well, the NED funds Soros' Open Society Institute in fostering regime change in Myanmar. In an October 30, 2003 press release the State Department admitted, "The United States also supports organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the Open Society Institute and Internews, working inside and outside the region on a broad range of democracy promotion activities." It all sounds very self-effacing and noble of the State Department. Is it though?

In reality the US State Department has recruited and trained key opposition leaders from numerous anti-government organizations in Myanmar. It has poured the relatively huge sum (for Myanmar) of more than $2.5 million annually into NED activities in promoting regime change in Myanmar since at least 2003. The US regime change effort, its Saffron Revolution, is being largely run, according to informed reports, out of the US Consulate General in bordering Chaing Mai, Thailand. There activists are recruited and trained, in some cases directly in the US, before being sent back to organize inside Myanmar. The US's NED admits to funding key opposition media including the New Era Journal, Irrawaddy and the Democratic Voice of Burma radio.
The concert-master of the tactics of Saffron monk-led non-violence regime change is Gene Sharp, founder of the deceptively-named Albert Einstein Institution in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a group funded by an arm of the NED to foster US-friendly regime change in key spots around the world. [...]

Chinese Geopolitics and the Significance of Tibet
April 15, 2008
By George Friedman
...Beijing notes the similarities between what is happening in Tibet and the “color” revolutions the United States supported and helped stimulate in the former Soviet Union.... the Chinese see Tibet as a matter of fundamental national security, and they view pro-Tibetan agitation in the West as an attempt to strike at the heart of Chinese national security. The Chinese are therefore trapped. They are staging the Olympics in order to demonstrate Chinese cohesion and progress. But they must hold on to Tibet for national security reasons, and therefore their public relations strategy is collapsing. Neither India nor the United States is particularly upset that the Europeans are thinking about canceling attendance at various ceremonies. China has few countermoves to this pressure over Tibet...
While China thus lacks politico-military options to counter the Tibet pressure, it also lacks economic options. It is highly dependent for its economic well-being on exports to the United States and other countries; drawing money out of U.S. financial markets would require Beijing to put it somewhere else. If the Chinese invested in Europe, European interest rates would go down and U.S. rates would go up, and European money would pour into the United States. The long-held fear of the Chinese withdrawing their money from U.S. markets is therefore illusory: The Chinese are trapped economically. Far more than the United States, they can’t afford a confrontation.[...]

China: The 2008 Olympics as a Major Activist Inroad
May 17, 2007
'Genocide Olympics’
...The first Western movement to begin to capitalize on this vulnerability is the Save Darfur Coalition, which turned Sudan into a pariah state with which no Western company will do business only to have its efforts undermined by Chinese state-owned enterprises. Many other issues could have taken this mantle, but it appears that Darfur-focused activists have taken the lead on exploiting Olympics-related vulnerabilities — and will manage the most effective Western campaign...
The [Mia] Farrow op-ed... contained a more serious threat: As long as China’s state-owned enterprises remain in Sudan, the coalition aims to attack Olympic sponsors directly and rebrand the 2008 games as the “Genocide Olympics” (a term first used by Amnesty International to describe China’s internal human rights record and the human rights implications of its foreign policy). More sensationally, the coalition threatened to name Stephen Spielberg the “Leni Riefenstahl of the Beijing games,” a reference to the German filmmaker whose documentary of the 1936 Berlin games glorified the Nazi regime in the broader context of the Olympics. Spielberg now publicly calls for China to change its policy toward Sudan...[...]

Stratfor is the world’s leading private intelligence service. Our global team of intelligence professionals provides our Members with insights into political, economic, and military developments to reduce risks, to identify opportunities, and to stay aware of happenings around the globe. Stratfor provides published intelligence and customized intelligence service for private individuals, global corporations, and divisions of the US and foreign governments around the world.

"The United States Africa Command is to ‘be responsible for U.S. military operations in and military relations with 53 African nations - an area of responsibility covering all of Africa except Egypt.'"

The US's War In Darfur
by Keith Harmon Snow
The Darfur region of Sudan possesses the third largest copper and the fourth largest uranium deposits on the planet, in addition to strategic location and significant oil resources of its own. “The humanitarian tragedy in Darfur revolves around natural resources… Given current realities, no intervention in Darfur will proceed, and if it did it would fail.” So opined the authors of the September 2006 OPED “Keeping Peacekeepers out of Darfur” [GN1](DHG, 9/15/06). Now, over a year later, the situation in Sudan is grimmer than ever, the Darfur conflict remains widely mischaracterized, and many of the predictions of that OPED have come true. Meanwhile, the “Save Darfur” advocates pressing military intervention in Darfur as a “humanitarian” gesture have escalated pressure in the face of mounting failures, including allegations that millions of “Save Darfur” dollars fundraised on a sympathy for victims platform have been misappropriated.

