SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: bacchus_ii who wrote (163598)6/4/2005 2:12:24 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
DEMOCRACY RISING: BUSH FAMILY'S WAR PROFITEERING --

democracyrising.us

The Bush Family's War Profiteering

Thursday, 24 February 2005

The extent of Iraq contracts going to corporations which involve members of President George W. Bush's family is widespread and extensive involving hundreds of millions of dollars. Often these firms receive contracts where the corporations have no expertise and certainly the Bush family members have no expertise or experience in these areas. It is a world not of know how but of know who, marinated in campaign contributions. It seems like Bush family and friends are trading on their relationship to the President. The matrix of government contracts and Bush related corporations invites further investigation by the media and Congress - inquiries that are long overdue.

Below are examples of Bush Family members who have profited from the war and occupation of Iraq. These issues have not been examined or reported by the mainstream media.

Neil Mallon Bush the younger brother of the President, infamous for his involvement in the Silverado S and L scandal, has been hired by Crest Investment Company as a consultant for $60,000 per year to assist with their efforts to serve as a middleman to advise other companies that seek taxpayer-financed business in Iraq. Working with Crest puts Neil Bush at the center of multiple organizations profiting from the war and occupation in close alliance with long-term Bush Family allies.

Crest Investment is headed by Jamal Daniel who is a principal partner in New Bridge, a Houston, TX based company with offices in Iraq and Kuwait. The main focus of New Bridge is to advise companies that seek opportunities in the private sector in Iraq, including licenses to market products in Iraq. The company highlights that the Coalition Provisional Authority decision to allow foreign companies to establish 100 percent ownership of businesses in Iraq, an unusual arrangement in the Mideast, has added to the attractiveness of the market. The company describes itself by saying:

“ New Bridge Strategies, LLC is a unique company that was created specifically with the aim of assisting clients to evaluate and take advantage of business opportunities in the Middle East following the conclusion of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Its activities will seek to expedite the creation of free and fair markets and new economic growth in Iraq, consistent with the policies of the Bush Administration. The opportunities evolving in Iraq today are of such an unprecedented nature and scope that no other existing firm has the necessary skills and experience to be effective both in Washington, D.C. and on the ground in Iraq.” (See: newbridgestrategies.com ) .

New Bridge Strategies , is headed by Joe M. Allbaugh, Mr. Bush's campaign manager in 2000 and the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency until March 2003. Earlier he was Chief of Staff to then-Governor Bush of Texas Other directors include Edward M. Rogers, Jr. vice chairman, and Lanny Griffith, lobbyists who were assistants to President George Herbert Walker and now have close ties to the White House."

Also related to this Neil Bush network is Diligence LLC ( diligencellc.com ). Diligence shares addresses and many Board members with New Bridge Strategies. It was formed by past members of the CIA and Britain's MI5 Intelligence Services along with experts in international law, journalism and intelligence which enables them to review all sorts of future investment projects and provide security advice. Diligence opened an office in Baghdad in July 2003 where they provided payroll protection and delivery, personnel and facilities security, review of potential Iraqi business ventures, training and management of personal security forces, and intelligence briefs. A subsidiary includes Diligence Middle East, LLC which was created in partnership with New Bridge and the Kuwaiti Coroporation, Al-Mal Investment Company.

William H.T. ("Bucky") Bush, an uncle of George W. Bush, joined the board of directors of the St. Louis based company Engineered Support Systems in March 2000. (See: engineeredsupport.com Bucky Bush was one the Bush “Pioneers,” the campaign contributors who raised more than $100,000 in the 2000 presidential election. Engineered Support Systems has three areas: light military support equipment, heavy military support equipment, and electronics/automation systems. Since 2000, following the presidential election and the 9-11 attacks, the company's federal contracts, revenues and its stock value have all gone up. Engineered Support Systems has been in the top 100 contractors with the DoD since 2001. It’s contracts with the U.S. military have totaled over $1 billion.

On May 1, 2003, Engineered Support Systems acquired Maryland-based Technical and Management Services, TAMSCO on May 1, 2003. (See tamsco.com The following week TAMSCO announced that it had “implemented a leading edge communications technology to support U.S. Army logistics operations in the Middle East upon the successful fielding of two Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) satellite terminals as part of the Coalition Forces Land Component Command (CFLCC) project in Iraq.” According to the company, “This marked the first time that TDMA technology had been utilized by the U.S. Army for satellite communications.”

In February 2003, before the invasion of Iraq, TAMSCO began its satellite communications network linking Germany, Iraq and the U.S. In a period of less than two and a half months, TAMSCO identified the most cost-effective technology; procured, integrated, tested and shipped the equipment; trained soldiers on its installation and maintenance; installed an antenna hub site in Germany; installed the network equipment; and established a help desk operation in Kuwait.

The Air Force and Army were both offering contracts. The Air Force awarded TAMSCO a $44.2 million contract for a radar system in June, another $11.7 million in orders in July, and more than $21.8 million in contracts in August. The Army provided a contract for a development project totaling $700,000 in June, and $12.8 million in contracts in August 2003.

Engineered Support Systems' enterprises are profitable for Bucky Bush. He received consulting fees of $2,500 a month in 2002 for serving on its audit committee, as well as options to buy thousands of shares of stock at $28.42 a share. The stock now trades at $62.50 a share. As of January, he owned 33,750 shares, along with his portion of 3.3 million shares owned by all the firm's officers and directors as a group. The company paid him another $125,000 in fees.

