4/25 What's Behind Torture & Iraq 'News'? Clinton: "to end the Soviet Union... we did not want to see them control Central Asia


The first section of this issue deals with the 'recent revelations' of u.s. torture, under the guise of demonstrating Obama admin's 'cautious openness', is being used to divert and create public opinion, rewriting the past, the present to serve the future-in-the-making of expanding u.s. imperialist aggression by:

* treating recent torture as a partisan 'unamerican' republican/Bush aberration
* focusing on torture tactics to sever them from the imperialist state terror wars they serve --- with the knowledge and complicity of both u.s. electoral branches of the ruling class --- attempting to make past tactics, not the ongoing imperialist strategic agenda, the issue.
* presenting everything the u.s. did as a result of, and a response to, 911 --- covering up the fact 911 was the u.s. generated pretext for the 'wars' and 'harsh tectics' planned long before 911 to advance its bipartisan 'national security' agenda

The second section details u.s. strategic and tactical plans for destroying Iraq as a sovereign nation crucial to broader u.s. 'mideast' and global agenda... to correct the surge of revisionist accounts and help prepare resistance against further fascist crimes against humanity in the works, this time in devious 'progressive' disguise.

"Congress's definition of torture in those laws - the infliction of severe mental or physical pain - leaves room for interrogation methods that go beyond polite conversation."
John Yoo

"The civilized have created the wretched, quite coldly and deliberately, and do not intend to change the status quo; are responsible for their slaughter and enslavement; rain down bombs on defenseless children whenever and wherever they decide that their 'vital interests' are menaced, and think nothing of torturing a man to death: these people are not to be taken seriously when they speak of the 'sanctity' of human life, or the 'conscience' of the civilized world."
James Baldwin

Proving U.S. ruling class knows its subjects well, mind-fucking trumps reality for ignorant, zenophobic, narcisssistic amerikans

Obama legal team wants to limit defendants' rights
Supreme Court case is stark example of the White House seeking to limit rights.
The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights. The administration's action -- and several others -- have disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, after the Democrat's call for change during the 2008 campaign. Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid releasing information in lawsuits and limiting the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them....
The administration's legal move is a reminder that Obama, who has moved from campaigning to governing, now speaks for federal prosecutors....

Stephen B. Bright, a lawyer who works with poor defendants at the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, said... poor defendants' constitutional right to a lawyer, spelled out by the high court in 1965, has been neglected in recent years. "I would hope that this administration would be doing things to shore up the right to counsel for poor people accused of crimes," said Bright, whose group joined with the Brennan Center and other rights organizations in a court filing opposing the administration's position.

Poll: After Obama's 100 days, US on right track
WASHINGTON -- Millions of people jobless. Billions of dollars in bailouts. Trillions of dollars in debt. And yet, for the first time in years, more Americans than not say their country is on the right track. In a sign that Barack Obama has inspired hopes for a brighter future in the first 100 days of his presidency, an Associated Press-GfK poll shows that 48 percent of Americans believe the United States is headed in the right direction - compared with 44 percent who disagree. Intensely worried about their personal finances and medical expenses, Americans nonetheless appear realistic about the time Obama might need to turn things around, according to the AP-GfK poll. It shows, as Obama approaches his 100th day in office next Wednesday, most people consider their new president to be a strong, ethical and empathetic leader who is working to change Washington....
Nobody knows how long the honeymoon will last, but Obama has clearly transformed the yes-we-can spirit of his candidacy into a tool of governance. His ability to inspire confidence - Obama's second book is titled "The Audacity of Hope" - has thus far buffered the president against the harsh realities of two wars, a global economic meltdown and countless domestic challenges....And yet, this is the first time since January 2004 than an AP survey found more "right direction" than "wrong direction" respondents. That fleeting 2004 burst of optimism came shortly after the capture of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. In recent years, the US public has tended to be more pessimistic than optimistic about the nation's future. The exceptions lasted just a few months: the start of the Iraq war, the Sept. 11 attacks and late in the Clinton administration.

Obama is not the first president who has sought to shape the nation's psychology, tapping the deep well of American optimism to effect policy and politics.
Even as he briefly closed the nation's banks, Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke in the first days of his presidency of the "confidence and courage" needed to fix the US economy. "Together we cannot fail," he declared. Ronald Reagan reminded people that America has always seen itself as a "shining city upon a hill."

only good 'house negroes' permitted
First Lady in Control of Building Her Image
Conservatives once called her an angry black woman, but by focusing on her domestic persona, Michelle Obama and her team have engineered a remarkable political transformation

“People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction, and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence long after that innocence is dead turns himself into a monster.”
James Baldwin Biography

"Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and
abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science,
literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our
enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which
menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their
inability to keep pace. … They must attack us in order to survive, just as
we must destroy them to advance our historic mission."
Michael Ledeen, neocon imperialist godfather, strategist & author of
"The War Against the Terror Masters"

pretending u.s. torture began with bush
Torture planning began in 2001, Senate Armed Services Committee report reveals
Bush officials said they only tortured terrorists after they wouldn't talk. New evidence shows they planned torture soon after 9/11 -- and used it to find links between al-Qaida and Saddam.

state-terrorist admission
Terrorists have ambitions of empire, says Cheney:
TERRORISTS' ultimate aim is to establish "a caliphate covering a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle East and South Asia, all the way to Indonesia -and it wouldn't stop there," the US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, warned yesterday. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/02/23/1171734021090.html

Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II.
by William Blum
Z magazine , June 1999, Portions of the book can be read at: http://members.aol. com/bblum6/American holocaust.htm

Table of Contents
1. China - 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid?
2. Italy - 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style
3. Greece - 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client state
4. The Philippines - 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony
5. Korea - 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be?
6. Albania - 1949-1953: The proper English spy
7. Eastern Europe - 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor
8. Germany - 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to terrorism
9. Iran - 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings
10. Guatemala - 1953-1954: While the world watched
11. Costa Rica - Mid-1950s: Trying to topple an ally - Part 1
12. Syria - 1956-1957: Purchasing a new government
13. Middle East - 1957-1958: The Eisenhower Doctrine claims another backyard for America
14. Indonesia - 1957-1958: War and pornography
15. Western Europe - 1950s and 1960s: Fronts within fronts within fronts
16. British Guiana - 1953-1964: The CIA's international labor mafia
17. Soviet Union - Late 1940s to 1960s: From spy planes to book publishing
18. Italy - 1950s to 1970s: Supporting the Cardinal's orphans and techno-fascism
19. Vietnam - 1950-1973: The Hearts and Minds Circus
20. Cambodia - 1955-1973: Prince Sihanouk walks the high-wire of neutralism
21. Laos - 1957-1973: L'Armée Clandestine
22. Haiti - 1959-1963: The Marines land, again
23. Guatemala - 1960: One good coup deserves another
24. France/Algeria - 1960s: L'état, c'est la CIA
25. Ecuador - 1960-1963: A text book of dirty tricks
26. The Congo - 1960-1964: The assassination of Patrice Lumumba
27. Brazil - 1961-1964: Introducing the marvelous new world of death squads
28. Peru - 1960-1965: Fort Bragg moves to the jungle
29. Dominican Republic - 1960-1966: Saving democracy from communism by getting rid of democracy
30. Cuba - 1959 to 1980s: The unforgivable revolution
31. Indonesia - 1965: Liquidating President Sukarno ... and 500,000 others
East Timor - 1975: And 200,000 more
32. Ghana - 1966: Kwame Nkrumah steps out of line
33. Uruguay - 1964-1970: Torture -- as American as apple pie
34. Chile - 1964-1973: A hammer and sickle stamped on your child's forehead
35. Greece - 1964-1974: "Fuck your Parliament and your Constitution," said
the President of the United States
36. Bolivia - 1964-1975: Tracking down Che Guevara in the land of coup d'etat
37. Guatemala - 1962 to 1980s: A less publicized "final solution"
38. Costa Rica - 1970-1971: Trying to topple an ally -- Part 2
39. Iraq - 1972-1975: Covert action should not be confused with missionary work
40. Australia - 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust
41. Angola - 1975 to 1980s: The Great Powers Poker Game
42. Zaire - 1975-1978: Mobutu and the CIA, a marriage made in heaven
43. Jamaica - 1976-1980: Kissinger's ultimatum
44. Seychelles - 1979-1981: Yet another area of great strategic importance
45. Grenada - 1979-1984: Lying -- one of the few growth industries in Washington
46. Morocco - 1983: A video nasty
47. Suriname - 1982-1984: Once again, the Cuban bogeyman
48. Libya - 1981-1989: Ronald Reagan meets his match
49. Nicaragua - 1981-1990: Destabilization in slow motion
50. Panama - 1969-1991: Double-crossing our drug supplier
51. Bulgaria 1990/Albania 1991: Teaching communists what democracy is all about
52. Iraq - 1990-1991: Desert holocaust
53. Afghanistan - 1979-1992: America's Jihad
54. El Salvador - 1980-1994: Human rights, Washington style
55. Haiti - 1986-1994: Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?
56. The American Empire - 1992 to present
Appendix I: This is How the Money Goes Round
Appendix II: Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-1945
Appendix III: U. S. Government Assassination Plots