Israel in Darfur and Arab National Security
By Ahmad Hussein AS-SHIMI

Declassified documents shed new light on American support to Dalai Lama
Arthur J Pais in New York
September 16, 1998
Just as the United States Congress, following intense pro-Tibet lobbying by the likes of movie star Richard Gere, has urged the administration to spend annually $ 2 million in support of the Tibetan exiles, in addition to the $ 2 million annually in funding for Tibetan exiles in India, comes a revelation that could embarrass the Tibetan cause. The Central Intelligence Agency has stoutly refused to discuss its involvement in the Tibetan struggle but the story in Tuesday's Los Angeles Times blows the lid off the Tibetan operation.
The declassified historical documents provide the first inside details of the CIA's decade-long covert programme to support the Tibetan independence movement. Part of the efforts was enlisting prestigious universities as Cornell in creating Tibetan study programmes. At the time of the intelligence operation, the CIA was seeking to weaken Mao Zedong's hold over China. And the Tibetan exiles were looking for help to keep their movement alive after the Dalai Lama and his people following an unsuccessful 1959 revolt against Chinese rule....A detailed story in The Los Angeles Times says for much of the 1960s, the CIA provided the Tibetan exile movement with $ 1.7 million a year for operations against China, including an annual subsidy of $ 180,000 for the Dalai Lama. The newspaper quoted newly released US intelligence documents....
The money for the Tibetans and the Dalai Lama was part of the CIA's worldwide effort during the height of the Cold War to undermine Communist governments, particularly in the Soviet Union and China. In fact, the US government committee that approved the Tibetan operations also authorised the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, the Times said. [...]

Roadmap for the Tibet Movement for the Coming Years
original article can be found at: www.german-foreign-policy.com
The plans were developed with the collaboration of the US State Department and the self-proclaimed Tibetan Government in Exile and call for high profile actions along the route of the Olympic Torch Relay and are supposed to reach a climax in August during the games in Beijing. The campaign began already last summer and is now profiting from the current uprising in the west of the People's Republic of China that is receiving prominent coverage in the German media. The uprising was initiated with murderous pogrom-like attacks by Tibetan gangs on non-Tibetan members of the population, including the Muslim Chinese minority. Numerous deaths of non-Tibetans provoked a reaction of the Chinese security forces. [...] CNN interview with James Miles ,The Economist newspaper-magazine, on anti-China riots he witnessed in Lhasa http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/fulltext/57199

"Democratic Imperialism": Tibet, China, and the National Endowment for Democracy
by Michael Barker
Global Research, www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6530
August 13, 2007
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was established in 1984 with bipartisan support during President Reagan’s administration to “foster the infrastructure of democracy – the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities” around the world.[8] Considering Reagan’s well documented misunderstanding of what constitutes democratic governance,[9] it is fitting that Allen Weinstein, the NEDs first acting president, observed that in fact “A lot of what we [the NED] do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA”.[10] So for example, it is not surprising that during the 1990 elections in Nicaragua it is has been estimated that “for every dollar of NED or AID funding there were several dollars of CIA funding”.[11]
By building upon the pioneering work of liberal philanthropists (like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations’) – who have a long history of co-opting progressive social movements – it appears that the NED was envisaged by US foreign policy elites to be a more suitable way to provide strategic funding to nongovernmental organizations than via covert CIA funding.[12] Indeed, the NED’s ‘new’ emphasis on overt funding of geostrategically useful groups, as opposed to the covert funding, appears to have leant an aura of respect to the NED’s work, and has enabled them, for the most part, to avoid much critical commentary in the mainstream media....the NED has successfully imposed polyarchal arrangements on four countries, Chile, Nicaragua, the Philippines, and Haiti; while similarly, Barker (2006) has illustrated the NED’s anti-democratic involvement in facilitating and manipulating the ‘colour revolutions’ which recently swept across Eastern Europe. More recently, both Barker and Gerald Sussman (2006) have provided detailed examinations’ of how the NED works to promote a low intensity public sphere (globally) through its selective funding of media organizations.[13] This article will now extend these three initial studies by critically examining the NED’s support for Tibetan media projects from 1990 onwards. [...]

from Stratfor, good for U.S. imperialist analyses
Russia and Rotating the U.S. Focus
April 1, 2008
For the past year, Stratfor has been focusing on what we see as the critical global geopolitical picture. As the U.S.-jihadist war has developed, it has absorbed American military resources dramatically. It is overstated to say that the United States lacks the capacity to intervene anywhere else in the world, but it is not overstated to say that the United States cannot make a major, sustained intervention without abandoning Iraq. Thus, the only global power has placed almost all of its military chips in the Islamic world.