William H.T. Bush is also a trustee for the investment firm Lord Abbott, one of Halliburton's top 10 shareholders and also a top-ten mutual fund holder in Halliburton, which has obtained prime contracts in Iraq. Vice President Cheney, the former CEO of Halliburton, still has between $18 million and $87 million invested through Vanguard, another top-ten holder in Halliburton stock.

Former president George H.W. Bush only recently resigned as a board member of the finance giant the Carlyle Group, heavily associated with military and security contracts. The Carlyle Group was 43rd among federal contractors in 2002, with $676.5 million in contracts. In 2003, the Carlyle Group moved up to 11th place, with $2.1 billion in contracts, partly from the war on terrorism and partly from Iraq. Insiders at the company also cashed in millions of dollars' worth of options in 2003. (See thecarlylegroup.com. )

Marvin P. Bush, the youngest brother of George W. Bush, shares an interest in federal contracts held by companies in his firm's portfolio. Marvin Bush is also an adviser at HCC Insurance, formerly called the Houston Casualty Company, one of the biggest insurance carriers for the World Trade Center. Bush was a director at HCC, which has benefited financially from the 9-11 insurance bailout legislation passed by Congress at the instigation of the White House. The departure of Marvin from the HCC board was announced the same day, November 22, 2002, as the passage of the bill.

Marvin Bush is co-founder and partner in Winston Partners, a private investment firm which is part of a larger firm called the Chatterjee Group. (See winstonpartners.com. ) According to SEC filings, the Chatterjee Group consists of Winston Partners, LP; Chatterjee Fund Management, LP; Winston Partners II LDC, a Cayman Islands-based company; Winston Partners II LLC; Chatterjee Advisors LLC; Chatterjee Management Company; Mr. Chatterjee himself; and Furxedown Trading Limited, a company organized under the laws of the Isle of Man. The address for Winston Partners II LDC is in the Netherlands Antilles. The other subsidiaries were organized in Delaware. Governor Jeb Bush is also an investor in the Winston Capital Fund, which happens to be managed by Marvin's firm.

According to the Sept 30, 2003, issue of Mother Jones, an $80 million Iraq contract was awarded to Nour, a company which began in 2003 with ties to Winston Partners. Nour is an “international investment and development company" with more than 100 employees based in Iraq, and claims expertise in telecommunications, agribusiness, internet development, recruitment, construction materials, oil and power services, pharmaceuticals and fashion apparel.”

In January, 2004, Nour was awarded a $327 million contract to equip the Iraqi armed forces and Civil Defense Corps. However, not long after it was awarded, Nour came under heavy scrutiny because of questions involving the company's president and Ahmed Chalabi, of the US appointed Iraqi Governing Council. Newsday reported, Chalabi received a $2 million “fee” for helping to arrange a $80 million contract, that was actually awarded to a firm called Erinys International “within days” of being granted the contract, Erinys became a joint venture operation with Nour.

In addition, after the $327 million contract was awarded it was revealed that Nour had no prior experience in providing military equipment. Nour’s response was it planned to subcontract its weapons procurement to the Polish firm, Ostrowski Arms – unfortunately, Ostrowski didn't even have a license to export weapons. After these concerns the Army decided to terminate the contract with Nour. This added to the delays in body armor and other equipment that have increased the risks for U.S. soldiers. In May 2004, ANHAM, a joint venture with Nour, based in Vienna, Va., was the winner of a $259-million contract to equip the new Iraqi army and security forces with guns, trucks and other equipment. Nour lists current Iraq projects with the Ministry of Oil, the New Iraqi Army, and Criminal Intelligence in Iraq, Security in Iraq. (See nourusa.com .)

Winston Partners' also are heavily invested in another military contractor, the Amsec Corp. In 2001, Amsec was awarded $37,722,000 in contracts from the Navy. Marvin Bush's long-time business partner, Scott Andrews, sits on the Amsec board of directors, and the firm's CEO at the time was Michael Braham, who used to work for none other than Paul Bremer, the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority.

In addition, the Chatterjee Group also owns 5.5 million shares in a security company known as Sybase. SEC filings show the shares as being divided up between, Winston Partners LP with 1,036,075 shares; Winston Partners LDC holding 1,317,825 shares; and Winston Partners LLC owning 1,221,837 shares. Sybase prepared to make major profits from the Patriot Act long before it was passed. Sybase created a product called the “Sybase PATRIOT Compliance Solution” to track money laundering by terrorists.

Sybase also is a significant government contractor, with contracts from the Navy ($2.9 million in 2001), the Army ($1.8 million in 2001), the Department of Defense ($5.3 million in 2001), Commerce, the Treasury, Agriculture and the General Services Administration, among others. The federal procurement database lists Sybase's total awards for 2001 as $14,754,000.

In 1993, shortly after the first gulf war, Marvin Bush joined his father, George H.W. Bush (three months out of office), on a trip to Kuwait. Where, according to the March 16, 2001 Austin Chronicle, “Marvin was representing U.S. defense firms selling electronic fences to the Kuwaiti Defense Ministry.”

Sources:

Margie Burns, The Green Bushes: The Family’s Profiteering Goes Unobserved, The Washington Spectator, February 1, 2004.

Margie Burns, Bush Businesses in Government, The Progressive Populist, February 16, 2005.

Stephen Fidler and Thomas Catan, Businessmen Use Bush Ties in Mideast, Financial Times, December 12, 2003.

Stephen Fidler and Thomas Catan, More Neil Bush Wheeler-Dealer Details: Consultant on Iraq Contracts Employed President’s Brother, Financial Times, November 28, 2003.

Rina Palta , No Bush Left Behind, Mother Jones Magazine, March/April 2004.