Into the Dark: The Pentagon P20G Plan to Provoke Terrorist Attacks
by Chris Floyd
November 1, 2002

... in last Sunday's Los Angeles Times. There--in an article by military analyst William Arkin, detailing the vast expansion of the secret armies being amassed...came the revelation of Rumsfeld's plan to create "a super-Intelligence Support Activity" that will "bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception."
According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization--the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)"--will carry out secret missions designed to "stimulate reactions" among terrorist groups, provoking them into committing violent acts which would then expose them to "counterattack" by U.S. forces. What kind of measures exactly? Well, the classified Pentagon program puts it this way: "Their sovereignty will be at risk."


ALFRED W. MCCOY, BOSTON GLOBE ˆ The photos from Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison are
snapshots not of simple brutality or a breakdown in discipline but of CIA
torture techniques that have metastasized over the past 50 years like an
undetected cancer inside the US intelligence community. From 1950 to 1962,
the CIA led secret research into coercion and consciousness that reached a
billion dollars at peak. After experiments with hallucinogenic drugs,
electric shocks, and sensory deprivation, this CIA research produced a new
method of torture that was psychological, not physical -- best described as
"no touch" torture.

The CIA's discovery of psychological torture was a counterintuitive
breakthrough -- indeed, the first real revolution in this cruel science
since the 17th century. The old physical approach required interrogators to
inflict pain, usually by crude beatings that often produced heightened
resistance or unreliable information. Under the CIA's new psychological
paradigm, however, interrogators used two essential methods to achieve their

In the first stage, interrogators employ the simple, nonviolent techniques
of hooding or sleep deprivation to disorient the subject; sometimes sexual
humiliation is used as well.

Once the subject is disoriented, interrogators move on to a second stage
with simple, self-inflicted discomfort such as standing for hours with arms
extended. In this phase, the idea is to make victims feel responsible for
their own pain and thus induce them to alleviate it by capitulating to the
interrogator's power. . .

Although seemingly less brutal, no-touch torture leaves deep psychological
scars. The victims often need long treatment to recover from trauma far more
crippling than physical pain. The perpetrators can suffer a dangerous
expansion of ego, leading to cruelty and lasting emotional problems.

After codification in the CIA's "Kubark Counterintelligence Interrogation"
manual in 1963, the new method was disseminated globally to police in Asia
and Latin America through USAID's Office of Public Safety. Following
allegations of torture by USAID's police trainees in Brazil, the US Senate
closed down the office in 1975.

After it was abolished, the agency continued to disseminate its torture
methods through the US Army's Mobile Training Teams, which were active in
Central America during the 1980s. In 1997, the Baltimore Sun published
chilling extracts of the "Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual" that
had been distributed to allied militaries for 20 years. In the 10 years
between the last known use of these manuals in the early 1990s and the
arrest of Al Qaeda suspects since September 2001, torture was maintained as
a US intelligence practice by delivering suspects to foreign agencies,
including the Philippine National Police, who broke a bomb plot in 1995.

Once the war on terror started, however, the US use of no-touch torture
resumed, first surfacing at Bagram Air Base near Kabul in early 2002, where
Pentagon investigators found two Afghans had died during interrogation. In
reports from Iraq, the methods are strikingly similar to those detailed in
the Kubark manual.

Field Manual FM3-05.30, April 2005. Obtained by Secrecy News. ‘A U.S. Army manual on psychological operations elaborates upon the role of PSYOP in military activities.
"The employment of any element of national power, particularly the military element, has always had a psychological dimension. Foreign perceptions of U.S. military capabilities are fundamental to strategic deterrence. The effectiveness of deterrence hinges on U.S. ability to influence the perceptions of others."
"The purpose of PSYOP is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to U.S. national objectives ... When properly employed, PSYOP can save lives of friendly and adversary forces by reducing the adversaries' will to fight. By lowering adversary morale and reducing their efficiency, PSYOP can also discourage aggressive actions and create dissidence and disaffection within their ranks, ultimately inducing surrender."

Video: Americas Third World War:
How 6 million People Were killed in CIA secret wars against third world countries. John Stockwell, former CIA Station Chief in Angola in 1976, working for then Director of the CIA, George Bush. He spent 13 years in the agency.

The "War on Terror"
By Michael Samstein
Online Journal Contributing Writer
... an article printed in the U.S. Armed Forces Journal by Major Ralph Peters, who was formerly assigned to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, candidly revealed the major redrawing plans of the Middle East, adding cynically “Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works.”
A decade earlier he wrote in the U.S. Army War College journal, "Those of us who can sort, digest, synthesize, and apply relevant knowledge soar -- professionally, financially, politically, militarily, and socially. We, the winners, are a minority." This minority will inevitably conflict with the vast majority of the world's population. "For the world masses, devastated by information they cannot manage or effectively interpret, life is 'nasty, brutish . . . and short-circuited.'" In "every country and region," these masses who can neither "understand the new world," nor "profit from its uncertainties . . . will become the violent enemies of their inadequate governments, of their more fortunate neighbors, and ultimately of the United States."
...this is where we are heading, where the New World Order is taking us. A world where “you are either with us or you are with the terrorists,” as Bush stated in his address to the Joint Session of Congress and the American People on September 20, 2001....

Harsh Tactics Readied Before Their Approval
Senate Report Describes Secret Memos
Wednesday, April 22, 2009, WP
Intelligence and military officials under the Bush administration began preparing to conduct harsh interrogations long before they were granted legal approval to use such methods -- and weeks before the CIA captured its first high-ranking terrorism suspect, Senate investigators have concluded.Previously secret memos and interviews show CIA and Pentagon officials exploring ways to break Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees in early 2002, up to eight months before Justice Department lawyers approved the use of waterboarding and nine other harsh methods, investigators found. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR200904...

Major Charles Burney Confirms Torture Was Carried Out to Get False Iraq-al Qaeda Link
A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.
"While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq," Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. "The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."
Later in the report, on its page 47, we have additional information from Burney concerning a "training" trip that interrogators took to Fort Bragg in September, 2002:
Despite the apparent instruction on physical pressures, MAJ Burney told the Army IG that instructors at Fort Bragg believed that the techniques used in SERE training should not be brought back for use at GTMO and that "interrogation tactics that rely on physical pressures or torture, while they do get you information, do not tend to get you accurate information or reliable information.,,344 In a written statement provided to the Committee, MAJ Burney reiterated that point, stating that "[i]t was stressed time and time again that psychological investigations have proven that harsh interrogations do not work. At best it will get you information that a prisoner thinks you want to hear to make the interrogation stop, but that information is strongly likely to be false.345"
So, when interrogators went to Fort Bragg to learn about SERE, they were told "time and again" that these techniques provide false information and should not be used, and yet they went directly into the approved methods for interrogation. In fact, Jay Bybee had already approved them in his August 1, 2002 OLC memo just a few weeks before the trip.
Summarizing Burney's information provided to Senate investigators:
1. SERE instructors told interrogators that torture produces false information.
2. Torture was carried out to get an Iraq-al Qaeda link.
Putting the two pieces of information together, it becomes clear that torture was carried out with the intention of getting a false connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

Pentagon: No link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda
WASHINGTON (AFP): Interrogations of Saddam Hussein and seized documents confirmed the former Iraqi regime had no links with Al-Qaeda, a Pentagon report said Friday, contradicting the US case for the 2003 invasion. A two-page resume of the report was published in February, but on Friday the Pentagon declassified the whole 120-page document. [...] truth-about-iraqis2.blogspot.com/2007/04/fight-on-iraqi-resistance-for-they-lied.html

Obama Announces Nuremberg Verdicts Were Wrong
...The Obama Team, you have to give it to them, are very skilled at PR.... They all sound like they are ending the atrocities committed under Bush and Cheney. We can all breathe easier that things have changed. Except, that they haven’t....
Obama and his team have said on the record that for high-value detainees, they reserve the right to go beyond the Army Field Manual for interrogations.
Obama has on the record said that he will continue to use rendition.
Obama’s DOJ has said on the record that the hundreds of detainees being held and tortured at Bagram have no right to challenge their indefinite detentions.
Panetta says that these CIA officers will not be “investigated, let alone punished” because they were following “legal orders.”
The Obama team, to be consistent here, should next announce that the Nuremberg Verdicts - that found that Nazis whose legal defense at Nuremberg was that they were only following orders were GUILTY – should be overturned.
As Nazi leader Hermann Goering cynically stated while on trial at Nuremberg: the winners put the losers on trial.
According to our august leaders, it doesn’t matter what heinous acts a US representative commits as long as they were following the orders of their leaders. If they were following orders, then they are exempt from responsibility.... http://open.salon.com/blog/dennis_loo/2009/04/10/obama_announces_nurembe...