Exploiting U.S. Distractions
Russia has taken advantage of the imbalance in the U.S. politico-military posture to attempt to re-establish its sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union. To this end, Russia has taken advantage of its enhanced financial position — due to soaring commodity prices, particularly in the energy sector — as well as a lack of American options in the region.
The Russians do not have any interest in re-establishing the Soviet Union, nor even in controlling the internal affairs of most of the former Soviet republics. Moscow does want to do two things, however. First, it wants to coordinate commodity policies across the board to enhance Russian leverage. Second, and far more important, it wants to limit U.S. and European influence in these countries. Above all, Russia does not want to see NATO expand any further — and Moscow undoubtedly would like to see a NATO rollback, particularly in the Baltic states.
From a strategic point of view, the United States emerged from the Cold War with a major opportunity. Since it is not in the United States’ interests to have any great power emerge in Eurasia, making certain that Russia did not re-emerge as a Eurasian hegemon clearly was a strategic goal of the United States. The Soviet disintegration did not in any way guarantee that it would not re-emerge in another form.
The United States pursued this goal in two ways. The first was by seeking to influence the nature of the Russian regime, trying to make it democratic and capitalist under the theory that democratic and capitalist nations did not engage in conflict with democratic and capitalist countries. Whatever the value of the theory, what emerged was not democracy and capitalism but systemic chaos and decomposition. The Russians ultimately achieved this state on their own, though the United States and Europe certainly contributed.
The second way Washington pursued this goal was by trying to repeat the containment of the Soviet Union with a new containment of Russia. Under this strategy, the United States in particular executed a series of moves with the end of expanding U.S. influence in the countries surrounding Russia. This strategy’s capstone was incorporating new countries into NATO, or putting them on the path to NATO membership.

NATO Expansion and Color Revolutions
The Baltic states were included, along with the former Soviet empire in Central Europe. But the critical piece in all of this was Ukraine. If Ukraine were included in NATO or fell under Western influence, Russia’s southern flank would become indefensible. NATO would be a hundred miles from Volgograd, formerly known as Stalingrad. NATO would also be less than a hundred miles from St. Petersburg. In short, Russia would become a strategic cripple.
The U.S. strategy was to encourage pro-American, democratic movements in the former Soviet Republics — the so-called “color revolutions.” The Orange Revolution in Ukraine was the breaking point in U.S.-Russian relations. The United States openly supported the pro-Western democrats in Ukraine. The Russians (correctly) saw this as a direct and deliberate challenge by the United States to Russian national security. In their view, the United States was using the generation of democratic movements in Ukraine to draw Ukraine into the Western orbit and ultimately into NATO.
Having their own means of influence in Ukraine, the Russians intervened politically to put a brake on the evolution. The result was a stalemate that Russia appeared destined to win by dint of U.S. preoccupation with the Islamic world, Russian proximity, and the fact that Russia had an overwhelming interest in Ukraine while the Americans had only a distant interest.
U.S. interest might have been greater than the Russians thought. The Americans have watched the re-emergence of Russia as a major regional power. It is no global superpower, but it certainly has regained its position as a regional power, reaching outside of its own region in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Iranians and Germans must both take Russia into account as they make their calculations. The Russian trajectory is thus clear. They may never be a global power again, but they are going to be a power that matters.

The Closing Window
It is far easier for the United States to prevent the emergence of a regional hegemon than to control one that has already emerged. Logically, the United States wants to block the Russian re-emergence, but Washington is running out of time.
The Russian Resurgence and the New-Old Front
September 15, 2008
By Peter Zeihan

