Let us one last aspect - historical one - that will probably get a better overall perspective before concluding. As we shall see, some elements of the relatively recent past show explicitly that the use of excuses by governments to justify wars with their people is nothing new in itself.
look at first item at the very least indicative of the type of dealings that may occur within a government. The article takes us back in 1962, plunging us into a context of high tensions between the U.S. and Cuba, and was published less than five months before the attacks of Sept. 11, 1 May 2001, after ABC News the declassification of historical documents.
"In the early '60s, U.S. military leaders have reportedly drawn up plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support against a war against Cuba.
Under the code name 'Operation Northwoods' reports indicate that the plans included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed to fool the American public and the international community to support a war to hunt the new Cuban leader Fidel Castro, the communist.
The top U.S. military leaders envisagèrent even provoke military casualties on the side of the United States, writing: ˝ We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba ˝ and ˝ lists of deaths in newspapers United States would cause a helpful wave of national indignation ˝. J4 [...]»
Fortunately, these plans never saw the squalid day, having apparently rejected by the famous President John F. Kennedy, also assassinated the following year.
However, the time before such information is made public - almost 40 years - is not it scary? While there is not easy, after all this time to hold anyone responsible for considering such plans, the revelation in itself should it not be a serious warning against the possibility that a government can commit acts of terrorism against its own citizens to achieve its purpose?
observe official confirmation of the National Security Archive, published April 30, 2001 about this.
"In its new statement of the Security Agency National entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint (Joint Chiefs of Staff) under the code name 'Operation Northwoods'. This document, titled ˝ Justification for Military Intervention in Cuba ˝ was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara March 13, 1962 as a key component of Northwoods. Formulated in response to a request from the leader of 'Cuba Project', Colonel Edward Lansdale, the memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly organize various pretexts to justify a invasion of Cuba by the United States. These proposals - which were part of a secret anti-Castro program known as the Mongoose'Operation '- included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, to develop a false campaign of terrorism by ˝ Communist Cuba in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington ˝, ˝ including the sink a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated) ˝, to believe an attack aviation Cuban military on a civilian airliner, and to develop an incident of type 'Remembering the Maine' by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods ˝ might be the most corrupt plan ever devised by the United States government ˝. "J3
As Operation Northwoods never received the necessary authorization by the Kennedy administration to take action, he was different, however, two years later, when the incident of the Gulf of Tonkin. This historic event was severe deterioration of the Vietnam War under the leadership of President Lyndon B. Johnson, successor JFK.
documents declassified in 2005 show that in fact that the Johnson administration was then manipulated information to make it look to Congress and the public to a second attack in three days from the Vietnamese boats.
Here is an excerpt from article published December 12, 2005 by USNews.
"obscure events in the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964 propelled the United States in the Vietnam War. Over a period of three days, the U.S. government reported two attacks on its destroyers. The first attack by patrol boats North Vietnamese, which occurred on August 2, caused a single protest from Washington. Then cloudy in the evening of 4 August, two U.S. ships they detected an apparent ambush. They opened fire in response, and claimed to have sunk several enemy boats. The incident motivated Lyndon Johnson to order airstrikes and obtain the equivalence of a declaration of war by Congress.
However, in the years that followed, augmented public doubts about the second incident. There was no physical evidence of the attack, although the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara had assured Congress in 1968 that information available was 'irrefutable'. It was then mainly referring to North Vietnamese naval communications intercepted by the National Security Agency (NSA). In 1984, a story that had headlines of USNews cited two high officials of the Intelligence Service of the era that put in serious doubt these reports [...].
Now, a study of newly declassified NSA - and more than 140 reports of top secret intelligence service - confirm how McNamara was wrong. Indeed, the 55-page report by historian Robert Hanyok effectively rewrites the history of this crucial event. Hanyok proves not only that there has never been a second attack, but that the NSA had an abundance of contradictory evidence had been actively suppressed. ˝ The vast majority of reports, had they been used, have shown that no attack had taken place ˝ concludes Hanyok. ˝ So a conscious effort ensued to demonstrate that the attack had occurred.