Obama's "Love Letter" to the CIA Distorts Historical Truth
by Sherwood Ross
Global Research, April 20, 2009
...One wonders why a nation that President Obama celebrates as "a nation of laws" whose administration "will always act in accordance with the law" in the same document declares, "I have fought for the principle that the United States must carry out covert activities…" ...[with] CIA’s extensive history of crimes from drug-running to subverting free elections to torture to assassination, for President Obama to praise The Agency and indicate he endorses its covert activities should set off alarm bells around the world.
As for Obama’s statement "The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world," one must ask how much courage it takes for an illegal posse of CIA thugs to kidnap an unarmed civilian off the streets of, say, Milan, Italy, and transport him to another country for torture? How much courage does it take to beat up a man tied in a chair or to slam a man’s head into a wall when his hands are tied behind his back? Forgive me if this smells a whole lot like cowardice, not courage. The unlimited "rendition" spree authorized by the last President Bush was nothing new for the Agency, either. Weiner writes the CIA had been running "secret interrogation centers before---beginning in 1950, in Germany, Japan, and Panama. It had participated in the torture of captured enemy combatants before---beginning in 1967, under the Phoenix program in Vietnam." Folks, this has been a rogue agency from its inception...


To set the record straight on Iraq - harbinger of u.s. state terror wars now in the works
Storm of Violence in Iraq Strains Its Security Forces
Twin suicide bombings at Baghdad’s most revered Shiite shrine brought the death toll in a 24-hour period to nearly 150.

DESTROY, DEVELOP, DOMINATE: hard & soft power U.S. liberation: try to destroy a sovereign nation's resistance by fomenting 'civil war', then use the same tactics to stay and develop' it for u.s. with 'civil society nation building'
Twitter Meets Cuneiform
BAGHDAD– What good is YouTube when electricity is sporadic? Is Google relevant if computer access remains a rarity? Can Twitter save Iraq by making its newborn democracy responsive to its people? These are the questions in the air as the United States State Department brought nine executives from some of the world’s most famous communications technology companies to Baghdad for a four-day visit intended to promote civil society in a country not far removed from civil war....
Together the executives seemed to share the conviction that communication – their bread-and-butter, of course – could overcome the deeply ingrained habits of a country that has endured decades of dictatorship and war. “It seems that everyone is trying to increase the level of services people are getting,” David Nassar of Blue State Digital said of Iraq’s leaders, a view that not one Iraqi voter interviewed recently shared. “Why? Because the more infrastructure that exists here, the more that is going to help to contribute to the stability of the country. The more that people have to lose, the less likely they are going to want to destroy it.”

refresher on made-in-usa 'civil war'
Iraq: Divide and Rule, 'Ethnic Cleansing Works'
Sunni, Shia violence, death squads, and civil war in Iraq
October 10, 2006
by Enver Masud
Polls by the State Department and independent researchers show that Iraqis favor an immediate U.S. pullout, meanwhile, an "independent commission", according to the Sunday Times, "may recommend carving up Iraq into three highly autonomous regions". We believe that the commission's recommendation will have little to do with the welfare of the Iraqis. Their recommendations will have much to do with expanding U.S. control of the energy resources of the Middle East and Central Asia.
In a letter to President Clinton in 1998, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) -- the global domination project...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.... To justify the invasion of Iraq "evidence" of Iraq's possessing weapons of mass destruction was 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":
Oddly, 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...

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. Civilian casualties amounted to 10 per cent. In other words, unlike the collective punishment meted out by the US, such as the killing of several thousand people in Fallujah, the resistance is fighting basically a military war and it is winning. That truth is suppressed, as it was in Vietnam.
According to a poll released last month by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, "Six in 10 Iraqis approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, . . . Nearly eight in 10 say the U.S. presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it's preventing".

And it is clear that it is chiefly the U.S. installed government, not the Iraqi people, that would like the U.S. to stay longer. "Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi president, has asked for a long-term US military presence in Iraq, saying his country needs two permanent US air bases to deter what he calls foreign interference." These bases are under construction.

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...
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, recommended:
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", says Peters... [SEE EXCELLENT SOURCES]


View all events for this timeline (1637)

Entries submitted to, but not accepted, in this project (2)
Timelines filtered by category

Key Events
Key Events Related to DSM (57)

General Topic Areas
Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties (211)Alleged WMDs (208)Diversion of Resources to Iraq (20)Internal Opposition (58)Legal Justification (142)Media Coverage (120)Motives (107)Politicization of Intelligence (291)Pre-9/11 Plans for War (50)Pre-war Attacks against Iraq (31)Pre-war Planning (49)Predictions (51)Propaganda (133)Public Opinion on Iraqi Threat (57)The 'Generals' Revolt' (4)The Decision to Invade (253)Weapons Inspections (132)

Specific Allegations
2001 Anthrax Attacks (12)Africa-Uranium Allegation (126)Al Zarqawi Allegation (39)Aluminum Tubes Allegation (88)Atta in Prague Connection (63)Biological Weapons Trailers (65)Drones (8)Poisons and Gases (12)

Specific Cases and Issues
Anabasis (13)Chalabi and the INC (77)Curveball Fabrications (35)Military Analysts Propaganda (8)Office of Special Plans (35)Outing of Jose Bustani (13)Powell's Speech to UN (34)Spying on the UN (10)

Quotes from Senior US officials
Chemical & Bio Weapons Allegations (28)Imminent Threat Allegations (11)Iraq Ties to Terrorists Allegations (35)Nuclear Weapons Allegations (32)WMD Allegations (14)Democracy Rhetoric (36)Decision to Invade Quotes (24)

Iraq in the 1980s and 1990s
Desert Shield/Desert Storm (72)Iraq Invasion of Kuwait (64)US Hostages During Desert Shield (12)US-Iraq Collaboration (66)Weapons of Mass Destruction (36)


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 from containment 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.[...]

1958-1991 Iraq: 'Canonbone', 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

Arabic News Weekly Edition for Iraq
Arab diplomatic sources revealed that there is a British - US plan to divide Iraq after striking it, starting by establishing a Kurdish state...

March 11, 1999
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.

U.S. Considers Dividing Iraq Into Three Separate States After Saddam Is Gone
FORECASTS & TRENDS, by Gary D. Halbert www.profutures.com. 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. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HAL20060...

Bush's Mideast Plan: Conquer and Divide
Eric Margolis
Toronto, 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. 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.

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 below] 1996 "Clean Break" document 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

*1996 A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
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 U.S. opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated.


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. 21 Edited by Joyce Battle, May 8, 2007

Exit strategy: Civil war
By Pepe Escobar
June 10, 2005
Breaking up Iraq
...The plan was allegedly conceived by David Philip, a former White House adviser working for the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC). The AFPC is financed by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which has also funded both the ultra-hawkish Project for a New American Century and American Enterprise Institute.
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 guerrillas to the negotiating table. More significantly, 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. Curiously, Henry Kissinger was selling the same idea even before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Once again this is classic divide and rule: the objective is the perpetuation of Arab disunity. Call it Iraqification; what it actually means is sectarian fever translated into civil war. Operation Lightning - the highly publicized counter-insurgency tour de force with its 40,000 mostly Shi'ite troops rounding up Sunni Arabs - can be read as the first salvo of the civil war. Vice President Dick Cheney all but admitted the whole plan on CNN, confidently predicting that "the fighting will end before the Bush administration leaves office"....