...Nature of the Budding Conflict
Combine a security policy thoroughly wedded to expansion with an internal stabilization policy that institutionalizes terror, and it is understandable why most of Russia’s neighbors do not like Moscow very much. A fair portion of Western history revolves around the formation and shifting of coalitions to manage Russian insecurities.
In the American case specifically, the issue is one of continental control. The United States is the only country in the world that effectively controls an entire continent. Mexico and Canada have been sufficiently intimidated so that they can operate independently only in a very limited sense. (Technically, Australia controls a continent, but with the some 85 percent of its territory unusable, it is more accurate in geopolitical terms to think of it as a small archipelago with some very long bridges.) This grants the United States not only a potentially massive internal market, but also the ability to project power without the fear of facing rearguard security threats. U.S. forces can be focused almost entirely on offensive operations, whereas potential competitors in Eurasia must constantly be on their guard about the neighbors.
The only thing that could threaten U.S. security would be the rise of a Eurasian continental hegemon. For the past 60 years, Russia (or the Soviet Union) has been the only entity that has had a chance of achieving that, largely due to its geographic reach. U.S. strategy for coping with this is simple: containment, or the creation of a network of allies to hedge in Russian political, economic and military expansion. NATO is the most obvious manifestation of this policy imperative, while the Sino-Soviet split is the most dramatic one.
Containment requires that United States counter Russian expansionism at every turn, crafting a new coalition wherever Russia attempts to break out of the strategic ring, and if necessary committing direct U.S. forces to the effort. The Korean and Vietnam wars — both traumatic periods in American history — were manifestations of this effort, as were the Berlin airlift and the backing of Islamist militants in Afghanistan (who incidentally went on to form al Qaeda).
The Georgian war in August was simply the first effort by a resurging Russia to pulse out, expand its security buffer and, ideally, in the Kremlin’s plans, break out of the post-Cold War noose that other powers have tied. The Americans (and others) will react as they did during the Cold War: by building coalitions to constrain Russian expansion. In Europe, the challenges will be to keep the Germans on board and to keep NATO cohesive. In the Caucasus, the United States will need to deftly manage its Turkish alliance and find a means of engaging Iran. In China and Japan, economic conflicts will undoubtedly take a backseat to security cooperation.
Russia and the United States will struggle in all of these areas, consisting as they do the Russian borderlands. Most of the locations will feel familiar, as Russia’s near abroad has been Russia’s near abroad for nearly 300 years. Those locations — the Baltics, Austria, Ukraine, Serbia, Turkey, Central Asia and Mongolia — that defined Russia’s conflicts in times gone by will surface again. Such is the tapestry of history: the major powers seeking advantage in the same places over and over again.
The New Old-Front
But not all of those fronts are in Eurasia. So long as U.S. power projection puts the Russians on the defensive, it is only a matter of time before something along the cordon cracks and the Russians are either fighting a land war or facing a local insurrection. Russia must keep U.S. efforts dispersed and captured by events as far away from the Russian periphery as possible — preferably where Russian strengths can exploit American weakness. So where is that? [...]

Merging 'hard' & 'soft' imperialist power to give U.S. penetration & domination a friendly 'development' face: fully covered implementation from Tibet to Darfur, Nigeria, Bolivia and beyond in previous digests
Winning hearts and minds: strategy to polish America's image with communications and 'humanitarian aid' strategies.
By Peter A Buxbaum in Washington, DC for ISN Security Watch (28/07/08)
...Two documents emblematic of enhanced US outreach efforts are worth noting. The first, a report from the Pentagon's Defense Science Board, released in September 2004, calls for the development of a national strategic communication strategy and the establishment of an independent Center for Strategic Communication to support the US National Security Council in its efforts to win the world's hearts and minds. The other, also emanating from the Pentagon, is Department of Defense Directive 3000.05, issued in November 2005, which states that addressing the basic human needs of civilians is "a core US military mission that the Department of Defense shall be prepared to conduct and support. They shall be given priority comparable to combat operations."

The fact that both of these documents originate with the Department of Defense is significant....both communication and humanitarian efforts are being funded and supported by the US military...." to synchronize diplomacy with military psychological operations to develop an overarching concept of creating the right message for the right audience delivered in the right way to help shape perceptions."...
"Military humanitarian projects are similar to those conducted by civilian aid agencies and non-governmental organizations," he told ISN Security Watch. "The difference lies in the strategic rationale with which these projects are selected and chosen by the military, rather than the principal focus on humanitarian need and sustainability that is held by civilian development experts." This has been borne out by the experience of the USAID. "I have worked with military officers who acted as development officers in Afghanistan," Elisabeth Kvitashvili, deputy assistant administrator in the Bureau of Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance at USAID, told ISN Security Watch....
That the provision of humanitarian assistance is a strategic Pentagon priority was highlighted by the launch of the US Africa Command, or AFRICOM, in 2007. "As with other regional commands, AFRICOM will have responsibility for US military operations with a particular area of responsibility," said Brigety. "Yet it is distinguished from other regional commands because its primary mission will be conducting non-military operations."

U.S. Human Rights and Democracy Strategy
Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs > Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
Guiding Principles on Non-Governmental Organizations

Washington’s New World Order “Democratization” Template
by Jonathan Mowat
Dr. Peter Ackerman, the author of “Strategic Nonviolent Conflict” in the “National Catholic Reporter” on April 26, 2002: “It is not true that the only way to ‘take out’ such regimes is through U.S. military action.”…Speaking at the “Secretary’s Open Forum” at the State Department on June 29, 2004, in a speech entitled, “Between Hard and Soft Power: The Rise of Civilian-Based Struggle and Democratic Change, ” Ackerman elaborated on the concept involved. He proposed that youth movements, such as those used to bring down Serbia, could bring down Iran and North Korea, and could have been used to bring down Iraq… And he reported that he has been working with the top US weapons designer, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, on developing new communications technologies that could be used in other youth movement insurgencies.“There is no question that these technologies are democratizing,” he stressed, in reference to their potential use in bringing down China, “they enable decentralized activity. They create, if you will, a digital concept of the right of assembly.”...
The Democratic party’s National Democratic Institute, the Republican party’s International Republican Institute, the US State Department and USAID are the main agencies involved in these grassroots campaigns as well as the Freedom House NGO and billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Institute […] (emphasis added)
…Col. Helvey’s long experience in Myanmar in training insurgent ethnic minorities in a region that is the center of world opium production raises another question of great bearing on “post modern coups.” That is: what is the role of narcotic mafias in facilitating “regime change?” Law enforcement agencies from many nations, including the United States, have long reported that the Balkans is the major narcotics pipeline into Western Europe. Ukraine is said to be a top conduit, as is Georgia. Kyrghyzstan, now at the top of the hit list, is another opium conduit. And George Soros “the Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization,” has been the top “private” funder of all the Eastern European and Central Asian insurgent groups, as well as those in Myamar. The spread of such mafias, is, of course, one of the most efficient ways of infiltrating and corrupting government agencies of targeted states…. http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOW502A.html