˝ [...] More damning still, analysts of the NSA not only had relied only six interceptions to develop their reporting. But Hanyok found 53 more interceptions on which remained buried for nearly forty years, inaccessible to the investigators of Congress and senior U.S. officials. Interceptions lost - 90% of the NSA information about it - show that North Vietnamese boats suspected in attack on 4 August were busy rescuing damaged boats two days earlier. And that the North Vietnamese were trying actively to avoid American ships. [...]» J10
noted that while the excuse himself did cost the lives of individual air strikes and years of fighting that flowed from the congressional declaration of war - justified by the second attack nonexistent - résultèrent about them in hundreds of thousands of deaths according to the lowest estimates.
Let us, however, confirm the information with a brief excerpt from the official website of the NSA, published on 1 December 2005.
"The largest U.S. intelligence agency, the National Security Agency, today declassified over 140 formerly top secret documents - histories, time lines, intelligence reports indicative (SIGINT), and historical records of interviews - on the Gulf of Tonkin incident of 1964. This includes the publication of a controversial article by the historian of the Agency, Robert J. Hanyok, on SIGINT and the Tonkin Gulf which confirms what historians have long argued: that there was no second attack on U.S. ships in Tonkin, August 4, 1964. [...]» J11
The use of pretexts for going to war seems unfortunately always be one of the modern military strategies. One of the most known today is probably the allegation United States that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, which proved totally false. Another excuse for Iraq, less experienced one, was also considered by the Bush administration to deceive the public and go to war.
Let this article in The New York Times, dated March 27, 2006, care of the facts.
"In the weeks preceding the invasion of Iraq by the United States, while U.S. and Britain urged the UN to drop a second resolution on Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was unequivocal: disarm the country or there will be war.
But behind closed doors the president was convinced that war was inevitable. At a private meeting for two hours in the Oval Office Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister of Britain Tony Blair was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, according to a confidential memo about the meeting written by the chief Foreign Policy Tony Blair, and reviewed by The New York Times. [...]
˝ The date of commencement of the military campaign had been set for March 10 ˝, wrote Mr. [David] Manning, paraphrasing the president. ˝ It was at this time that the shelling had started.
˝ [...] The memo also showed that the president and prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found in Iraq. Faced with the possibility of finding nothing before the date planned invasion, Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a U.S. surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in the hope that it will do shoot, or to assassinate Mr. Hussein. [...]» W102
Thus, President George W. Bush discussed painting a U.S. plane in UN colors in the hope that it will send down by Iraqis. Obviously, the international community would then have been very badly for not supporting a replica 'defensive' against Iraq.
On reflection, this kind of trickery is nothing new in itself. Falsely accuse an enemy, and then justify actions already planned. The end justifies the means, the saying goes. Moreover, as far back as the Roman Empire, it is possible to trace the remains of this strategy. Although this could never be officially confirmed, many historians argue that the year 64 AD, Emperor Nero himself had ordered the famous fire of Rome, which was then burned for nine days and affected ten of the fourteen districts of the city. The Christians of that time had quickly been blamed by Nero before being persecuted and massacred.
A Another controversial event, more recent one, occurred when the USS Maine, an American warship, exploded off the coast of Cuba in 1898. In total, 266 people died in the incident. Without providing supporting evidence, the U.S. government had immediately blamed Spain and had declared war, after which the United States took possession a few months later the English colonies of Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam . Moreover, Spain had to cede all claims to sovereignty over Cuba.
There are also different from those pretexts for to cause wars. Pretext to prolong these are also used occasionally. In the case of Iraq in particular, the United States and its allies did not they ultimately do well to perpetuate their occupation? This allows them to do it not include protecting oil resources newly conquered? After all, should the absence of fighting and tensions in Iraq, what is the justification for the coalition forces to remain there?
