John Pilger in the New Statesman:
New Statesman (London)
> > >16 December 2002
> > >
> > > John Pilger reveals the American plan
> > >
> > > Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround
> > > George W. Bush said what America needed was "a new Pearl Harbor".
> > > Its published aims have come alarmingly true, writes John Pilger.
> > >
> > >The threat posed by US terrorism to the security of nations and
> > >individuals was outlined in prophetic detail in a document written more
> > >than two years ago and disclosed only recently.
> > >
> > >What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the
> > >world's resources, it said, was "some catastrophic and catalysing event
> > >- like a new Pearl Harbor".
> > >
> > >The attacks of 11 September 2001 provided the "new Pearl Harbor",
> > >described as "the opportunity of ages". The extremists who have since
> > >exploited 11 September come from the era of Ronald Reagan, when
> > >far-right groups and "think-tanks" were established to avenge the
> > >American "defeat" in Vietnam. In the 1990s, there was an added agenda:
> > >to justify the denial of a "peace dividend" following the cold war. The
> > >Project for the New American Century was formed, along with the American
> > >Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute and others that have since
> > >merged the ambitions of the Reagan administration with those of the
> > >current Bush regime.
> > >
> > >One of George W Bush's "thinkers" is Richard Perle. I interviewed Perle
> > >when he was advising Reagan; and when he spoke about "total war", I
> > >mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently used the term again in
> > >describing America's "war on terror". "No stages," he said. "This is
> > >total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them
> > >out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan,
> > >then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about
> > >it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it
> > >entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just
> > >wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us
> > >years from now."
> > >
> > >Perle is one of the founders of the Project for the New American
> > >Century, the NAC. Other founders include Dick Cheney, now
> > >vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz,
> > >deputy defence secretary, I Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff,
> > >William J Bennett, Reagan's education secretary, and Zalmay Khalilzad,
> > >Bush's ambassador to Afghanistan. These are the modern chartists of
> > >American terrorism.
> > >
> > >The PNAC's seminal report,"Rebuilding America's Defences: strategy,
> > >forces and resources for a new century", was a blueprint of American
> > >aims in all but name. Two years ago it recommended an increase in
> > >arms-spending by $48bn so that Washington could "fight and win multiple,
> > >simultaneous major theatre wars". This has happened. It said the United
> > >States should develop "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons and make "star
> > >wars" a national priority. This is happening. It said that, in the
> > >event of Bush taking power, Iraq should be a target. And so it is.
> > >
> > >As for Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction", these were
> > >dismissed, in so many words, as a convenient excuse, which it is.
> > >"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
> > >justification," it says, "the need for a substantial American force
> > >presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam
>Hussein."
> > >
> > >How has this grand strategy been implemented?
> > >
> > >A series of articles in the Washington Post, co-authored by Bob Woodward
> > >of Watergate fame and based on long interviews with senior members of
> > >the Bush administration, reveals how 11 September was manipulated.
> > >
> > >On the morning of 12 September 2001, without any evidence of who the
> > >hijackers were, Rumsfeld demanded that the US attack Iraq. According to
> > >Woodward, Rumsfeld told a cabinet meeting that Iraq should be "a
> > >principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism". Iraq
> > >was temporarily spared only because Colin Powell, the secretary of
> > >state, persuaded Bush that "public opinion has to be prepared before a
> > >move against Iraq is possible". Afghanistan was chosen as the softer
>option.
> > >
> > >If Jonathan Steele's estimate in the Guardian is correct, some 20,000
> > >people in Afghanistan paid the price of this debate with their lives.
> > >
> > >Time and again, 11 September is described as an "opportunity".
> > >In last April's New Yorker, the investigative reporter Nicholas Lemann
> > >wrote that Bush's most senior adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told him
> > >she had called together senior members of the National Security Council
> > >and asked them "to think about 'how do you capitalise on these
> > >opportunities'", which she compared with those of "1945 to 1947":
> > >the start of the cold war.
> > >
> > >Since 11 September, America has established bases at the gateways to all
> > >the major sources of fossil fuels, especially central Asia. The Unocal
>oil
> > >company is to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. Bush has scrapped the
> > >Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, the war crimes provisions of
> > >the International Criminal Court and the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
> > >He has said he will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states
> > >"if necessary".
> > >
> > >Under cover of propaganda about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruc-
> > >tion, the Bush regime is developing new weapons of mass destruction that
> > >undermine international treaties on biological and chemical warfare.
> > >
> > >In the Los Angeles Times, the military analyst William Arkin describes a
> > >secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld, similar to those run by Richard
> > >Nixon and Henry Kissinger and which Congress outlawed. This "super-
> > >intelligence support activity" will bring together the "CIA and military
> > >covert action, information warfare, and deception". According to a
> > >classified document prepared for Rumsfeld, the new organisation, known
> > >by its Orwellian moniker as the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group,
> > >or P2OG, will provoke terrorist attacks which would then require
>"counter-
> > >attack" by the United States on countries "harbouring the terrorists".
> > >
> > >In other words, innocent people will be killed by the United States.
> > >This is reminiscent of Operation Northwoods, the plan put to President
> > >Kennedy by his military chiefs for a phoney terrorist campaign -
> > >complete with bombings, hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans
> > >- as justification for an invasion of Cuba. Kennedy rejected it. He
> > >was assassinated a few months later. Now Rumsfeld has resurrected
> > >Northwoods, but with resources undreamt of in 1963 and with
> > >no global rival to invite caution.
> > >
> > >You have to keep reminding yourself this is not fantasy:
> > >that truly dangerous men, such as Perle and Rumsfeld and Cheney,
> > >have power. The thread running through their ruminations is
> > >the importance of the media: "the prioritised task of bringing
> > >on board journalists of repute to accept our position".
> > >
> > >"Our position" is code for lying. Certainly, as a journalist, I have
> > >never known official lying to be more pervasive than today. We may
> > >laugh at the vacuities in Tony Blair's "Iraq dossier" and Jack Straw's
> > >inept lie that Iraq has developed a nuclear bomb (which his minions
> > >rushed to "explain"). But the more insidious lies, justifying an
> > >unprovoked attack on Iraq and linking it to would-be terrorists
> > >who are said to lurk in every Tube station, are routinely channelled
> > >as news. They are not news; they are black propaganda.
> > >
> > >This corruption makes journalists and broadcasters mere ventriloquists'
> > >dummies. An attack on a nation of 22 million suffering people is
> > >discussed by liberal commentators as if it were a subject at an academic
> > >seminar, at which pieces can be pushed around a map, as the old
> > >imperialists used to do.
> > >
> > >The issue for these humanitarians is not primarily the brutality of
> > >modern imperial domination, but how "bad" Saddam Hussein is.
> > >There is no admission that their decision to join the war party
> > >further seals the fate of perhaps thousands of innocent Iraqis
> > > condemned to wait on America's international death row.
> > >Their doublethink will not work.
> > >
> > >You cannot support murderous piracy in the name of humanitarianism.
> > >Moreover, the extremes of American fundamentalism that we now face
> > >have been staring at us for too long for those of good heart and sense
> > >not to recognise them.
> > > |