Under President Clinton, Human Rights Watch was the most influential
pro-intervention lobby: its 'anti-atrocity crusade' helped drive the wars in
Mr. Soros established his first foundation, the Open Society Fund, in New
York in 1979 and his first Eastern European foundation in Hungary in 1984.
He now funds a network of foundations that operate in thirty-one countries
throughout Central and Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union, as well
as southern Africa, Haiti, Guatemala, Mongolia and the United States....

George Soros: Prophet of an "Open Society"
Karen Talbot

George Soros — a profile by Neil Clark, Statesman (UK)

The NED, NGOs and the Imperial Uses of Philanthropy: Why They Hate Our Kind Hearts, Too
In recent years, nations have challenged the activities and very existence of U.S. non-governmental organizations. Russia, Zimbabwe, and Eritrea have enacted new measures requiring registration; “Open Society Institute” affiliates have been shut down in Eastern Europe; and Venezuela has charged the Súmate NGO leaders with treason. In Iraq and Afghanistan, staff of Western charitable NGOs (CARE and Doctors Without Borders) have been assassinated. What are these organizations, who and what is behind them? {…]

Four naked expositions of amerikan fascist political ideology

2. The Will to Power in the Epicenter of Evil
By Ilya Shapiro  04/07/2004 
"Gentlemen, the time for counsel is past and the time for fighting has come."

3. The Soldiering Ethos
By Michael Vlahos
America has fought a war for two years with its peacetime military. Moreover this is what both the nation and the military have wanted. But the situation is changing.... Iraq is just the first step moving America's military into long-term wartime. [...]

4. Our World-Historical Gamble
By Lee Harris 


IRAQ 'civil war' to divide the nation: "Under this plan Iraq would cease to exist"

In classic imperialist divide et impera fashion, the plan to divide Iraq was formulated in early 90's as a U.S. 'exit strategy' to undermine the strength, the legitimacy of and the support for the Iraqi nationalist resistance if US was unable to defeat it militarily. Along with the genocidal made-in-USA "sectarian strife", came the "terrorist" re-branding of the Iraqi struggle by world #1 state terrorists: the just Iraqi resistance went from being called 'insurgents'' [implying U.S. installed puppet gang was an Iraqi govt.], to a non-existent "al-qaeda in Iraq".

This last US war against Iraq, like all imperialist wars, was no impulsive 'mis-judgment'. Plans for it far preceded 911, based upon strategic analyses that Iraq was the critical lynchpin in the NSS USA 2002 [National Security agenda]. It was deemed essential to deal a death blow to Arab nationalism, necessary for control of ME energy resources and distribution routes, essential leverage over friends and enemies in the crusade to expand and secure its 'new world order' before rising capitalist rivals upended US 'unipolar' domination.

US imperialism 'miscalculated' with its state terrorist war, underestimating once again the fierce, indestructible determination of the other 95% of humanity for dignity and self-determination.

U.S. Iraq 'war' began under Clinton
After the 1991Gulf War, led by the U.S., the UK, and other major imperialist powers maintained a policy of “containment” towards Iraq including numerous, calculatedly crushing economic sanctions to destroy its highly developed infrastructure, economy and strength. In October 1998, the U.S. began to shift from containment towards “regime change,” with President Clinton's "Iraq Liberation Act. This escalated tp full-bore, unprovoked military aggression with the judicial selection of G. W. Bush in the 2000 'elections'.

link below for opinions from around the world
'CONTAINMENT PLUS' [Madeleine Albright] : "Cohen comes with plans to divide up Iraq..."
March 11, 1999
U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen's just concluded six-nation tour of the Persian Gulf states led editorial pages in many Arab papers and received some attention from South Asian media as well. A New Delhi analyst concluded that Secretary Cohen's two-fold "mission to sell arms and the administration's new policy on Iraq" was successful on the former, but failed on the latter. Some in the Arab world worried...that the Cohen tour, together with the recent visit by another U.S. official, Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk, marks a shift in U.S. policy "from the planning to the implementation phase regarding the future of Iraq" and urged that Arabs "not allow the American schemes to materialize and...not be partners in the destruction and partition of Iraq." ...