Therefore, let us not be surprised to learn that covert operations are conducted in Iraq to foment and maintain a chaotic situation used to prolong a war extremely lucrative for the ruling minority, particularly the military-industrial complex.
Here is an example on this subject, taken from the British Guardian dated September 19, 2005.
"scenes of violence erupted in Basra [southern Iraq] this afternoon following the arrest of two British soldiers for allegedly killing a policeman and wounded another. [...]
The fighting started after two British soldiers, allegedly dressed as Arabs, opened fire on a police patrol, killing one officer and wounding a second.
The Ministry of Defence confirmed that two military personnel were detained by Iraqi authorities today, but would not comment on rumors that the soldiers were working undercover mission. [...]» W165
The Xinhua news service reported new evidence on the same day.
"The Iraqi police arrested two British soldiers in civilian clothes in Basra, a city south of the country to have opened fire on a police station Monday, police said.
˝ Two persons wearing Arab uniforms opened fire to a police station in Basra. A police patrol pursued the attackers and captured them to discover that they were two British soldiers ˝, Xinhua said a source at the Interior Ministry.
The two soldiers were using a civilian car packed with explosives, the source said. [...]
British forces informed the Iraqi authorities that two soldiers were on official business, the source added. [...]» W166
The next day, the BBC reported that within hours of the arrest, the British military forces had resorted to force to extirpate these two soldiers - officers elite SAS special forces - in the hands of Iraqi authorities. An armored vehicle was even used to smash one of the walls of the police station where detainees were both Special Forces soldiers. W167
Subsequently, media reports stopped mentioning the car filled with explosives and disguised in the UK to focus primarily on the 'rescue mission' led by the army. Of course, most of this history remains that members of British special forces on official duty, dressed in clothes Arab and strolled in a civilian car packed with explosives, opened fire on Iraqi police. When perpetrated
smoothly, such acts certainly maintain a high level of tension in Iraq can be blamed on Al Qaeda or any extremist, evidencing that even the presence of military forces to "stabilize" the situation. While the shooting was incidentally brought to our attention, however, nothing ruled out the possibility that other similar clandestine missions are commonplace in Iraq.
***** Let us towards a future Close. Considering the recurrence of slashing Western media reports of Iran's reputation internationally in recent years, there is little doubt that the Islamic regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is reflected in turn in the firing line of U.S..
Iranians, accused loudly support the instability in Iraq and trying to bring nuclear bombs, despite their status as signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation and despite the fact that they submit to standards of the International Agency of Atomic Energy - unlike Israel - should be the first to be wary of using excuses such as military strategy.
Let's assertions also Ron Paul, Republican member of the House of Representatives of Congress, January 11, 2007.
"Mr. Speaker,
A military victory in Iraq is unattainable, as was the case for the war in Vietnam. [...]
Things will not improve in Iraq until we understand that our occupation is the primary source of chaos and killing. We are a foreign occupying force, which displeases strongly to the majority of the citizens of Iraq. [...]
discussions about a troop surge and jobs programs in Iraq can only distract Americans from the very real possibility of an attack on Iran. Our growing naval presence in the region and our harsh rhetoric against Iran are disturbing. [...]
Rumors abound about when, not if, Iran will be bombed by either Israel or the U.S. - possibly with nuclear weapons. Our CIA says Iran is ten years to produce a nuclear bomb and do not have a system to carry it, but this does not prevent our plans to keep 'all options on the table' when it comes to Iran.
We should remember that Iran, like Iraq, is a country developing without significant military power. Nothing in history to suggest that [Iran] is likely to invade a neighboring country, and certainly not to attack the U.S. or Israel. I am concerned, however, that an incident such as that of the Gulf of Tonkin is arranged and may occur to gain popular support against any attack on Iran. [...]» W82
Note also the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser of the United States from 1977 to 1981 under President Jimmy Carter. The following comments were submitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations U.S. Senate, dated February 1, 2007.