Pentagon black ops are also part of these "forces of evil". In October 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld invented a secret army - one of his pet projects. According to the Pentagon's Defense Science Board, the goal of Rumsfeld's army - the 100-member, US$100 million-a-year Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG) - would carry out secret operations designed to "stimulate reactions" among "terrorist groups", thus exposing them to "counter-attack" by the P2OG. The stock in trade of Rumsfeld's army is assassinations, sabotage, deception, the whole arsenal of black ops. Iraq is the perfect lab for it. "Iraqification" means in fact "Salvadorization". No wonder old faces are back in the game. James Steele, leader of a Special Forces team in El Salvador in the early 1980s, is in Iraq. Steve Casteel, a former top official involved in the "drug wars" in Bolivia, Peru and Colombia, is also in Iraq. He is a senior adviser in - where else - the Interior Ministry, to which friendly militias are subordinated.
Guerrillas forever
For all their complex, interlocking strands, it is the Sunni Arab guerrillas who are now operating almost like a united front. Their full thrust is against what is denounced as a puppet government controlled by the US and its "foreign allies" - exiles, pro-Iranian Shi'ites and splittist Kurds[...]

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. ...
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....
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 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.[...]

The Plan Was Always to Divide Iraq
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."...
"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[...]

FM 3-24: America's new masterplan for Iraq Divide and Rule: Bush's Doomed Plan for Baghdad
by Robert Fisk, April 13, 2007
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.

War on Iraq: Opinion
Contributing Editor Air Marshal (Retd) AYAZ AHMED KHAN
...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”...

"This plan was conceived long before the war -- and long before the 9/11 attacks used to justify the war."
Flow Charter: 'Anti-War' Democrats Give Bush Victory on a Platter
Chris Floyd, Empire Burlesque
Richard Behan has provided one of the best, most succinct summaries of the Bush Administration's true aims in their war of aggression against Iraq in "George Bush's Land Mine: If the Iraqi People Get Revenue Sharing, They Lose Their Oil to Exxon.

As Behan notes, the new "Iraqi oil law" (originally written, in English, by Bush's own oily cronies) will essentially transfer up to 80 percent of Iraq's oil revenues into the coffers of American and British oil companies, for decades to come. This plan was conceived long before the war -- and long before the 9/11 attacks used to justify the war. As Behan notes: "This bizarre circumstance is the end-game of the brilliant, ever-deceitful maneuvering by the Bush Administration in conducting the entire scenario of the 'global war on terror.'" ...America's imperial right to secure the lion's share of the world's resources – by any means necessary – has long been a basic, bipartisan assumption of U.S. foreign policy for decades. After all, was it not the saintly Jimmy Carter who first openly declared that America would go to war in the Middle East if "our" oil supplies there were threatened? ...
A secret NSC memorandum in 2001 spoke candidly of “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields” in Iraq. In 2002 Paul Wolfowitz suggested simply seizing the oil fields...

Planning for the two wars was underway almost immediately upon the Bush Administration taking office–at least six months before September 11, 2001. The wars had nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism was initially rejected by the new Administration as unworthy of national concern and public policy, but 9/11 gave them a conveniently timed and spectacular alibi to undertake the wars. Quickly inventing a catchy “global war on terror” theme, the Administration disguised the true nature of the wars very cleverly, and with enduring success.

The “global war on terror” is bogus. The prime terrorist in Afghanistan and the architect of 9/11, Osama bin Laden, was never apprehended, and the President’s subsequent indifference is a matter of record. And Iraq harbored no terrorists at all. But both countries were invaded, both countries suffer military occupation today, both are dotted with permanent U.S. military bases protecting the hydrocarbon assets, and both have been provided with puppet governments...

Vice President Cheney’s Energy Task Force was created, composed of federal officials and oil industry people. By March of 2001, half a year before 9/11, the Task Force was poring secretly over maps of the Iraqi oil fields, pipe lines, and tanker terminals. It studied a listing of foreign oil company “suitors” for exploration and development contracts, to be executed with Saddam Hussein’s oil ministry. There was not a single American or British oil company included, and to Mr. Cheney and his cohorts that was intolerable. The final report of the Task Force was candid: “… Middle East oil producers will remain central to world security. The Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy.” The detailed meaning of “focus” was left blank.

The other event was the first meeting of President Bush’s National Security Council, and it filled in the blank. The Council abandoned abruptly the decades-long attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and set a new priority for Middle East foreign policy instead: the invasion of Iraq. This, too, was six months before 9/11. “Focus” would mean war.

By the fall of 2002, the White House Iraq Group-a collection not of foreign policy experts but of media and public relations people-was cranking up the marketing campaign for the war. A contract was signed with the Halliburton Corporation-even before military force in Iraq had been authorized by Congress-to organize the suppression of oil well fires, should Saddam torch the fields as he had done in the first Gulf War. Little was left to chance.

Rand Corporation's new recipe to handle the Muslim World
By Abdus Sattar Ghazali
April 2, 2007
The semi-official U.S. think tank, Rand Corporation, suggests creation of networks of the so-called moderate Muslims to promote US policy objectives in the Muslim World. In its latest report, titled “Building Moderate Muslim Networks” the Rand Corp advocates that the building of moderate Muslim networks needs to become an explicit goal of the U.S. government policy, with an international database of partners and a well-designed plan...

he report defines a moderate as a Muslim who supports democracy, gender equality, freedom of worship and opposition to terrorism. This looks an amplification on its two previous reports - “Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies” (March 2004) and “US strategy in the Muslim World after 9/11” (December 2004) - which also suggested supporting moderate Muslims and exploitation of inter-Muslim religious differences. Interestingly, a novelist turned research scholar, Cheryl Benard is the author of “Civil Democratic Islam” and co-author of Dec. 2004 and March 2007 reports.

In the December 2004 study Rabasa had suggested to exploit Sunni, Shiite and Arab, non-Arab divides to promote the US policy objectives in the Muslim world. Echoing this theme, the latest report recommends reaching out to Muslim activists, leaders and intellectuals in non-Arab countries such as Turkey as well as in Southeast Asia and Europe. The report recommends targeting five groups as potential building blocks for networks: liberal and secular Muslim academics and intellectuals; young moderate religious scholars; community activists; women’s groups engaged in gender equality campaigns; and moderate journalists and scholars.

The report warned that moderate groups can lose credibility – and therefore, effectiveness – if U.S. support is too obvious. Effective tactics that worked during the Cold War include having the groups led by credible individuals and having the United States maintain some distance from the organizations it supports. “This was done by not micro-managing the groups, but by giving them enough autonomy,” Rabasa said. “As long as certain guidelines were met, they were free to pursue their own activities.”

To help start this initiative, the report recommends working toward an international conference modeled in the Cold War-era Congress of Cultural Freedom, and then developing a standing organization to combat what it called radical Islamism.

The recent summit of "Secular Islam Conference" in St. Petersburg, Florida, almost coincided with the release of the latest Rand Report. A small group of self-proclaimed secular Muslims from North America and elsewhere gathered in St. Petersburg for what they billed as a new global movement to correct the assumed wrongs of Islam and call for an “Islamic Reformation.”...

The Rand Reports about Islam appear to be part of a grand strategy to “change the face of Islam” as revealed by the US News and World Report on April 15, 2005. The report entitled - Hearts, Minds, and Dollars: In an Unseen Front in the War on Terrorism, America is Spending Millions...To Change the Very Face of Islam - reads: “From military psychological-operations teams and CIA covert operatives to openly funded media and think tanks, Washington is plowing tens of millions of dollars into a campaign to influence not only Muslim societies but Islam itself.”

According to the well planned leaks to the US News and World Report, this strategy for the first time stated that the United States has a national security interest in influencing what happens within Islam. The report also confirmed that it is, in fact, the US which has been funding an American version of Islam, called “Moderate Islam.”

The Rand reports try to create a fictitious vision of Muslims and of Islam, where it is antihuman, uncreative, authoritarian, and intrinsically against Western societies. It is an ethnocentric view of Islam that dominates current representations of Islam that are reductive, predominantly negative, and encouraging a culture of Islamophobia.

The complexities of the so-called fundamentalism and extremism in the past 100 years or so, whether it be Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Muslim, need to be understood in the context of modernization, the process of secularization, the changing nature of religious institutions, the post-colonial experience in developing countries, globalization, the divide between wealthy and poor, contesting political power, and the impact of totalitarian regimes on civil society.

What is not mentioned in the RAND reports is that the reason for the alienation of Muslims from the West, is the issue of "double standards" the West so brazenly practices when dealing with Muslim nations. America already has a very tarnished image in the Islamic world. It has already alienated a great majority of Muslims throughout the world through its misguided foreign policy. Who in the right mind will believe that this asinine assault on Islam and Muslims will win America friends in the Islamic world?