Evelyn Pringle, Under Reported: Jeb, Marvin & Neil - 3 Profiteering Bush Brothers, Independent Media TV, January 28, 2005.

Evelyn Pringle , Why Are We In Iraq -- Bush Family $$$ Signs, Independent Media TV , October 18, 2004.



To: bacchus_ii who wrote (163598)6/5/2005 12:15:20 PM
From: Sun Tzu  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Anatomy of a Civil War: a Lebanese Perspective on Iraq
by Maher Osseiran


www.theunaol.com
www.globalresearch.ca 2 June 2005

The URL of this article is: globalresearch.ca

Anatomy of a civil war; a Lebanese perspective on Iraq.

An analysis of the potential of a civil war in Iraq based on experiences from the Lebanese civil war, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and historic facts from the days of the European mandate after the fall of the Ottoman empire.



A nation does not wake up one morning with thoughts of launching a civil war.

A civil war, not only pins total strangers against each other but often neighbors, cousins, and sometimes members of an immediate family; a civil war is ultimately a last resort and never a deliberate choice; it just happens.

A civil war does not take place unless differences within well-defined segments of a society reach the irreconcilable stage and preserving the status quo can only lead to the total loss of any rights, power, or privileges, universally accepted or simply perceived, that a segment might have.

In order to have a civil war, you need to have at least one segment that is about to lose not just some but the majority of these rights. Such a segment is invariably a minority. Such a loss is obviously not by choice and usually is the result of actions undertaken directly or indirectly by others.

The Ottoman Empire, through its 500-year domination of the Middle East, had perfected the use of minorities to control its vast territories and had come down on unruly ones through practices such as mass relocations and deportations that were later adopted by Tsarist Russia.

Colonialist Europe capitalized on the abuses of minorities by the Ottomans prior to World War One in order to intervene in the Empire’s internal affairs, and after it, during the mandate, gave those minorities powers beyond their political weight in some of the countries they created, while in others they used the Ottoman-cultivated ruling minorities to propagate their colonialist policies.

Certain countries were more susceptible to civil wars because of the nature of their social make-up and political structure; Lebanon is a perfect example. Through its mandate over Lebanon after the First World War, France left a quasi democracy controlled by a minority that proved to be the perfect recipe for civil strive with a back door open wide to foreign intervention.

The first mini civil war took place in 1958, a little more than a decade after independence from France. The second full-blown civil war started in 1975 and lasted through the early 90’s.

Is Lebanon out of the woods now?

Hardly, since civil wars rarely resolve differences, usually end with no winner or loser, and when they stop, it is mainly due to war fatigue. The system of governance is retained with minor changes while the street fighters and the warlords replace the politicians who stayed on the sideline. As a proof, the majority of newspapers after the assassination of Hariri were full of speculations regarding the potential of yet another civil war in Lebanon.

The only way to erase 600 years of Ottoman and Colonial opportunism and promote healthy democracies in the Middle East, the most colorful mosaic of ethnicities and religions, is through a conscientious and deliberate effort by the majorities and the regimes to be inclusive, and to nurture and protect all minorities. I will keep this in my wishful thinking folder and promise not to hold my breath.

Prior to Saddam, Iraq as a country experienced what resembles a democracy for a very short period of time for it to impact its historic memory. Still, at all times the Iraqis shared with the rest of the world: the universal yearning for peace, prosperity, and freedom. They also shared the ability to discern who was preventing them from reaching such goals; the country was united in viewing the regime of Saddam Hussein as the obstacle, not the neighbor or that person living in Fallujah or Najaf. It did not matter if you were a Kurd, a Shiite, or a swamp dweller in southern Iraq; the regime of Saddam was the oppressor.

After Saddam, these same Iraqis know and understand well the reasons why their country was invaded, they know it is to siphon off their natural resources and to transform their country into a base for a policy of domination aimed at them and at their neighbors. All surveys show that the majority of Iraqis favor the departure of the occupier.

Due to these facts, it was very difficult to plunge Iraq into a civil war after the removal of Saddam. At the same time, Iraq would have been very difficult to control by a conquering army and the neo-cons in Washington if the country were peaceful, thriving, and allowed to develop a monolithic vision vis-à-vis the occupier.

Again, the United States, as a neo-colonialist, capitalized on the lessons handed down by the Ottomans, Tsarist Russia, Colonial Europe, and the brutal tactics developed by Israel through its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, in order to control the country and create a wide open back door for future intervention. And in the process, even though it was not in its own interest, it increased the potential of a civil war.

I say capitalized because I think it was intentional and not the result of stupidity, unless, you consider the combination of greed, arrogance, and racism, the common denominator of the neo-cons to result in stupidity.

The first step toward controlling Iraq was to transform it into an economic disaster zone by disbanding the Iraqi army and instantaneously raising the unemployment level and reducing the cash flow within the economy. As a result, the unemployment level could only rise and was augmented by the fact that the occupier employed foreigners as contractors even for the simplest of tasks.

The average Iraqi was left to spend each waking moment, when the bombs were not keeping him up, scavenging for meager jobs, dependent on the handouts from the occupier and their expatriate minions, barely able to think about basic necessities needed for his survival and that of his family. The luxury to clearly think about the future, about aspirations, about daily happenings other than how they impact the individual’s survival is lost and that individual was rendered easier to manipulate and control.

