Monday, March 27, 2017

PNAC historical documentation and even Democrats enamored with all things Russian . . .

. . . Not Admitting The Most Essential Lessons Of History

(I've recently been getting “rants and raves” emails from one of my United States senators [a Democrat {which in this era of endless war, with its attendant deceptions, dishonesty, untruths, hateful speech, alternative facts, and reductive curating, certainly doesn't mean much}] with regard to all things “Russian” [example].  In the few words allowed on her email WWW site, I noted that it's been 9,196 days since the publication [February 18, 1992] of the DOD “Defense Planning Guidance” for 1994-1999 and referred her to this blog which spells out in some detail [with thanks to Paul Craig Roberts for his reference on his Institute for Political Economy blog to the analysis of Thad Beversdorf and the documentation references of the “Nuclear Vault” of the National Security Archive at George Washington University] the unadmitted historical background.)

Ron Paul wrote an eye opening 2014 article about some legislation that had just been signed in Congress, namely House Resolution 758.  While not a new law, as seen in the discussion which follows, it does provide a foundation of facts that will be called upon in future actions.  Essentially the resolution suggests that Russia behaved badly in various ways and if congressmen signed on to the resolution, then they were agreeing to the "factuality" of its assertions.  Now just because a group of persons elected as representatives of the people stand around in a tax-revenue financed chamber and say “yeah” to several statements, those actions do not make those statements factual (except here in the United Orwellian States of America).  Those statements that were voted to be fact (similar to the First Council of Nicaea) will now be taught to our children as factual history - actually having happened that way (the idea of American manifest destiny was learned by all of us utilizing similar methodologies [now see, for example, F. William Engdahl's Manifest Destiny:  Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance {Wiesbaden, GDR:  mine.Books, 2018, 224 pp.}]).

While essentially a dishonest method (the ignorance it creates is reason enough not to sign on), as Dr. Paul clearly points out, the real purpose of the resolution is to legally build the foundation for a future war, the planning for which has been active for many years now.  The U. S. sponsored coup in Ukraine, sold to us as simply a necessary response to the Ukraine situation, was rather a flash in the pan to set off a much larger explosion.

OK, what is this? “Another conspiracy theory?  Why can't it ever just be that the U. S. government thinks what they are doing is best for Americans”?  Ideally, one would suppose that it could be.  Never, if ever, anymore.  Lies (with or without “false flag[s]”) are told and public opinion is manipulated.  As good as the strategy of war must be on the ground, it must be every bit as good theater in the presstitute presentations.  And, what makes war so ugly, is the pressitute theater.  Again, ideally, you would want to fight a war (as brutal and unfortunate as that plays out) in which one believes.  The ugliness?  Attempting to fight a war based on lies and deceit which only benefits those telling the lies - something incomprehensible.  Except for the “Beltway” sociopaths.

And,so, we offer up some facts (that many don't know about) as to how it came to be that we invaded Iraq and Syria — the truth is still very much hidden from common knowledge.

While the 9 / 11 event actually seemed to bring the world together, it very quickly turned into a launching pad for war.  One could think it reasonable, given the extent of the tragedy that took place in New York, that a mighty nation like America would want retribution from those responsible.   However, the United States abandoned the attack on those responsible and, instead, initiated a war ‐ the planning for which had been in the works for many years.

At this point, it is pretty common knowledge that the U. S. pulled out of Afghanistan to focus their forces and objectives toward Iraq.  Of course, to get the world onboard with this focus, incredible lies were promulgated about Iraq not only having some connection to 9 / 11 but that they were also building enormous stockpiles of ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ and that they were hell bent on using those against western nations.  Again, we now know that none of these assertions were true.  And we know our legislators were aware that no credible evidence existed to support such views.  And we know that despite knowing those assertions were false they still made the decision to lie not only to the American people but to the world.  The lies were told in an effort to build support so that parents around the world would see a righteous cause in sending their sons and daughters to their potential deaths or to be maimed in unimaginably horrifying circumstances.

Now, just think about that for a moment and don't just read over that and move on.  Because this is the essence of what our government has become in America today.  They knowingly lied to the world so that the world would be willing to sacrifice their children, believing it was a necessary and righteous cause to do so.  And in the end the truth came to light that there was no righteous cause.  That all these young men and women from around the world had been used as pawns to fulfill the ambitions of a few.  It is truly one of the ugliest atrocities to ever have been carried out by an elected government against its own citizens.  And yet today because of our state presstitute media, most will not acknowledge that such an atrocity took place.  The imperative to understanding is that it has to be made very clear that Iraq was not a consequence of poor intelligence or bad decisions in the wake of post 9 / 11 emotions.  The invasions of both Iraq and Syria were being planned and discussed for many years before 9 / 11.  It has been said that if you don't learn from history, then you are doomed to repeat it.  The antidote is that history can be used to change the future.