Now a word about the Washington-based semi-official think tank – the RAND Corporation. Among other government departments, the Rand Corp conducts studies for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Commands, the defense agencies, the Department of the Navy and the U.S. intelligence community. Obviously, writers of the three under discussion reports on Islam may be considered as neo-Orientalists with clear intention to belittle Islam.

When the European nations began their long campaign to colonize and conquer the rest of the world for their own benefit, they brought their academic and missionary resources to help them with their task. Orientalists and missionaries, whose ranks often overlapped, were the servants of an imperialist government who was using their services as a way to subdue or weaken an enemy. The academic study of the Oriental East by the Occidental West was often motivated and often co-operated hand-in-hand with the imperialistic aims of the European colonial powers. The foundations of Orientalism were in the maxim "Know thy enemy". This equally applies to the modern day Orientalists of such semi-official think tanks as the Rand Corporation.

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
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...

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.

A New Hussein
by Mikel Weisser
As I type this I am getting the impression Mainstream Media, er, at least CNN, is consciously trying to Twitter-fy my brain, trying to get me and mine hooked on the latest marketed fad, fully well knowing, as I do because I saw it on their channel, that Twitter destroys all it touches. Or so says the fine folks at the National Academy of Sciences. Straightforwardly, in an advanced publication, in a summary that runs quite a bit longer that 140 characters, concerned scientists are now warning America, and the rest of the world for that matter, that Twitter desensitizes you, demagnetizes your moral compass, destroys your ability to feel empathy, in addition to creating several other zombie-like moral effects that make a person all the more easy to control and to tolerate outrageous violence. Luckily CNN was on the scene with a modem and a TV camera before the entire nation fell into drooling zombie-dom. In fact, you’d think they were our heroes. Once more, just to clarify, on April 14th , both on that evening’s scroll and in the expanded headlines, and still available on their website, CNN quite clearly reported, with scientists they presented as credible, that Twitter can be more dangerous to our country than a whole host of Osamas. Then — as can generally be expected in a comedy — they turn around and market the crap out of the very product they bashed with a whopping 129 different articles about Twitter in their online archive, including some artificially manufactured “funny” business masquerading a supposedly interesting supposed human interest series of clips and digressions involving Larry King as a comically rendered full-blown Twitter-holic trying to tweet up or out tweet all comers.

CNN loves Twitter the way Fox loves its Tea Parties...
Sunday April 19th King sank to his new low regarding naked marketeering of the magic Tweetie- Tweet- Tweet, bringing on as guests a studiously post-Punked Ashton Kutcher, Sean Piddly-Puff Coombs, Queen Oprah herself, a remote of Jimmy J-Dawg Fallon failing to seem sincere and the ever ubiquitous, ever artificial Ryan Seacrest literally phoning it in. What could bring so much stellar “talent” together on a Sunday night? Well, guess what? All of them were shilling for Twitter. That many celebrities pushing a drug and it becomes a new cocaine. Like gangster rap, like chat rooms, Goth fashion, punk, hippies, like rock in roll itself, like TV, like whatever the next new drug is that we’re always not supposed to like even as we’re being taught to.. This is just the latest step in our culture-makers’ ongoing efforts to keep us lazy and stupid, at least dumb enough to be their adherents. They are hoping we will stay stupid long enough so they can get the next war set-up.

Word on the street is they’re resuming casting for the next Hussein. Right about now, Barack Obama could sure use some Hussein. And no, I’m not talking about his middle name. The purpose of this column is not to make lame jokes about our president’s middle name. (Besides that one I mean.) No, the purpose of this column is to ponder who will get the part of the New Hussein. You remember Hussein, right? Saddam Hussein?I ask if you remember because we Americans aren’t so good at remembering history; which is why we spend so much of the time having to repeating it. To prepare this article and see what I remembered about Hussein I went looking for my earliest reference to fabled Iraqi Strongman and I found one in a piece from back in January of 1991 called “I Go to War”: “The real reason we’re at war with Hussein isn’t that he didn’t buy American when we gave him money for guns, that’s for sure. The real reason is that we TV generations are stupid. We can’t remember any of the lessons that sneak out through the networks unless they’re talking about cool new ways to consume or not consume whichever is the current fashion. We don’t even know how to think and don’t have the patience to learn. The war is breaking us into three camps — those who find war wrong, those who find war right and those who find war boring.

“Once the majority of a population finds mass murder and systematic destruction of a culture too boring to consider and just wish they could find another channel to watch, and then we can wage continuous war with one stooge or another for the rest of all time. Of course, even if somebody figures out scam, we can always just stop the current war and start a new one. Long as our economy is so based on military issues, it doesn’t matter what the people might think, the national budget is going to require wars on a regular basis to keep itself afloat. People are so pissed off with current conditions it isn’t hard to make them want to fight somebody.”

And so on, same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. Just change out a name or two and that same passage could’ve been written about either Bush or, more and more lately... Obama. If we’re unlucky, it could be written next year. If the dogs on the right and those blue dogs that trail them for scraps actually start to catch a little skin one these days while nipping at his heels the new Hussein could be debuting as early as next month. Is there a Saddam in your future? For longer than I’d like to remember Saddam Hussein served as America ’s favorite bad-guy love/hate relationship. He was so easy to hate, yet for 25 years it was like we dated the guy. For the first ten years for sure he was a bastard. But doggone it, he was our bastard in the Middle East, so everything was all right. When he did bad things, like passing gas, we forgave him Despite the fact that during our 21st Century Iraq Occupation we would help make sure he was put to death for that very act, back-in-the-day successive US governments forgave Hussein for gassing his own people. Turns out it was our gas in the first place and Saddam only knew how to use it because we taught him how.

Then when Bush the First needed an enemy in the way that any floundering president needs a good enemy, to hide son Neil’s S&L scandal, Saddam became our favorite Boogey Man. They sold more pictures of Saddam than Satan for a while there. It got to the point Trey Parker and Matt Stone could poke fun of Saddam’s absolute demonization in South Park: Bigger Longer and Uncut. Four years later Bush Jr. would recycle that hatred to sell us his phony war. Junior managed to get himself another five years of kicking around Saddam before we accidentally let the Iraqis kill him. Good ol’ Saddam, the kind of guy you’d love to hate. His legend really comes to life now that he’s not around to enjoy it.

But with Saddam so dead, Obama is in the market for a new international whipping boy. As luck would have it, the recent news cycle brought two applicants for that coveted support role: “Guy we hate so much we don’t mind spending billions and spilling millions to go to war with him because he so very much sucks.” Ladies and gentlemen it looks like Obama is celebrating Earth Day by recycling, recycling Bush-era Boogeymen... One thing’s for sure, if things begin to get rough for the current admin, as they once did for Bush, as they did for Clinton, as they did for Bush I, and on and on, you can bet Barack Obama will find his very own Hussein soon enough.... by then America will be too Twitter-fied to care....Thank you for your time America. Excuse me now, while I go check my Facebook... http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/04/a-new-hussein/

Concocted False Flag Plan Of Attack On White House Finalized
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
Pakistan’s enemies are preparing to deliver a decisive blow. Pakistan has suffered grievously on all counts and its very foundations have been jolted in the seven years of America’s occupation of Afghanistan. It is most unfortunate that in this gory plan, some of the political parties friendly to India, western sponsored NGOs, intellectuals and writers have also contributed towards disinformation campaign and bringing bad name to Pakistan....Under the garb of friendship, Pakistan has been gradually and systematically weakened from within and destabilized through covert means employed by RAW, RAM [or NDS, the Karzai puppet intelligence], CIA duly complemented by Mossad and MI-6.
In the last seven years Pakistan has suffered grievously on all counts and its very foundations have been jolted. Mumbai episode on 26 November was the starting point for executing the final destructive phase against Pakistan. Sudden flurry of CIA controlled drone attacks and terrorist attacks in various parts of Pakistan are clear cut indications that our adversaries are now all set to deliver the decisive hammer.

It is most unfortunate that in this gory plan, some of the political parties friendly to India, western sponsored NGOs, intellectuals and writers have also contributed towards disinformation campaign and bringing bad name to Pakistan. They have been more distressed on the peace deals signed in Swat and Bajaur and are writing copiously to paint the Islamists as demons and the main threat to existence of Pakistan. A willful effort is being made to derail Swat peace accord and to prevent Zardari from counter signing the peace deal. One of the means adopted was to display a video footage of a 17-year girl publicly lashed by the bearded Taliban. The footage was repeatedly flashed on all TV channels throughout the day till late night on 4 April with a sinister purpose to defame the Taliban and Sharia laws. I will comment on its veracity separately but my sources have revealed that it was a fake video. A foreign funded NGO had furnished the clip to all concerned while majority of private electronic media channels funded from abroad played it up with vivacity and zest. The women activists of MQM have taken the lead in condemning the incident by staging protest marches in Karachi. It is a classic case of painting white with a black brush.