The next step was to divide and conquer. While the Arab migration into Kirkuk could only be blamed on Saddam Hussein’s policies and was not the malicious act of individual Arab migrants, the reverse migration of Kurds into that city and the way it was conducted, pinned individual Iraqis, Kurds and Arabs, against each other, and transformed the issue through that personal interaction into an ethnic conflict bordering the realm of irreconcilable differences and sowing the seeds of civil war. The Kurds, who as a group were oppressed by Saddam, are now perceived to be using the protection of the country’s enemy, the occupier, in their oppression of individual Arabs.

As a firm believer in the Kurdish right to self-determination, which to me spans four borders and is not limited to Iraq, it is very difficult to observe what is happening in Kirkuk and that the Iraqi Kurds allowed themselves to fall into this trap.

The group on the receiving end of the intentional and direct abuse by the occupying force was the Sunnis. Their backs were pinned to the wall and their only way out was to join the resistance. Systematically, the occupier arrested their clerics and sometimes killed them as a result of a routine office search, desecrated their mosques, arrested their men, bombed their villages, destroyed their palm groves, raided their homes, stole their life savings, even leveled a whole town, Fallujah, a month prior to the general elections in order to insure that Fallujans voted.

The tactics used against the Sunnis of Iraq are no different than those perfected by Israel against the populations of Gaza and West Bank. Lessons shared among friends; from one long-term and experienced occupier to the fledgling one.

Once Israel decided to undermine the Oslo accord, it systematically antagonized the Palestinian population and specifically the opposition embodied by Hamas through the targeted killings of their leadership, incessant attacks on cities and villages by occupation soldiers or the surrogate settlers, and the humiliation of anyone who ventured into the street through its practices at roadblocks and transit points. Coupled with that onslaught was the destruction of the public infrastructure and that of the Palestinian authority. As a result, the second intifada, as the first, which started with youths throwing stones, was intentionally transformed by the occupier into a struggle that used a much more indiscriminate and deadlier weapon; the suicide bomber.

The Palestinian Authority, stripped of all credibility to protect its people, and through the loss of its infrastructure was left too impotent to have any impact on events and became dependent on the good graces of the Israeli government for any semblance of authority it might have.

The same thing is happening in Iraq. The insurgency had to grow in order to make any elected government reliant on the protection and the good graces of the occupier for any semblance of authority it might have.

The policy served many other purposes in a single stroke:

1. It ensured that the occupier’s stay is extended, a goal of the invasion, as evident by the construction of the largest American embassy in the world and the construction of the permanent bases for US troops.

2. It manipulated the Sunni population out of the election process - no need to stuff ballot boxes - since boycotting the elections was their only non-violet mean to register their discontent with the occupier, and specifically the atrocities of Fallujah.

3. It gave more leverage to a reliable ally, the Kurds, in the writing of the constitution, and reduced that of the Shiites.

4. It created a previously non-existent wide-open back door by raising the hopes and expectations of the Kurds in the fulfillment of their aspirations.

5. It put in doubt the legitimacy and evenhandedness of the, yet to be written, permanent constitution and any future political system in relation to the Iraqi Sunnis; another back door wide open.

6. It inflamed Arab populations outside Iraq and fueled insurgencies, the only effective form of descent, in neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, and Egypt, thereby increasing the reliance of those regimes on the United States in preserving their existence.

7. It forced those neighboring countries to pay lip service to democratization to appease the general population, which gave the Bush administration the photo ops and sounds bites about the effectiveness of its policy in the Middle East.

You would say, wow, this is a stroke of genius…Not necessarily.

When the policy is to destabilize in order to control, that same policy that made the country easier to steer put Iraq on a tight rope and increased the potential that the whole thing might just go south on you. There are always wild cards, and the occupier does not control all of them.

It is important to mention that the occupier needed willing participants from within.

Other than the obvious ally, the Kurdish population, a traditionally unfriendly segment, the Shiites, had to be brought into the fold.

Sistani and his traditional Shiite supporters, the elite merchant upper class, were easy to lure into acquiescence and complacency by the promise of power through "democratic elections".

Keeping with the tradition of laying low under Saddam, Sistani was only vocal when the interests of this elite were at stake. Sistani did not raise a finger to protect Moqtada Al-Sadr in Najaf until Al-Sadr was at the end of his ropes; let someone else do the dirty work of marginalizing those poor Shiites. Sistani did not say a word to protect the Sunnis from the occupier; blinded by the promise of power left him unaware how his inaction would affect his credibility as a Shiite and an Iraqi leader, and, the credibility of any future political system resulting from the elections.

We heard Sistani lately call for a conference for all Iraqis to discuss the violence in Iraq and how to bring matters under control and restore peace and prosperity. Sistani spoke because his grip on the street might be weakening and the interests of his supporters under threat. This attempt for appeasement is nothing but servitude to the neo-cons.

Will he succeed in his efforts? The only way Sistani will be successful and at the same time restore his credibility as an Iraqi leader, not just as a Shiite cleric, is if he allowed the conference to declare the voting illegitimate, to delay the writing of the permanent constitution, to call for new elections, and request a departure timetable from the occupier.

Such a move, even though the only fair option that would gain wide support among the majority of Iraqis, is not in the interest of the United States, the Kurds, the money and power grabbing expatriates, or the Baathist henchmen Allawi recruited to butcher the resistance and the population at large. It pains me to admit that such a bold, courageous, and fair move might hasten a civil war since it seriously undermines the neo-cons’ planning.

A similar conference limited to representatives of the Sunni elite took place recently to discuss rejoining the political process and appeasing the resistance in exchange for more power and influence in the writing of the constitution. The conference was moderated by Pachachi who hinted of a possible alliance between the Sunni elite and Allawi as a counter balance to Sistani’s Shiite coalition. Whoever dreamed up this conference does not understand the resistance yet, and such a maneuver, if successful, contains a pitfall that would increase the rift between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq and bring the country closer to a civil war.