"The U.S.' Grand Plan In The Gulf", Sanaa Al Said, Al Wafd 3/7/99
...The United States imposed the status quo since it created the no-fly zones in the north and south, disregarding international legitimacy. The embargo it imposed on Iraq in 1991 was the beginning of the real division of Iraq into three entities....The shelling is increasing day after day. Secretary Cohen confirmed this. His tour of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan and Israel is certain proof that the countdown is about to end and the United States is about to implement its plans--oust the regime and divide Iraq."

"Espionage In Baghdad: Caught Red-Handed"
An article on the International Page of the Cuban Communist Party organ Granma said (3/6): "It is clear that it is not enough for the United States to use the Security Council for its own designs, but it also openly deceives it, placing its spies in a commission which, far from finding peace, has turned the Iraqi conflict into a war of attrition, of low intensity and an inhumane continuation of sanctions. This U.S. intelligence operation and its consequences should be a warning to the world about the reach of U.S. imperial policy. The world, which only knew about the 'Iraqi refusal' to cooperate with the UN inspectors through the most advanced media--which serve the Western powers--should now know that many of the so-called inspectors, or at least their chiefs, were receiving instructions from Washington and working under its orders. And now they can clearly understand the position of Iraq..."

War on Iraq: Opinion
Contributing Editor Air Marshal (Retd) Ayaz Ahmed Khan
...why [is] Saddam Hussain 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”...

U.S. Considers Dividing Iraq Into Three Separate States After Saddam Is Gone
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. (emphases added}...
Stratfor says 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.
According to Stratfor, Sprinzak stated that the authors of the "Hashemite" plan are Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz...

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.

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....

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.

Difficult, But Not Impossible
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.[...]
http://www.profutures.comarticle.php/91/%20 Stratfor.com http://www.stratfor.com/

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.'

U.S. record of world reserves of oil and natural gas

National Strategy for Victory in Iraq
"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


U.S. Plans to Run Iraqi Oil for A While
Published on Friday, April 11, 2003 by Reuters

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

The conquest of Southwest Asia 
By Pepe Escobar 
For Washington the real enemy is not Islamic fundamentalism: it's Arab nationalism. For decades the ultimate target of Israeli foreign policy has been to sow disunion among Arabs. Secular Arab nationalism is the ultimate threat to Israel, thus to the US, in neo-con thinking. The crux is not religious: it's political...  [see Brzezinski documents bottom of page]

By Pepe Escobar
The plan [to break up Iraq] allegedly conceived by David Philip, a former White House adviser working for the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC)[...]

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was a premeditated murderous act of aggression
The Pentagon's 'Strategic Information' Psywar Program
By Ghali Hassan, September 24, 2005
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. ...
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. ... Deception by governments and the mass media to manipulate the population has been an obsession of Western powers. The illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq by U.S. forces provides the best recent example of murderous atrocities based on deception.... 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...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.

Al-Qaeda (the 'Base' in Arabic) was the C.I.A.-sponsored training camp for the Afghan Mujahideen, including Osama bin Laden and the likes. The group was created and financed by the U.S. administration against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. They were called "freedom fighters" by former U.S. President Roland Reagan.

As a result of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda has disintegrated. Its members have been killed, imprisoned and some have melted away in the population of Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, in George Bush's "war on terror," today's Al-Qaeda is alive and fighting on many fronts. In other words, Osama bin Laden is much more useful alive to U.S. imperialism and propaganda than his dead body. Al-Qaeda has become a convenient phantom to justify an ongoing war on defenceless peoples.... It provides the necessary tool to instill fear and manipulate domestic public opinion....

"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....

While Westerners watch their favourite TV shows, the U.S. and its collaborators are waging full scale war against the Iraqi people. After the massacre of Tal Afar, U.S. occupation forces are moving into the Euphrates valley to destroy more Iraqi towns and cities, and at the same time commit more war crimes against the people of Iraq. The "international community" has failed to condemn the violence perpetuated by U.S. occupying forces, and also failed to provide the minimum assistance to a nation considered to be a founding member of the "international community." The Iraqi people are left at the mercy of a new form of Western terrorism. The aim is not to fight the Resistance, but to kill Iraqis en masse and destroy their nation, with the blessing of a puppet government constituted of criminals and conmen.

In its recent meeting attended by world's leaders, the UN was unable to define terrorism, because, according to the U.S., terrorism has no definition. Any act of violence not practised by the U.S. and its allies is defined as terrorism. 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.