The U.S. and western media as well as the U.S. think tanks have been playing upon the theme of threat of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates to security of Pakistan as well as to U.S.A. George Bush had declared in July last year that any future attack on the U.S. homeland would come from FATA. The tribal belt was declared as the nursery of terrorists where terrorists and suicide bombers were indoctrinated, trained and launched into Afghanistan to target U.S.-Nato-Afghan forces. Giving strength to Karzai’s allegation of cross border terrorism, the U.S. sprinkled spice to this sizzling theme by adding that certain elements within the army and the ISI were linked with the Taliban and assisting them in movement across the border. FATA was declared as the most dangerous place and the hub centre of terrorism. After the Mumbai attacks, IndiaPakistan is the epicenter of terrorism and that the ISI was linked with Lashkar-e-Taiba that had executed the Mumbai carnage. The purported document provided to Pakistan is full of glaring loopholes but India is insisting that Pakistan must accept the trash as well-cooked piece of evidence and act. shamelessly joined the propagandists and alleged that

Cockeyed and baseless allegations hurled by U.S.A, India and Afghanistan in unison under a timed program have been made without furnishing any proof. Complaints of Pakistan against other agencies are ignored. Not a single story of massive sabotage and subversion undertaken against Pakistan from the Afghan soil has ever been published in the western and Indian newspaper. On the contrary any terrorist attack taking place in India or a western state was invariably pasted on Pakistani extremists and the ISI. It was hoped that the new U.S. administration under Obama would put an end to negative propaganda warfare based on pack of lies to discredit Pakistan and its institutions but it has decided to adopt the old policy of PakistanObama too has projected FATA as the safe haven and main headquarters of Al-Qaeda and its leadership. He reiterated fears of Bush by asserting that Al-Qaeda based in FATA is planning to attack homeland of U.S.A and has accordingly framed the new Af-Pak strategy to destroy Al-Qaeda in AfghanistanPakistan....

The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) leader Baitullah Mehsud who had never been targeted or condemned by U.S. and the West suddenly came in their bad books after he announced his allegiance to Mullah Omar and accepted him as the supreme leader in first week of March. He had probably taken this step in the light of Pak army having scored moral victories in Bajaur and Swat and compelling the militants to ink peace deals. The new Af-Pak strategy worked out by Obama Administration to conjointly round up the irreconcilable Islamist extremists on both sides of the Durand Line might also have prompted him to achieve unity between Afghan and Pak Taliban and confront the new challenge jointly. Till this announcement, Mullah Omar led Taliban and Baitullah led Taliban were different entities and there was no nexus between them. In fact, Omar had conveyed his displeasure to Baitullah not to operate under the name of Taliban and bring a bad name to his outfit. Likewise, Gulbadin Hikmatyar leading Hizb-e-Islami operates independently in eastern and northeastern Afghanistan and also around Kandahar and Kabul. The U.S. has announced $5 million award for Baitullah’s head and drones have targeted his exclusive domain within South Waziristan (Jandola to Sarwakai), inhabited by Mehsuds, for the first time. Coming months will prove whether he has actually fallen from grace or it is a put up show to hoodwink Pakistan. Unlike Omar, Osama or Zawahiri who remain underground, Baitullah has exposed himself on number of occasions and has been giving interviews to the media men. The ISI had twice provided six figure grid reference of his location to CIA, but it is strange that the U.S. took no interest. The drones reconnoitering every inch of the tribal belt have surprisingly failed to spot him. The U.S. has now agreed to carryout joint operation against him to get hold of him....

Series of militant attacks took place in March at a time when peace deal with militants had been inked in Swat and Bajaur, Qazi courts have started functioning in Malakand Division, blatant bloodshed and destruction in the war torn regions have ended and there is an overall atmosphere of reconciliation and peace.. The suicide attacks in Jamrud on a mosque during Friday prayers on 27 March killing over 50 and injuring 120; suicide attack on a military convoy in Bannu killing 5 soldiers and 2 civilians and injuring 9 and a bloody clash in lower Dir on 29 March in which some senior officials were killed, together with a drone attack in Orakzai Agency on 01 April and suicide hit and a drone attack in North Waziristan on 4 April are aimed at disrupting peace in the Frontier province. Two terrorists attack in Lahore on 3rd and 30th March in Lahore were undertaken by the terrorists to give a loud message that terrorism has entered the heartland of Punjab. Another terrorist attack in posh locality of Islamabad on a FC camp on 4 April killing eight security personnel and a suicide attack on Imambargah in Chakwal on 5 April killing 24 people are links of the same chain. Prior to each attack, the intelligence agencies had forewarned the security forces about entry of RAW agents in Lahore and in Islamabad. More attacks are expected in coming days.

Baitullah who had throughout this period remained in the background and was media shy suddenly came on the centre stage and claimed responsibility for most terrorist attacks which took place recently. These claims were made in spite of an unknown group calling itself Fidayeen-e-Islam owning up the responsibility for the attack on Police Training School in Lahore on 30 March and the mosque in Jamrud on 27th March. The reason given for Baitullah’s offensive posture was the continuing drone attacks in FATA which in his view were taking place with connivance of the government. To the surprise of many he brazenly stated what the two American presidents had earlier predicted that his group was planning a terrorist attack on White House that would amaze the world. He asserted that his men would teach a lesson to the Americans. The only thing he has not revealed is the date and time of attack, which I reckon should also have been made public to make the story more thrilling. The people were still pondering over the statement of Baitullah when he hurled another salvo on 4 April by claiming responsibility for the terrorist attack by a gunman on an immigration centre in a small U.S. city on 3 April killing 13 people and then killed himself. He said that his accomplice has managed to escape and would hit another target soon. Investigations revealed that the gunman was Vietnamese origin which lay to rest the boastful claim of Baitullah.

Unless Baitullah is a nitwit and weird, why on earth should he disclose his hostile intentions before hand and alert the prey he intends to hit. Prior disclosure may stand to reason if the attacker uses it as a ploy to frighten the adversary which he never intends to target. The Taliban based in Pakistan and Afghanistan are local based and have so far not demonstrated any capability to strike a target outside their respective spheres of influence. It is only the mythical Al-Qaeda which possesses the long arm to hit out anywhere in the world....
Those who believe that he is CIA man now argue that he has deliberately given this statement to allay this impression. They say that when Clinton had visited Islamabad in March 2000 and had refused to shake hands or have a photo session with Gen Musharraf, it was purposely done to convey a message that he was in bad books of U.S.A where as in actuality he was not and it was a ploy to build up his image among the Pakistanis. After all, plan of attacking and occupying Afghanistan had been finalized way back in 1997. For Afghan venture someone like Gen Musharraf totally dedicated to the U.S. cause and anti-Islamist extremists fitted well into U.S. scheme of things. Nawaz Sharif had defied U.S. pressure and carried out nuclear tests; he had introduced Sharia laws in Lower House and was generally soft towards rightist religious parties. He was certainly not the right choice and therefore had to be got rid of to promote U.S. agenda with the active assistance of friendly and pliable president holding all state powers.