In the outside chance that the resistance took the bait and allied itself behind the Sunni elite leadership, the resistance runs the risk of becoming a tool of the Sunni elite rather than a legitimate Iraqi resistance. It could run the risk of being used for leverage to exert pressure if negotiations the elite are engaged in turn unfavorable. The resistance would lose its Iraqi identity and becomes a Sunni militia, thus making it easier to pin against its Shiite counterpart in a civil war.

A civil war is acceptable to the neo-cons when it becomes evident to them that all is out of control with no prospect of any returns on the cost of the invasion and occupation. A civil war would be a good pretext for a quick exit that would allow minor future geopolitical control through what would become their Kurdish surrogates while watching from a distance how things play out as more Kurdish and Arab blood is shed.

Who is at risk if Iraq is to plunge into a civil war? Based on the Lebanese experience, all credible Iraqi leaders who are capable of controlling the street, leading their constituents during a civil war, and most importantly, leading them safely through its hazards. In order for a civil war to gain traction, those lucid, sane, and clairvoyant leaders have to go.

The biggest wild card and the most at risk is Moqtada Al-Sadr, not for his value as a Harriri, but due to his ability to bridge the differences between Shiites and Sunnis and his ability to create a large anti-occupation block. The risk to him increases if the conference called by Sistani fails to reach its objectives. Al-Sadr is also a man in contact with the street with a family history of standing up to Saddam and fighting injustice. If the resistance expands to include Shiites, the Sistani elite supporters will be the first to transfer their assets and families outside Iraq due to “unfavorable conditions” while leaving the economically disenfranchised Sistani constituency to join the Al-Sadr movement.

Can we predict based on the Lebanese experience whether a civil war is to take place in Iraq? As things stand, a civil war as an outcome is under the control of the United States. Israel could play a role due to its involvement in the American Middle East policy and its reported close relationship with the Kurds, but cannot predict if Israel would act on its own.

Currently, based on their knowledge, which they refuse to share or admit to, as to how bad the situation in Iraq is, the neo-cons are forced – it is no longer an option - to vigorously pursue a diversion in order to delay the civil war option and to serve the pro-Israeli arm of the Middle East policy; that diversion is a conflict with Syria. The recent military activities in western Iraq target Syria more than the resistance. For a long time now, Syria has been criticized for its porous borders with very little documentation that would persuade the American public. The latest activities in western Iraq are designed to force the retreat of the resistance fighters into Syria or increase activities across the border that could be documented. The first attempt failed because the resistance saw the writing on the wall, attacked the rear flanks, and disrupted the implementation. The second attempt that is underway is very likely to fail too since the hand has been exposed.

If it becomes evident to the neo-cons that they cannot shape Iraq to fit their plans, and if the Syria and possibly Iran diversions don’t play out properly, plunging Iraq into a civil war would be their last option and the only exit policy that they have planned for.

Maher Osseiran is an independent writer specializing in Middle Eastern political issues.

_______________________________

PS You've found a great site for research globalresearch.ca



To: bacchus_ii who wrote (163598)6/6/2005 2:02:34 PM
From: bacchus_ii  Respond to of 281500
 
Orwellian "Scenarios":

Emergency Preparedness against the "Universal Adversary"
by Michel Chossudovsky
www.globalresearch.ca 5 June 2005
The URL of this article is: globalresearch.ca

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Orwellian "Scenarios"

A recent Report of the Homeland Security Council entitled Planning Scenarios describes in minute detail, the Bush administration's preparations in the case of a terrorist attack by an outside enemy called the Universal Adversary (UA).

The Universal Adversary, is identified in the scenarios as an abstract entity used for the purposes of simulation. Yet upon more careful examination, this Universal Adversary is by no means illusory. It includes the following categories of potential "conspirators":

"foreign [Islamic] terrorists" ,

"domestic radical groups", [antiwar and civil rights groups]

"state sponsored adversaries" ["rogue states", "unstable nations"]

"disgruntled employees" [labor and union activists].

According to the Planning Scenarios Report :

"Because the attacks could be caused by foreign terrorists; domestic radical groups; state sponsored adversaries; or in some cases, disgruntled employees, the perpetrator has been named, the Universal Adversary (UA). The focus of the scenarios is on response capabilities and needs, not threat-based prevention activities." (See Planning Scenarios )

The domestic radical groups and labor activists, which visibly constitute a threat to the established political order, are now conveniently lumped together with foreign Islamic terrorists, suggesting that the PATRIOT anti-terror laws together with the Big Brother law enforcement apparatus are eventually intended to be used against potential domestic "adversaries".

While the Universal Adversary is "make-believe", the simulations constitute a dress rehearsal of a real life emergency situation:

"The scenarios have been developed in a way that allows them to be adapted to local conditions throughout the country"

Building a Consensus

These simulations are applied to sensitize and "educate" key decision makers. The simulated data, the various categories of 'conspirators", the types of deadly weapons envisaged in the simulations are part of this knowledge base. The political objective of the Bush administration is to create a broad consensus: a feeling of allegiance and commitment within the emergency preparedness community.

The nature of the adversaries and the dangers underlying various forms of attacks ranging from nuclear detonations to nerve agents and anthrax become "talking points". In the scenarios, the conspirators including the "domestic radical groups" and "disgruntled employees" are described as being in possession of "weapons of mass destruction".

In the comprehensive 2005 anti-terrorist TOPOFF-3 exercises , (similar to war exercises, conducted recently under the auspices of Homeland Security) precise data sources were simulated and used to identify potential conspirators.