So, what are those historical events?

In 1996, Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, sponsored an ad hoc think tank named The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies - Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000.  From this think tank came a report that was the beginning of a powerful lobby movement.  Here's a look at a few main points that come from that 1996 report:

Israel's quest for peace emerges from, and does not replace, the pursuit of its ideals.  The Jewish people's hunger for human rights — burned into their identity by a 2000-year old dream to live free in their own land — informs the concept of peace and reflects continuity of values with Western and Jewish tradition.

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.  This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions.

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil.  An effective approach, and one with which America can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:

  • striking Syria's drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.
  • paralleling Syria's behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.
  • striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.

To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel.  If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996.

Now, who would the authors of such a report have been?  A report that seems to promote the idea of constraining, manipulating and achieving a benign American reaction.  We'll have a look at the authors of this document below.  They should be familiar to most of you as they are U. S. policymakers rather than Israeli policymakers, which is odd because again this is an Israeli state sponsored project with objectives that are clearly focused on the well being of Israel, not the U. S. or the American people.

Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D. C., Study Group Leader,

James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Washington, D. C.
Charles Fairbanks, Jr.,Johns Hopkins University / SAIS, Baltimore, MD
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Washington, D. C.
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD

Then, subsequent to that 1996 report being released, there was a letter drafted and sent to President Clinton in January 1998 that provides us some additional clarity on the war policies of the new millennium.  Here's a look at that letter:

Archived from: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

PNAC letters sent to President Bill Clinton

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War.  In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat.  We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.  That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power.  We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months.  As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections.  Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished.  Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production.  The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets.  As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East.  It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard.  As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power.  This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts.  Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater.  We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.  In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively.  If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country.  If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams  Richard L. Armitage  William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner  John Bolton  Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama  Robert Kagan  Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol  Richard Perle  Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld  William Schneider, Jr.  Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz  R. James Woolsey  Robert B. Zoellick

Archived from: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Again we see a very explicit and aggressive lobby effort to persuade the U. S. to invade Iraq.  And aren't these authors even more interesting.  Many of the same authors of the 1996 recommendation are also authors of this lobby effort.  Only this time they are acting as benefactors of America.  Odd though that they are pushing the very same agenda that just 18 months earlier these same folks were pushing as benefactors to a foreign nation.  It almost seems as though the authors are indeed attempting to manage and constrain the American people's reaction, as discussed in the first report, to their desired recommendations that the U. S. use its military to engage various nations in war.

Let's think about this rationally for a moment.  In 1996 we had a foreign government sponsor a think tank staffed by very prominent U. S. policymakers with the objective benefiting that foreign sponsor nation.  And then two years later we see a follow on letter to the President of the United States from not only the same U. S. policymakers that authored the 1996 report but now additional prominent U. S. policymakers.  The recommendation of both the '96 report and '98 letter to the President were lobbying for the U. S. to invade and overthrow Iraq and Syria.  However the original recommendation was for the benefit of Israel and the latter recommendation was being sold as necessary for America.  And remember, 9 / 11 had not happened yet, but we already see these very powerful, very prominent policymakers pushing very hard to invade Iraq and Syria.

The problem is Americans didn't want another Iraqi war.  Times were good in the late 1990's.  People were happy.  The cold war was over, jobs were a plenty and the world felt safer than it had for decades.  And as such, there was no way Americans were going to go to war for the benefit of a foreign nation.  The U. S. had decided Hussein was actually a stabilizing force there in the Middle East and as such we wanted him there.  But then an election happened and the “little Texas Scrub” / “ol' Dubya” was chosen by the Supreme Court to be President of the United States.  Along with him came all those names we just saw authoring the two dossiers recommending that the U. S. invade Iraq and Syria.  The authors were given titles such as Chair of the Defense Policy Board (Richard Perle) and Secretary of Defense (Rumsfeld), etc.  And so all of a sudden the same group of people who were championing the invasion of Iraq and Syria back in the late 1990's were now in a position to make it happen by way of their own authority.  What luck!  Shortly thereafter the worst attack on U. S. soil took place in New York and the rest is, as they say, history.