Till now the threat perception highlighted by U.S.A was based on assumptions. Now their adversary has come out in the open with his future hostile intentions and brandished his sword and specified the target within U.S.A, it gives a ready made excuse to belligerent U.S. to once again put the Bush policy of preemption into action.... the concocted plan of attack on White House or an equally sensitive target in Washington has been finalized by vested groups to make it a justifiable excuse to attack Pakistan. If the U.S. hopes to win war in Afghanistan by undermining premier institutions of Pakistan, it is sadly mistaken. All its high sounding plans would come to a naught and it would have to exit in disgrace. If it commits the blunder of attacking Pakistan as suggested to it by India and Israel, it would undoubtedly cause massive destruction to this already badly mauled country but in the process it would sink in the third quagmire. Pakistan has relatively better means to defend itself when pushed against the wall. Its already depleting economy would not be able to sustain war on three fronts and would perish in this region. Another crop of Islamists would rise from the debris of ruined Pakistan to carry forward the message of Allah that God is Great and none else. A Raja

To 'make it perfectly clear', U.S. defeated S.U., thus still OWNS Pakistan --- and the world
U.S.A responsible for current situation in Pakistan
24 April 2009
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday said that the US was responsible for the present mess as it virtually abandoned Pakistan after the Soviets left Afghanistan. "There is a very strong argument, which is: It wasn’t a bad investment to end the Soviet Union, but let’s be careful what we sow, because we will harvest. So we then left Pakistan. We said, okay, fine, you deal with the Stingers that we’ve left all over your country. You deal with the mines that are along the border. And by the way, we don’t want to have anything to do with you," Clinton said testifying before a Congressional committee. After the downfall of the Soviet Union, Clinton said the US stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with the ISI [SIC]
"We can point fingers at the Pakistanis, which is -- you know, I did some yesterday, frankly. And it’s merited, because we’re wondering why they don’t just get out there and deal with these people. But the problems we face now, to some extent, we have to take responsibility for having contributed to," she said. Clinton said the US has a history of moving in and out of Pakistan. "I mean, let’s remember here, the people we are fighting today we funded 20 years ago. We did it because we were locked in this struggle with the Soviet Union. They invaded Afghanistan, and we did not want to see them control Central Asia, and we went to work," she said.
"It was President (Ronald) Reagan, in partnership with the Congress, led by Democrats, who said, you know what? Sounds like a pretty good idea. Let’s deal with the ISI and the Pakistani military, and let’s go recruit these mujahidin. And great, let’s get some to come from Saudi Arabia and other places, importing their Wahhabi brand of Islam, so that we can go beat the Soviet Union. And guess what? They retreated. They lost billions of dollars, and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union," Clinton said. And what is happening in Pakistan today is a result of that policy, she acknowledged, so the US should also take a part of the responsibility.

Musharraf offers to return to power in Pakistan PDF Print E-mail
Written by www.daily.pk
Friday, 24 April 2009 20:53
President Pervez Musharraf has said he would be prepared to return to office in Pakistan.

In a rare interview with Al-Jazeera since being forced to resign from office last year, Mr Musharraf, said he would consider serving a second term as Pakistan’s president if he felt he could make a valuable contribution.

just as he 'offered' to leave power,
Mr Musharraf, 65, ruled Pakistan for nine years after seizing power in a bloodless coup in 1999 and became a close ally of the West in the war on terror following the September 11 attacks....But since stepping down Mr Musharraf said he had become "despondent" about what was happening in Pakistan, particularly now the Taliban has been allowed to introduce Sharia law to the Swat valley, which was previously controlled by Islamabad.
The former Pakistani president said "terrorism and extremism" were the biggest threat to Pakistan’s future, and he was opposed to the deal the government of President Ali Asif Zardari had struck with the Taliban allowing it to control the Swat valley....he warned that there was a "trust deficit" developing between Washington and Pakistan over how best to tackle Islamist militant groups. "The worst part of the whole situation is that there is a trust deficit between the U.S. and Pakistan’s intelligence service (ISI) and in many quarters against the army. Now that is a very serious situation, which never previously existed. "These are the two institutions which are the guarantors of stability in Pakistan. If anything has to be repaired, it has to be this trust deficit. Otherwise the two elements which are critical to fighting terrorism and extremism will be demoralised and not get the support they deserve."...
Nor did he believe had there been any significant change in American policy since Barack Obama became U.S. president. "He has taken the decision to send more force. So what was happening in the past? There was a force requirement and he is following exactly the same strategy." Mr. Musharraf said he had no regrets about allying Pakistan with Washington following the September 11 attacks. "It was the right decision from Pakistan’s point of view."

G.I.’s to Fill Civilian Gap to Rebuild Afghanistan
The Obama administration is finding that it must [SIC] turn to military personnel to fill hundreds of posts in Afghanistan intended for civilian experts, senior officials said Wednesday. In announcing a new strategy last month, President Obama promised “a dramatic increase in our civilian effort” in Afghanistan, including “agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers” to augment the additional troops he is sending....Pentagon and administration officials now acknowledge that many of those new positions will be filled by military personnel...and by contractors... that military component could be half or even more of the expanded civilian development effort in Afghanistan. The officials predicted that the requirement for the “civilian surge” would eventually include hundreds of people with experience in areas that include small-business management, legal affairs, veterinary medicine, public sanitation, counternarcotics efforts and air traffic control... The need to identify military people as one of several interim options to carry out the civilian mission in Afghanistan was foreshadowed this week by Michele A. Flournoy, the under secretary of defense for policy, who served as a director of the Obama administration’s review of strategy in Afghanistan.
“We’re going to be looking to our reserve components, where we can tap individuals based on their civilian skill set,” Ms. Flournoy said during a speech on Tuesday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan policy institute here...
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, has been a champion of finding money for the government to hire and train experts to work on civilian reconstruction in combat zones. This month, he called on leaders of the Senate budget committee to lobby for increases in State Department financing, and he has urged university experts to volunteer for service in Afghanistan. “Our ultimate success in Afghanistan is predicated on how much civilian support we can bring to bear,” said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. “While we will do whatever we can to supplement that civilian capacity in the interim, ultimately it requires other departments of the government to fill this need.” The issue was a source of friction between the Pentagon and the State "Department in early 2007, shortly after President George W. Bush announced his order to send five additional combat brigades to Iraq in a new strategy that included an expanded civilian mission. At the time, Mr. Gates shared his irritation with Congress over a State Department request for military personnel to fill more than one-third of the 350 new diplomatic positions that Mr. Bush had ordered to be created in Iraq....

Manufacturing consent for what's already in the works: intensification of U.S. led Afghan-Pak war
U.S. Questions Pakistan’s Will to Stop Taliban
"I don’t know what the Taliban’s game plan is, but what seems apparent is the state has no game plan." RAND Corporation's Christina Fair on the Pakistan government’s paralysis in the face of Taliban advance..." there is a lack of political will in the Pakistan civilian leadership to confront these Pakistan Taliban,” said Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat on the Armed Services Committee who just returned from his fifth visit to Pakistan... “I have absolutely no confidence in the ability of the existing Pakistan government to do one blessed thing,” said Representative David R. Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat who leads the House Appropriations Committee.
In a sign of the urgency of the crisis, the special envoy for the region, Richard C. Holbrooke, is sending Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton memos several times a day with his latest reading of the situation in Pakistan, an American official said.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefly visited Pakistan on Wednesday night and Thursday from Afghanistan, to meet with Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the Pakistani Army chief of staff. An American official briefed on discussions said the Pakistani leadership was “very concerned.”...

PROPAGANDA REDUX: "Qualms" pretense for the usual 'loyal opposition" charade masking bipartisan unity
Democrats Have Qualms Over War in Afghanistan
...The administration has just begun working with Congress to lay out some guideposts for gauging the effectiveness of the strategy. It is calling them “metrics” instead of “benchmarks,” as they were called when the Bush administration resisted formal restrictions on its war spending. Unlike the repeated partisan clashes between the Bush administration and Democratic leaders over war financing, the party’s leadership of the House and Senate is now firmly behind the new Democratic administration. They say Mr. Obama is fulfilling his pledge to draw down combat forces from Iraq and to concentrate on Afghanistan as a harbor for terrorists.
“Afghanistan is where the terrorist threat exists to the world, not just the United States,” said the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who said the Bush administration’s decision to focus on Iraq left unfinished a mission in Afghanistan that originally had broad support in Congress.Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, said she believed the administration had assembled a strong program for Afghanistan, focused not just on a military presence but also on civilian construction projects, enhanced intelligence gathering and government improvements. She said any benchmarks would best be put on the use of military aid to Pakistan....lawmakers wanted to make sure the Pakistan government used “those resources in a way that is not just focused on the threat they fear from India.”
Given Democratic opposition to such war spending bills in the past [hahaha], Democrats have regularly relied on strong support from Republicans to push the legislation through....The administration can probably rely on sufficient party support, but lawmakers say the White House needs to do more persuading. “I’m sure many members have concerns, and I am one of them,” said Representative John Yarmuth, Democrat of Kentucky, “and are a little bit unclear as to what we are trying to accomplish in Afghanistan.”...