This "world of fiction" underlying the scenarios becomes real. The data sources "replicate actual terrorist networks down to names, photos, and drivers license numbers."

The scenarios create for the more than 10,000 TOPOFF-3 participants, a carefully designed "reality model" which shapes their behavior and understanding:

"Planners included the threats they considered most likely or devastating, said Marc Short, a [Homeland Security] department spokesman."

The "reality model" script of threats and conspirators replaces the real world.

These fabricated realities penetrate the inner-consciousness of key decision makers. The reality model script molds the behavior of public officials, it builds a "knowledge" and "understanding", namely a shared ignorance regarding the war on terrorism and the "adversaries" who oppose the administration's war and homeland security agendas.

A world of fiction becomes reality. The scenarios "enable exercise players to simulate intelligence gathering and analysis", in preparation of an actual emergency situation which, according to the scenarios' assumptions, would lead to mass arrests of presumed terror suspects.

Fiction becomes fact.

Conversely fact becomes fiction. "Ignorance is strength". The "scenarios" require submission and conformity: for those key decision-makers at the federal, State and municipal levels, the US government, namely the Bush Administration is the unquestioned guardian of the truth. The outright lies concerning Osama, Zarqawi, the "rogue enemies" of America, "weapons of mass destruction", not to mention 9-11, are upheld as indelible truths.

What we are dealing with is a process of indoctrination, which develops a new righteousness and which ultimately abolishes the Rule of Law. In the words of Central Command General (ret) Tommy Franks:

"A terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." (Cigar Aficionado, December 2003)

"Reality Model" Script based on "Flimsy Intelligence"

The process of emergency preparedness could be launched, even in the case of a threat based on "intelligence", which proves at some later date to be unfounded. In the scripted "scenarios", the pictures and IDs of potential conspirators in police data banks are real, leading immediately in the case of an actual emergency to mass arrests.

Known and documented, several of the post-911 terrorist threats were in fact based on fake intelligence. Several of the high profile code orange terror alerts had been fabricated outright. (See Fabricating Intelligence as a Justification for War, See also globalresearch.ca )

Acknowledged by Tom Ridge, upon retiring from his position as Sec of Homeland Security:

"there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level… Ridge [said] .he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?' " (USA Today , 10 May 2005)

Fake intelligence play a key role in building the "war on terrorism" consensus. The Universal Adversary is a creation of US intelligence. In fact the entire national security doctrine rests on the existence of an outside enemy, which threatens the Homeland.

The falsehoods created by this "flimsy intelligence" are embodied in the terror attack "scenarios" and exercises. Lies are transformed into indelible truths. The latter are to be shared by State officials, private sector decision-makers and "first responders" in a national emergency situation, if and when it occurs.

In other words these Orwellian "scenarios" assume that the various threats are real; they must be taken seriously, irrespective of the source of the intelligence or the reliability of the intelligence. The scripted "scenarios" and anti-terror TOPOFF exercises are based on fake terror threats, which requires the production of fake intelligence.

Beyond the Realm of Propaganda

Both the "scenarios" and the TOPOFF-3 anti-terror exercises were barely mentioned in the media. In other words, we are not dealing with a propaganda ploy directed towards the broader American public.

The propaganda in this case is targeted. It takes the form of "training" and emergency preparedness. The purpose of the scenarios is mold the behavior of officials, among law enforcement, intelligence, military and civilian federal and State employees, etc. The exercise consists in building a steadfast consensus:

"We are moving forward in applying lessons learned to anticipate and address all possible attack scenarios," an F.B.I. spokeswoman said, asking not to be named because her department was not the lead author of the document. "With enhanced law enforcement and intelligence community partnerships, we are able to better detect terrorist plots and dismantle terrorist organizations." (NYT 26 Feb 2005)

Martial Law

The "Scenarios" were developed for "Use in National, Federal, State and Local Homeland Security Preparedness". They instill in public and private sector officials and participants a sense of responsibility, duty and awareness in relation to something which is ultimately fictitious.

"Ignorance is Strength": the "scenarios" and anti-terrorist exercises develop observance and compliance by public officials.

Moreover, the scenarios also envisage the circumstances under which Martial Law could be triggered in the case of a threat by the Universal Adversary. In other words, fake intelligence could indeed be used to trigger a martial law situation in America, much in the same way as (deja vu) fake intelligence was used "to fit the policy" of invading Iraq, as revealed in the controversial Downing Street Secret Memo.

In a real life emergency, instructed by the relevant authorities, law enforcement officials would proceed to arrest the Universal Adversary, including members of radical groups, labor activists, etc.

Law enforcement officials would no longer be instructed to uphold the Rule of Law. In fact quite the opposite. The arrests would be conducted on behalf of officials in high office, who have broken the law, and who are known to have committed extensive war crimes. In the "reality model" script, the US State, its military-intelligence apparatus and war planning machine become the guardians of the peace. The State is above the law.

The "reality model" script not only sets the stage for Martial Law, it also constitutes an obvious political and legal safeguard against prosecution and/or impeachment of the President and his entourage. Some 88 members of Congress, in a letter addressed to President Bush, have recently demanded "whether there was a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy [of waging an illegal war on Iraq] as the leaked document states?"

Under martial law, the Rule of Law is banished. The lies, crimes and atrocities of the real world are substituted by a "reality model" script of fictitious attacks by fictitious "conspirators". Those who in any way question to existence of the Universal Adversary would themselves be the object of possible arrest or prosecution.