To believe we went into Iraq because our fearless and integrity driven leaders truly and honestly believed it was the morally and justifiable thing to do based on the tragedy of 9 / 11 is just ignorance.  There was a small group of men, called Neocons, that had derived these military actions some 10 years prior to the operations themselves and some 5 years prior to the events that were used to sell these war efforts to the American people and the world.  We can't change any of that.  The ultimate point here is to learn from what happened with Syria and Iraq and see if it squares exactly with what is happening with Russia today.

More history . . . .

A letter written by Bill Kristol and Donald Kagan to the Heads of State and Government Of the European Union and NATO.  This 2004 letter does not mince its words.  It is very much pushing for European support of what would obviously be a U. S. military stand off with Russia.  The letter is sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which is a neoconservative think tank.  In fact, one of the prestigious awards handed out by the AEI is called the Irving Kristol award.  Irving Kristol (father to Bill Kristol) is known as the godfather of the neocon movement in the U. S.  So, again, this is essentially the same crowd from '96 and '98, pushing for support of a U. S. military operation, this time with Russia.  This is back in 2004 mind you before the recent events in Ukraine had even been imagined.  The letter was signed by many but of particular interest is that many of the same names from the 1996 report and 1998 letter to President Clinton pushing for war against Iraq and Syria also signed this letter.

Again we see the aggressive recommendations to back a military operation many years before the catalyst event takes place.  That is the event that is being sold as the moral justification for a military operation.  But this letter tells us that this military objective against Russia has been promoted for many, many years now, far before Ukraine was an issue.  This is again, a push from the same folks that lied to us about Iraq and then trained, equipped, and funded ISIS in order to get into Syria and are now working hard to create a catalyst for an offensive with Russia.

For years before 9 / 11 it was determined by those warmongering policymakers that we would be invading Iraq and Syria.  All we needed was a catalyst.  9 / 11 provided that for Iraq.  ISIS provided that for Syria.  And, now, Ukraine has provided that for Russia.  9 / 11 was used as a catalyst to lie to the American people about the need to invade Iraq.  It has also been fully admitted by our government that we did in fact, train, equip, and fund ISIS, ‘mistakenly though’.  And finally we have recordings of senior U. S. diplomats discussing our involvement in the coup in Ukraine.

And so one can only conclude here that again Americans are being manipulated to accept the recommendations from a powerful group of warmongering policymakers to go to war with a nation that has posed absolutely no threat to the American people in more than 25 years.  And we are being led down this path by lies and propaganda.  Quite specifically things like H. Res. 758.  And if we do not make a stand against these policymakers we are most certainly headed for what could very well be the war to end all wars.

For the West is clearly looking to fortify its power hold over the world by destroying Russia economically and, thus, disable them militarily in an effort to prevent a Sino-Soviet alliance.  On January 11, 2010, former World Bank President, James Wolfensohn, made a presentation to a political science class at Stanford University.  Ironically, the moral to his story was to challenge them to figure out a way, in the face of a rising East soon to control a higher share of the worlds assets than the West, to retain the West's global control.  He stressed it was something his generation did not have to deal with but that today's Western up and coming political class must consider.  You see China is a powerful nation but without an alliance with Russia, China can be contained due to its lack of energy.  Because China is both a more difficult opponent and one that has much more trade with the U. S., Russia is the obvious target to prevent a fully formed Sino-Soviet alliance.

However, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where China does not clearly identify such a strategy being played out.  And so they will come to the defense of Russian energy, as we've already seen with the signings of the world's largest energy deals between those two nations.  If push comes to shove, the Chinese defense will not be limited just to economics.  And we will be put in the midst of the most powerful nations in the history of the world fighting for ultimate power.  This small group of horrible people are willing to put the world on the line so their lineage can continue to rule the world while the rest of us struggle to simply stop the financial bleeding that has become a 15 year epidemic.

This all sounds like the stuff of fiction novels but unfortunately the facts tell us this is all too real.  What is difficult to believe is that we so readily ignore and deny the most essential lessons of history.  Perhaps the foremost being that the political class will always be willing to sacrifice the working class in order to retain its power.  And so we find ourselves again on the precipice of being asked by our political class to offer our young men and women up to be sacrificed for the ‘greater good’.  However, while they try to convince us that the cause is one of morals and righteousness, in the end, it is the same cause it has been since post WWII (and some will argue the same cause it has always been), which is for their interests and their victories, not ours.