"[...] If the United States continues to be embroiled in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the likely end result of this journey will be a conflict free fall face-to-face with the Iran as well as a major part of the Islamic world in general. A plausible scenario for military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the criteria [required] This followed accusations against Iran of being responsible for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or an act of Terrorism in the U.S. blamed on Iran, which would lead to U.S. military action 'defensive' against Iran would plunge an America isolated in a difficult situation even more vast and deep, extending possibly to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan to Pakistan. [...]» W83
Then note the existence of a key document entitled 'Project for the New American Century' (PNAC), developed in the late 90s by the future masterminds of the Bush administration. Called to serve as a foundation and guide the next government, the document spelled out the need to transform defense policies.
Coincidence or not, he was signed by Dick Cheney in particular before it becomes Vice-President of the United States, by Donald Rumsfeld before he was appointed secretary of defense, by Jeb Bush, Governor Florida from 1999 to 2007 and President's brother, and by Paul Wolfowitz, who became assistant secretary of Defense in 2001.
The study of this document is particularly instructive on the conduct of U.S. leaders vis-à-vis foreign policies in recent years. It is important to realize that the following excerpts, published in a final report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (Rebuilding America's Defenses) were published one year before the attacks of 11 September as part of PNAC.
Here is a first extract.
"[...] Indeed, the United States has attempted since decades to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security [Persian]. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for the presence of U.S. forces in the Gulf transcends the issue of Saddam Hussein. [...]» Page 14, Chapter 3 - Replace existing strengths
"[...] From an American perspective, the value of such bases would remain present even if Saddam were to leave the scene. In the long term, Iran may well prove as great a threat vis-à-vis U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq. And even if US-Iranian relations were improving, maintaining forces in the forefront in the region would still be an essential element in the security policies of the United States given the long-term U.S. interests in the region. [...]» Page 17, Chapter 3 - Replace existing strengths
These two excerpts reflect the essence of the document, which established inter alia that one of the four core missions for future U.S. military forces would be ˝ fight and win decisively in major theaters of war, multiple and simultaneous ˝. In a pre-September 11 and pre-'guerre against terror ', however, how the authors of this paper could they foresee that they would soon have to deal with multiple theaters of war, major and simultaneous, at the point include this idea as one of the central missions of their armed forces?
While the report also stressed the importance of substantially increasing military budgets in the U.S. related to test new weapons, it also took care to note that the path to follow to achieve these objectives' s would spread over a long period, and that slow progress was expected.
Then arose a phrase that many see as the key statement of the paper 'Rebuilding America's Defenses'.
"[...] Moreover, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be long, absent a catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. [...]» Page 51, Chapter 5 - Create the dominant force of tomorrow W23
A year after the publication of this report occurred the attacks of September 11, embodying this catastrophic event and a catalyst, displaying all the characteristics of a 'new Pearl Harbor' (the entry point of the Americans in World War II).
Is not it significant to find this mention of a new Pearl Harbor ˝ ˝ in a context where this event was clearly made for its beneficial effects and pro-military agenda of the United States?
The attacks of September 11 n'évitèrent they just not the new American administration, many of whom were signatories of the same PNAC, to undergo a long process of transformation ˝ ˝?
Take a moment to also examine the reaction of some senior people at the Pentagon, the office of Donald Rumsfeld, at a time when the second plane crashed into the south tower of World Trade Center. Rumsfeld was among others in the company of Paul Wolfowitz, who also signed the PNAC. Let's see if these men seemed surprised by current events.
The following excerpt from an article published in the British newspaper Telegraph.
"[...] Mr Rumsfeld, recalls Mr Cox, watched television coverage from New York and said ˝ Believe me, this is not over yet. There will be another attack, and it could be us.
˝
Moments later, the plane crashed [the Pentagon]. [...]» W140
Fortunately, the office of Donald Rumsfeld was sighted on the side completely opposite to the place of impact (W152).