Intelligence Disclaimer [ published at the Outset of the Report ]
While the intelligence picture developed as part of each scenario generally reflects suspected terrorist capabilities and known tradecraft, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is unaware of any credible intelligence that indicates that such an attack is being planned, or that the agents or devices in question are in possession of any known terrorist group.


Fifteen Distinct Scenarios

The scenarios cover the entire array of threats:

15 distinct threat scenarios to the Security of America carried out by four categories of enemies: Islamic terrorists, radical groups, rogue adversaries and labor activists.

The scenarios simulate operations carried out by the Universal Adversary (UA). They include inter alia a nuclear detonation (with a small 10-Kiloton improvised nuclear device, anthrax attacks, a biological disease outbreak including a pandemic influenza, not to mention a biological plague outbreak. Various forms of chemical weapons attacks are also envisaged including the use of toxic industrial chemicals, and nerve gas. Radiological attacks through the emission of a radioactive aerosol are also envisaged. (See Text box below)

What is revealing in the "doomsday scripts" is that they bear no resemblance to the weaponry used by clandestine urban "terrorists". In fact, in several cases, they correspond to weapons systems which are part of the US arsenal and which have been used in US sponsored military operations. The description of the nuclear device bears a canny resemblance to America's tactical nuclear weapon ("mini nuke") , which also has a 10-kiloton yield, approximately two-thirds of a Hiroshima bomb. That Homeland Security should actually envisage a make believe scenario of large scale nuclear attacks by 'domestic radicals' and/or Islamic terrorists borders on the absurd.

With regard to the nerve gas attack scenario, in a cruel irony, it is the same type of nerve gas (as well as mustard gas) used by the US military against civilians in Fallujah.

Financing the Police State Apparatus

A large amount of "real money" from tax payers pockets is used to protect America against a non-existent enemy, the Universal Adversary.

Under the guise of emergency preparedness, the administration has allocated more than of 40 billion dollars to beefing up the police state apparatus, an amount broadly equivalent to the "official" budget of the CIA.

The scenarios and exercises of terror attacks are being used by Homeland Security Sec Michael Chertoff, to push "risk-based planning" as a central theme of the DHS, also with a view to boosting the Homeland Security budget.

Out of the $41.1 billion, some $27 billion are allocated to discretionary expenditures. A hefty $3.6 billion are allocated "to train and equip first responders [i.e. consensus building], such as police officers, firefighters and emergency medical technicians." (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0205/020705c1.htm ).

A multibillion dollar Domestic Nuclear Detection Office is envisaged, with a mandate to "detect and report attempts [by conspirators] to import, assemble or transport nuclear explosive devices, fissile material, or radiological material intended for illegal use"

The ultimate result (and intent) of these various counterterrorism initiatives, is not to "make America safer" against possible attacks by a non-existent Universal Adversary. Quite the opposite, emergency preparedness is the pretext for the militarization of civilian justice and law enforcement (See Frank Morales, "Homeland Defense" and the Militarisation of America, Frank Morales, Sept 2003 globalresearch.ca The Homeland Security agenda consists in breaking within America, all forms of social resistance and opposition to the "war on terrorism".



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



TEXT Box: "Scenarios" of Selected Threats
Radiological: In this scenario, the Universal Adversary (UA) purchases stolen CsCl to make an RDD or “dirty bomb.” The explosive and the shielded 137Cs sources are smuggled into the country. Detonator cord is stolen from a mining operation, and all other materials are obtained legally in the United States.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this scenario, terrorist members of the Universal Adversary (UA) group assemble a gun-type nuclear device using highly enriched uranium (HEU) – used here to mean weapons-grade uranium – stolen from a nuclear facility located in the former Soviet Union. The nuclear device components are smuggled into the United States.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plague is a bacterium that causes high mortality in untreated cases and has epidemic potential. ... In this scenario, members of the Universal Adversary (UA) release pneumonic plague into three main areas of a major metropolitan city – in the bathrooms of the city’s major airport, at the city’s main sports arena, and at the city’s major train station.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anthrax spores delivered by aerosol delivery results in inhalation anthrax, which develops when the bacterial organism, Bacillus anthracis, is inhaled into the lungs. A progressive infection follows. This scenario describes a single aerosol anthrax attack in one city delivered by a truck using a concealed improvised spraying device ... For federal planning purposes, it will be assumed that the Universal Adversary (UA) will attack five separate metropolitan areas in a sequential manner. Three cities will be attacked initially, followed by two additional cities 2 weeks later.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blister Attack: Agent YELLOW , which is a mixture of the blister agents sulfur Mustard and Lewisite, is a liquid with a garlic-like odor. Individuals who breathe this mixture may experience damage to the respiratory system. Contact with the skin or eye can result in serious burns. Lewisite or Mustard- Lewisite also can cause damage to bone marrow and blood vessels. Exposure to high levels may be fatal. In this scenario, the Universal Adversary (UA) uses a light aircraft to spray chemical agent YELLOW into a packed college football stadium. The agent directly contaminates the stadium and the immediate surrounding area, and generates a downwind vapor hazard.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Industrial chemicals: In this scenario, terrorists from the Universal Adversary (UA) land in several helicopters at fixed facility petroleum refineries. They quickly launch rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and plant improvised explosive devices (IEDs) before re-boarding and departing, resulting in major fires. At the same time, multiple cargo containers at a nearby port explode aboard or near several cargo ships with resulting fires. Two of the ships contain flammable liquids or solids. The wind is headed in the north-northeast direction, and there is a large, heavy plume of smoke drifting into heavily populated areas and releasing various metals into the air....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sarin is a human-made chemical warfare agent classified as a nerve agent. Nerve agents are the most toxic and rapidly acting of the known chemical warfare agents. ... In this scenario, the Universal Adversary (UA) builds six spray dissemination devices and releases Sarin vapor into the ventilation systems of three large commercial office buildings in a metropolitan area. The agent kills 95% of the people in the buildings, and kills or sickens many of the first responders. In addition, some of the agent exits through rooftop ventilation stacks, creating a downwind hazard....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chlorine gas is poisonous and can be pressurized and cooled to change it into a liquid form so that it can be shipped and stored. When released, it quickly turns into a gas and stays close to the ground and spreads rapidly. Chlorine gas is yellow-green in color and although not flammable alone, it can react explosively or form explosive compounds with other chemicals such as turpentine or ammonia. In this scenario, the Universal Adversary (UA) infiltrates an industrial facility and stores a large quantity of chlorine gas (liquefied under pressure). Using a low-order explosive, UA ruptures a storage tank man-way, releasing a large quantity of chlorine gas downwind of the site. Secondary devices are set to impact first responders.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this scenario, agents of the Universal Adversary (UA) use improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to detonate bombs inside a sports arena and create a large vehicle bomb (LVB). They also use suicide bombers in an underground public transportation concourse and detonate another bomb in a parking facility near the entertainment complex. An additional series of devices is detonated in the lobby of the nearest hospital emergency room (ER). The event is primarily designed for an urban environment, but could be adapted for more rural area events such as county fairs and other large gatherings. Casualty estimates would be reduced as a function of a reduced target population and less population density at target points.