Somali 'Pirates' Requisitioned for 'Overseas Contingency Operations': to expand U.S. supremacy on the seas as well as land and space
Somali pirates, who have dominated recent headlines... join hands with al-Qaida to form a dynamic evil duo against the United States and our allies. We're the friendly monsters -- a big, hulking superpower with a heart of gold -- and they're the aliens from Planet Amok...
The War on Terror lives on, of course, in the Obama administration's surge in Afghanistan, the CIA's campaign of drone attacks in the Pakistani borderlands, and the operations of the new Africa Command. However, the replacement phrase for GWOT, "overseas contingency operations," doesn't quite fire the imagination. It's obviously not meant to... a genuine problem for the military in budgetary terms. Enter the pirates, who from Errol Flynn to Johnny Depp have always been a big box-office draw. As the recent media hysteria over the crew of the Maersk Alabama indicates, that formula can carry over to real life. Take Johnny Depp out of the equation and pirates can simply be repositioned as bizarre, narcotics-chewing aliens.
Then it's simply a matter of the United States calling together the coalition of the willing monsters to crush those aliens before they take over our planet. And you thought "us versus them" went out with the Bush administration. John Feffer, http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/04/24/pirates/print.html

Deadly Swine Flu Outbreak in Mexico, not deadly across the border: U.S. CDC & U.S. dominated WHO appear to know a great deal about it, and instantly raised political 'pandemic flu alert' -- excellent for imposing extreme fear and state control in the name of 'health'
Mexico's Health Minister, after huddling with President Felipe Calderón and other top officials, with help from international agencies, said the virus mutated from pigs and had at some point been transmitted to humans. The new strain contains gene sequences from North American and Eurasian swine flus, North American bird flu and North American human flu, said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A similar virus has been found in the American Southwest, where officials have reported eight nonfatal cases.
Most of Mexico’s dead were young, healthy adults, and none were over 60 or under 3 years old, the World Health Organization said. That alarms health officials because seasonal flus cause most of their deaths among infants and bedridden elderly people, but pandemic flus — like the 1918 Spanish flu, and the 1957 and 1968 pandemics — often strike young, healthy people the hardest...Because of the situation, the World Health Organization planned to consider raising the world pandemic flu alert to 4 from 3. Such a high level of alert — meaning that sustained human-to-human transmission of a new virus has been detected — has not been reached in recent years, even with the H5N1 avian flu circulating in Asia and Egypt, and would “really raise the hackles of everyone around the world,” said Dr. Robert G. Webster, a flu virus expert at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis....
Mexico’s flu season is usually over by now, but health officials have noticed a significant spike in flu cases since mid-March. The W.H.O. said there had been 800 cases in Mexico in recent weeks, 60 of them fatal, of a flulike illness that appeared to be more serious than the regular seasonal flu. Mexican officials said there were 943 possible cases.
Still, only a small number have been confirmed as cases of the new H1N1 swine flu, according to Gregory Hartl, a W.H.O. spokesman. Mexican authorities confirmed 16 deaths from swine flu and said 45 others were under investigation, most of them in the Mexico City area. The C.D.C. said that eight nonfatal cases had been confirmed in the United States, and that it had sent teams to California and Texas to investigate.
“We are worried,” said Dr. Richard Besser, the acting head of the C.D.C. “We don’t know if this will lead to the next pandemic, but we will be monitoring it and taking it seriously.”

Health Agencies Warily Monitor Swine Flu Strain
The new strain contains gene sequences from North American and Eurasian swine flus, North American bird flu and North American human flu, said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention...
Dr. Margaret Chan, secretary-general of the World Health Organization, said on Saturday that the swine flu virus spreading in Mexico and the United States had “pandemic potential,” but that it was too early to tell if it would become a pandemic. “This situation is evolving quickly,” Dr. Chan said in a telephone news conference. “A new disease is by definition poorly understood.” But officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said they understood that the outbreak potential in the United States was serious... Experts gathered at the W.H.O. headquarters in Geneva on Saturday to discuss whether to declare an international public health emergency, a move that could involve travel advisories and border closures.

The United States has a detailed pandemic preparedness plan that was written in 2005 during the early years of the scare over H5N1 bird flu. But one person involved in planning said that federal officials were “not pulling the trigger on any part of it yet.” Among the moves officials are considering is whether to move stockpiles of the flu drug Tamiflu and protective gear like masks and gloves closer to San Diego, San Antonio and other places where the first cases of the swine flu have been reported in the United States. ...

The current swine flu outbreak comes at a time when most of the top federal health jobs in the United States have not been filled by the Obama adminstration. Dr.Besser, for example, is the acting head of the C.D.C. and there is also an acting surgeon general. One health official and one flu expert who were consulted on pandemic planning said that in recent days they have been involved in a series of conference calls with other officials who had been part of the pandemic planning and what one called “newbies. ”The experts spoke on condition of anonymity to keep from being cut off from consultations.

Teams from the centers have gone to Texas and California and will be helping local officials with case contacts, laboratory testing and other steps... To combat the disease, the centers [CDC] has already started preparation of a “seed strain” for a swine flu vaccine, weakening the virus until it provides protection without causing disease takes time and careful testing.

Is Avian Flu another Pentagon Hoax?
F. William Engdahl
Against all scientific prudence and normal public health procedure, the world population is being whipped up into a fear frenzy by irresponsible public health officials from the US Administration to WHO to the United States Centers for Disease Control. They all warn about the imminent danger that a malicious viral strain might spread from infected birds, primarily in Vietnam and other Asian centers, to contaminate the entire human species in pandemic proportions. Often the flu pandemic of 1918 which is said to have killed 18 million worldwide, is cited as an example of what ‘might’ lie in store for us.
On November 1 President Bush is scheduled to visit the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda Maryland to announce his Administration’s strategy of how it will prepare for the next flu epidemic, whether from Bird Flu or some other strain. The plan has been a year in the making. On October 28 the Senate passed an $8 billion emergency funding bill to address the growing Avian Flu panic. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, in a moment of candor during the debate on the Senate bill told the press, ‘If it isn’t the current H5N1 virus that leads to an influenza pandemic, at some point in our nation’s future, another virus will.’ [...]

Tamiflu, Vistide and the Pentagon Agenda
by F. William Engdahl
November 1, President George W. Bush went to the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland to hold a high profile press conference, to announce a 381-page plan, officially called the Pandemic Influenza Strategic Plan.
It was no ordinary Bush photo opportunity. This one was meant to be a big splash event. The President was surrounded by almost half his cabinet, including Secretary of State Condi Rice, joined by the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Agriculture, Health & Human Services, Transportation and, interestingly enough, Veteran Affairs. And, just to underscore that this was a big deal, the White House invited the Director-General of the World Health Organization, who flew in from Geneva for the occasion.

The President began his remarks with the now-obligatory scare-story from 1918: ‘At this moment, there is no pandemic influenza in the United States or the world. But if history is our guide, there is reason to be concerned. In the last century, our country and the world have been hit by three influenza pandemics -- and viruses from birds contributed to all of them. The first, which struck in 1918, killed over half-a-million Americans and more than 20 million people across the globe…’

He was remarkably candid about the imminent danger to the American people: ‘Scientists and doctors cannot tell us where or when the next pandemic will strike, or how severe it will be, but most agree: at some point, we are likely to face another pandemic. And the scientific community is increasingly concerned by a new influenza virus known as H5N1 -- or avian flu…’
Mr. Bush went on to stress, ‘At this point, we do not have evidence that a pandemic is imminent. Most of the people in Southeast Asia who got sick were handling infected birds. And while the avian flu virus has spread from Asia to Europe, there are no reports of infected birds, animals, or people in the United States. Even if the virus does eventually appear on our shores in birds, that does not mean people in our country will be infected. Avian flu is still primarily an animal disease. And as of now, unless people come into direct, sustained contact with infected birds, it is unlikely they will come down with avian flu.’

Despite the admission of absence of a clear and present danger to the American public, the President called on Congress to immediately pass a new $7.1 billion in emergency funding to prepare for that not-imminent, not-pandemic, possible-in-the-future danger. The speech was an exercise in the Administration’s now-famous ‘pre-emptive war,’ this one against Avian Flu. As with the other pre-emptive wars, there is a multiple agenda—one might say, killing two birds with one stone, were it not so tasteless.[...]

note: capital stimulus plays locally:
"Lottery is probably the fairest way" to decide who will be among the 40, 000 'disenrolled' from WA. state's Basic Health Plan for the working poor ....thousands of whom have been "disenrolled" from jobs due to finance capital's 'bailout'

'On the other hand' as the chief executioner frequently 'makes clear', Seattle will get unspecified amount of stimulus funds for a deep-bore tunnel choice to replace the viaduct 'preferred' by business, city and transportation officials --- vs.public choice to repair viaduct -- for this 'projected' 4.3. billion pork-project with 2.4 billion state funds (subject to 'reconsiderstion based on final costs'), including nearly 1 billion estimated 'contribution' from the city