Iraq's Sectarian Bloodshed 'Made in the USA'
Iraq never had a history of sectarian conflicts. U.S. policy choices provided a perfect road map for starting one
by Erik Leaver and Raed Jarrar, Asia Times
When the United States ousted Saddam Hussein in April 2003, crime spiked and full-scale looting erupted. But there were still no signs of sectarian clashes. That quickly changed, however, as the U.S. administration assumed control over Iraq, led by Paul Bremer....attempting to put an Iraqi face on the occupation, appointed members to the Iraqi Governing Council. Instead of reflecting how Iraqis saw themselves, the council's makeup mirrored and reinforced the U.S. sectarian view of the population . . .
FULL TEXT http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0810-Sectarian.html

The Minister of Civil War: Paul Bremer, and the rise of the Iraqi death squads
Bayan Jabr,
Harper’s Magazine, August 2006. By Ken Silverstein.
The rise of the death squads corresponds almost precisely to the April 2005 appointment of Bayan Jabr as interior minister in Iraq’s transitional government. The Interior Ministry, which is something like a combined FBI and Department of Homeland Security, controls billions of dollars and more than 100,000 men in police and paramilitary units. Jabr was a former high-ranking member of the Iranian-backed Badr Brigade, the military arm of the fundamentalist Shiite Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) that is now the dominant political force in the country. After taking over the Interior Ministry, he quickly purged it of Sunnis, and members of the Badr Brigade were widely incorporated into the ministry’s police and paramilitary units….

Civil war likely in Iraq, not necessarily negative
Tony Jones Interview with Daniel Pipes
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 02/03/06
TONY JONES: Tell me what sort of trends you’re talking about? Because I’m still struggling to understand how it would be anything but a strategic disaster.
DR DANIEL PIPES: ...should there be a civil war in Iraq, there are various trends which will be disrupted, trends which I think are negative... in the first place, there would be fewer attacks on our forces in Iraq as they fight each other. More broadly outside Iraq. There would be fewer attacks on us as the Shi’ites and the Sunnis attack each other. The imperative that the US Government, in particular, has been following would be shunted aside - an imperative which I think has led to negative results, because the victors in democracy, whether it be Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have in all these cases been our most extreme enemies - the Islamists. And I think as developments in Iraq slow down the democracy process, so it will elsewhere and we will be the better for it. …

Who Benefits?
Dahr Jamail, Iraq Dispatches, February 24, 2006
The most important question to ask regarding the bombings of the Golden Mosque in Samarra on the 22nd is: who benefits? Prior to asking this question, let us note the timing of the bombing. The last weeks in Iraq have been a PR disaster for the occupiers.
First, the negative publicity of the video of British soldiers beating and abusing young Iraqis has generated a backlash for British occupation forces they’ve yet to face in Iraq....The other huge event which drew Iraqis into greater solidarity was more photos and video aired depicting atrocities within Abu Ghraib at the hands of U.S. occupation forces....enrages all Iraqis.

The horrific attack which destroyed much of the Golden Mosque generated sectarian outrage which led to attacks on over 50 Sunni mosques. Many Sunni mosques in Baghdad were shot, burnt, or taken over. Three Imams were killed, along with scores of others in widespread violence.

This is what was shown by western corporate media.

As quickly as these horrible events began, they were called to an end and replaced by acts of solidarity between Sunni and Shia across Iraq.

This, however, was not shown by western corporate media.
The Sunnis where the first to go to demonstrations of solidarity with Shia in Samarra, as well as to condemn the mosque bombings. Demonstrations of solidarity between Sunni and Shia went off over all of Iraq: in Basra, Diwaniyah, Nasiriyah, Kut, and Salah al-Din.
Thousands of Shia marched shouting anti-American slogans through Sadr City, the huge Shia slum area of Baghdad, which is home to nearly half the population of the capital city. Meanwhile, in the primarily Shia city of Kut, south of Baghdad, thousands marched while shouting slogans against America and Israel and burning U.S. and Israeli flags....

Ray McGovern does not rule out Western involvement in this week's Askariya mosque bombing in light of previous false flag operations that have advanced the hidden agendas of the ruling elite. During the mid-eighties, McGovern was one of the senior analysts conducting early morning briefings of the PDB one-on-one with the Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.--"Former CIA Analyst: Western Intelligence May Be Behind Mosque Bombing," prisonplanet.com, February 26, 2006]

False Flag Prospects, 2008 -- Top Three US Target Cities
by Captain Eric H. May
The easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out. As I'll detail below, this is exactly how government perpetrators In the US and UK handled the 9/11 and 7/7 "terror" attacks, which were in reality government attacks blamed on "terrorists."
My aim, as a former military intelligence officer who spent five years with the U.S. Army 75th Division conducting military war games, is to convince the American people that the "next 9/11" -- constantly promised by officials and the media -- is likely to be carried out under the guise of future military exercises. If the American people are aware of pending exercises and the danger they represent, then the exercises cannot "go live" and effect the very terror events that they are supposed to be rehearsing against.[...]http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8165 http://collectioncf72.blogspot.com/2005/04/darkness-visible-pentagon-pla...