The fire is ignited approximately 1 hour after the start of the entertainment event. The detonation of explosives is delayed approximately 10 to 15 minutes after the ignition of the fire in order to allow for detection, evacuation, and response of emergency services providers. The detonation of explosives at the hospital site will be the hardest to time for maximum effect and may need to be coordinated by some communication among cell members. In any case, the hospital device should be detonated before the arrival of casualties from the entertainment venue....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The U.S. food industry has significantly increased its physical and personnel security since 2001. A successful attack could only occur following the illegal acquisition of sensitive information revealing detailed vulnerabilities of a specific production site [by terrorist plant workers]. However, in this scenario the Universal Adversary (UA) is able to acquire these restricted documents due to a security lapse. The UA uses these sensitive documents and a high degree of careful planning to avoid apprehension and conduct a serious attack.

The biological agent is delivered to terrorists (plant workers).... The UA delivers liquid anthrax bacteria to pre-selected plant workers. At a beef plant in a west coast state, two batches of ground beef are contaminated with anthrax, with distribution to a city on the west coast, a southwest state, and a state in the northwest. At an orange juice plant in a southwestern state, three batches of orange juice are contaminated with anthrax, with distribution to a west coast city, a southwest city, and a northwest city.

In this scenario, members of the Universal Adversary (UA) enter the United States to survey large operations in the livestock industries. The UA targets several locations for a coordinated bioterrorism attack on the agricultural industry. Approximately two months later, UA teams enter the United States and infect farm animals at specific locations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this scenario, the Universal Adversary conducts cyber attacks that affect several parts of the nation’s financial infrastructure over the course of several weeks. Specifically, credit-card processing facilities are hacked and numbers are released to the Internet, causing 20 million cards to be cancelled; automated teller machines (ATMs) fail nearly simultaneously across the nation; major companies report payroll checks are not being received by workers; and several large pension and mutual fund companies have computer malfunctions so severe that they are unable to operate for more than a week. Individually, these attacks are not dangerous – but combined, they shatter faith in the stability of the system. Citizens no longer trust any part of the U.S. financial system and foreign speculators make a run on the dollar.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: The Homeland Security Council, PLANNING SCENARIOS Executive Summaries Created for Use in National, Federal, State, and Local Homeland Security Preparedness Activities




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix: Hyperlinks to The Report
Homeland Security
PLANNING SCENARIOS
Executive Summaries
Created for Use in National, Federal, State,
and Local Homeland Security Preparedness Activities
The Homeland Security Council
David Howe, Senior Director for Response and Planning

July 2004

To consult the complete document
globalsecurity.org

Adobe Acrobat Version [PDF 313 KB]



Table of contents and synopsis of "Scenarios" of HSC Report
Introduction iii
Common Response Threads vi
Mission Areas vii
Scenario 1: Nuclear Detonation ? 10-Kiloton Improvised Nuclear Device 1-1
Scenario 2: Biological Attack ? Aerosol Anthrax 2-1
Scenario 3: Biological Disease Outbreak ? Pandemic Influenza 3-1
Scenario 4: Biological Attack ? Plague 4-1
Scenario 5: Chemical Attack ? Blister Agent 5-1
Scenario 6: Chemical Attack ? Toxic Industrial Chemicals 6-1
Scenario 7: Chemical Attack ? Nerve Agent 7-1
Scenario 8: Chemical Attack ? Chlorine Tank Explosion 8-1
Scenario 9: Natural Disaster ? Major Earthquake 9-1
Scenario 10: Natural Disaster ? Major Hurricane 10-1
Scenario 11: Radiological Attack ? Radiological Dispersal Devices 11-1
Scenario 12: Explosives Attack ? Bombing Using Improvised Explosive Device 12-1
Scenario 13: Biological Attack ? Food Contamination 13-1
Scenario 14: Biological Attack ? Foreign Animal Disease (Foot and Mouth Disease) 14-1
Scenario 15: Cyber Attack 15-1
Appendix: Scenario Working Group Members A-1





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email this article to a friend

To become a Member of Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY GLOBAL RESEARCH 2005.