Internally, the Bush administration also began not long before putting in motion the strategies mentioned in the report 'Rebuilding America's Defenses', which revealed words not covered nearly as justifications should be used so that U.S. can position itself militarily in the Middle East and thus have control over the 'long-term U.S. interests in the region', but implicit expression denoting discrete oil resources.
September 11 became in fact a golden opportunity for the U.S. administration to implement their plans for world domination. Include also this comment from Gary Hart, former U.S. presidential candidate during a televised meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations (Council on Foreign Relations), held September 14, 2001.
"[...] This is an opportunity for the president of the United States to use this disaster to give effect to what his father ... an expression that I think his father has used only once, and has not been used since ... that is to say a 'new world order'. [...]» W142
So what accounted for the attacks of September 11 for some influential politicians three days later: an opportunity to establish a new world order. Six
years later, the same Gary Hart published an open letter directly for the government of Iran. The title of this 'unsolicited advice to the Iranian government', the image of its contents was unequivocal.
Here is an excerpt.
"Assuming that you are not ignorant enough to desire war with the United States, you would be well advised to familiarize yourself with the story of the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor in 1898 and that with the history of the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.
Once this is done, you surely recognize that Americans are reluctant to go to war unless they were attacked. Until Pearl Harbor, we were even reluctant to get involved in World War II. For historians specializing in American wars, the question is 'Do we provoke provocations?'. [...]
Given all that, you'd probably be well advised to keep your forces, including clandestine forces you, as far as possible from the Iraqi border. You could perhaps consider inviting neighbors to confirm that you do not ship weapons on the other side of the border [Iran-Iraq]. [...]
But for the next sixteen months [until the end of George W. Bush], you should not only not ask any provocative actions, but you should not seem to do.
For the vast majority of Americans who wish to avoid the war spread, the Middle East or elsewhere, do not push your luck. Do not give a certain vice president we know that [Dick Cheney] the justification he is seeking to attack your country. Unless of course you do not wish that bombs fall on your head. "W201
*****
As we now know, the attacks of Sept. 11 proved the new Pearl Harbor ˝ ˝ necessary to propel our southern neighbors and allies, Canada included, in a kind of war Unusually, an international war against terror, in which the only means of identifying the enemy, for citizens, became henceforth rely on the good word of its leaders.
Let's look at a very revealing article about the atmosphere fostered by the Bush administration in recent years. The following excerpt is from the UK Telegraph, dated November 3, 2007.
"Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense United States has tried to maintain an atmosphere of fear in America as part of a propaganda campaign on the war in Iraq, shows a series of memos leaked to the media.
A memo written in April 2006, contained a list of instructions to Pentagon staff including "Keep raising the threat 'and' Talk about Somalia, the Philippines, etc.. Do the American people realize that it is surrounded by violent extremists around the world. "
Another said 'Link Iraq to Iran. Iran worries the American people, and if we fail in Iraq, it will benefit Iran. [...] The Daily
[Washington Post] reported that these memos were so numerous they were called 'snowflakes'. He [Rumsfeld] sent in between 20 and 60 per day, often instructing his team to refute negative news reports in the media. [...]» W189
course, as this atmosphere of fear is spreading among the population, military budgets can be increased in parallel dramatically, as the report 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' required in the late 90s.
In addition, we must admit that Iraq and Afghanistan were both used as testing grounds for new weapons. The Americans also erected permanent military bases in the Middle East in recent years. The PNAC document also openly acknowledged the need for long-term military presence in this region in order to protect its interests or sub-soil rich in natural resources. Already
in 2000, 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' arrogantly claimed that even after the departure of Saddam Hussein, it remains vital for U.S. to maintain military forces in that country. Therefore, should we be surprised that the situation remains chaotic? And is it any wonder, in this context that the U.S. administration seeks to 'make the American people he is surrounded by violent extremists around the world'?
Asking a look back at the strategic actions of the U.S. military since September 11, and in light of all information presented in this book, is it not appropriate to ask whether the events of 2001 will not voluntarily triggered this series of invasions of foreign countries?
0 comments:
Post a Comment