. . . the Salvador Option has been invoked in Iraq. This is the campaign of terror by death squads armed and trained by the US, which attack Sunnis and Shias alike. The goal is the incitement of a real civil war and the break-up of Iraq, the original war aim of Bush's administration. The ministry of the interior in Baghdad, which is run by the CIA, directs the principal death squads. Their members are not exclusively Shia, as the myth goes. The most brutal are the Sunni-led Special Police Commandos, headed by former senior officers in Saddam's Ba'ath Party. This unit was formed and trained by CIA "counter-insurgency" experts, including veterans of the CIA's terror operations in central America in the 1980s, notably El Salvador. . . .

Related La Voz de Aztlan report:
NORTHWOODS PROJECT: Exposing the Pentagon’s Schemes

Destruction of Holiest Shia Shrine Brings Iraq to the Brink of Civil War
Robert Fisk, "All This Talk of Civil War, and Now This Carnage. Coincidence?," Associated Press, March 3, 2004
The horrific attack which destroyed much of the Golden Mosque generated sectarian outrage which led to attacks on over 50 Sunni mosques. Many Sunni mosques in Baghdad were shot, burnt, or taken over. Three Imams were killed, along with scores of others in widespread violence.This is what was shown by western corporate media. As quickly as these horrible events began, they were called to an end and replaced by acts of solidarity between Sunni and Shia across Iraq. This, however, was not shown by western corporate media. . .
Iraq's monumental catastrophe has become routine, shapeless, an incipient "civil war". Note how the American framework of disaster is now being portrayed as an Iraqi vs Iraqi war, as if the huge and brutal US occupation has nothing to do with the appalling violence in Iraq.--Robert Fisk, "Defeat is victory. Death is life," Independent, February 26, 2006]

VIDEO: Iraq is not a sectarian society...People are intermarried. Shiites and Sunnis marry each other. . . . Some form of militias and death squads want a civil war. There never has been a civil war in Iraq. The real question I ask myself is: who are these people who are trying to provoke the civil war? Now the Americans will say it's Al Qaeda, it's the Sunni insurgents. It is the death squads. Many of the death squads work for the Ministry of Interior. Who runs the Ministry of Interior in Baghdad? Who pays the Ministry of the Interior? Who pays the militia men who make up the death squads? We do, the occupation authorities.--Robert Fisk, "Somebody is trying to provoke a civil war in Iraq," ABC Lateline (Australia), March 2, 2006]

Cooperative Sadr surprises U.S. The Shiite cleric, long a foe of America, says it backs the new Iraq security plan.
Borzou Daragahi, LATimes Staff Writer
Muqtada Sadr, the radical anti-American cleric [SIC], has backed away from confrontation with U.S. and Iraqi forces in recent weeks, a move that has surprised [SIC] U.S. officials who long have characterized his followers as among the greatest threats to Iraq’s security. Thursday, a leader of the Sadr movement in one of its Baghdad strongholds publicly endorsed President Bush’s new Iraq security plan, which at least some U.S. officials have touted as a way to combat Sadr’s group. “We will fully cooperate with the government to make the plan successful,” said Abdul-Hussein Kaabai, head of the local council in the Shiite Muslim-dominated Sadr City neighborhood. “If it is an Iraqi plan done by the government, we will cooperate.”…

Mahdi Army ‘Not to Resist’ U.S. Troops
By Nidhal al-Laithihttp: http//www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news\2007-01-15\kurd.htm
The Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia group blamed for much of the sectarian violence in Iraq, has taken several measures to alleviate the impact of a possible attack by U.S. troops. The United States is sending thousands of more troops to Baghdad as part of a new strategy to pacify the restive city. Moqtada al-Sadr, often described as a ‘radical anti-American cleric,’ is at the center of Iraq’s growing sectarian divide. He has reportedly ordered the commanders of the Mahdi Army,which he controls, to hold their fire when the Americans begin
operating in Sadr City and other Shiite areas....


digest note:
Help make this collection a weapon of mass anti-imperialist/zionist consciousness and resistance. Karl Marx, analyzing the actual nature of capital as a social relation, understood that ultimately capitalism will produce its own gravediggers. As the structural crisis of capital deepens, the more we understand its nature,its agenda and its strategic weakness, as well as its unprecedented crimes, the better we will see the peoples' strategic strength, including our own, to take advantage of this opportunity.

Refusing to blow this rare historical conjuncture -- feeling frustrated and helpless, passively complicit in class-race privilege, electoral con-games, dire threats and fascist terror -- dare instead to recognize ourselves as historical agents in synch with billions of genuine allies, with the potential power and responsibility to move history forward to a fundamentally new world and future.