21st Century Strategy: Militarized Europe, Globalized NATO

Add to Google Buzz

Rick Rozoff:
With the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms expiring last December 5 and its successor held up almost three months in large part because of U.S. missile shield provocations in recent weeks, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is forging ahead with the formulation and implementation of a new Strategic Concept.

On February 5 Russia unveiled its new military doctrine, which identified further NATO expansion eastward to its frontier and American and NATO interceptor missile deployments on and near its borders as the “main external threats of war.” [1]

On February 23 NATO held its fourth seminar on the new – 21st century – Strategic Concept decided upon at the sixtieth anniversary summit in April of 2009 in Strasbourg, France and Kehl, Germany. After previous meetings in Luxembourg, Slovenia and Norway, the final – and far most important – meeting was held in Washington, DC. Entitled Strategic Concept Seminar on Transformation and Capabilities, it was conducted at the National Defense University in the nation’s capital.

The Strategic Concept endorses expansion of the bloc deeper into the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, broadening global partnerships outside the Euro-Atlantic zone and consolidating an interceptor missile system to cover all of Europe as a joint U.S. and NATO project.

Russian concerns and NATO designs are at complete loggerheads, which accounts for among other problems a new START agreement remaining in limbo. And for Russia’s new military doctrine.

The results of the four seminars, masked as deliberative proceedings and even public information forums when in fact all important matters were decided years in advance, will be presented to NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen on May 1 and formally adopted at the NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal this November.

The meetings that matter, those in the American capital where the White House and the Pentagon are situated, were presided over by former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former chief executive officer of Royal Dutch Shell Jeroen van der Veer and their Group of Experts, alternatively Wise Men. The speakers at the Washington seminar included the U.S. foreign policy triumvirate of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Adviser James Jones, the last NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander from 2003-2006. Other talks were given by the same principals on the preceding evening.

The U.S. permanent representative to NATO, Ivo Daalder, and Alliance chief Rasmussen also gave presentations.

Gates demanded the world’s only true military bloc and certainly the sole one currently involved in a war “uphold the long legacy that has made NATO the most successful military alliance in history.” [2]

All the American speakers laid particular emphasis on NATO’s Article 5, in effect a mutual assistance provision for armed conflicts.

Robert Gates: “Few would have imagined that the first invocation of Article 5 in the alliance’s history would follow an attack on the United States homeland by a non-state entity based in a nation far beyond NATO’s traditional borders….”

“[T]he Strategic Concept must be clear that Article 5 means what it says: an attack on one is an attack on all. The concept also must go further to strengthen Article 5’s credibility with a firm commitment to enhance deterrence through appropriate contingency planning, military exercises, and force development.”

Hillary Clinton: “I want to reaffirm as strongly as I can the United States’ commitment to honor Article 5 of the NATO treaty. No Ally – or adversary – should ever question our determination on this point. It is the bedrock of the Alliance and an obligation that time will not erode.” [3]

Ivo Daalder: “Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which says that an attack against one is an attack against all, remains the bedrock of the alliance. And in order to have that Article 5 operate effectively in the world that we live in today, we need the deployability of forces, we need the ability for forces to move from different places across territory, we need to be prepared through exercising and planning to show and ensure that NATO is prepared to confront the threats that we face….” [4]

James Jones went even further in stating “NATO must be more lean, agile, and flexible to effectively address the security challenges before it. NATO must move beyond its doctrine of static defense of the 20th Century to become a more proactive Alliance for the modern era.”

“NATO must be prepared to address, deny, and deter the full spectrum of threats, whether emanating from within Europe, at NATO’s boundaries, or far beyond NATO’s borders.” [5]

NATO and American officials were equally unequivocal on the deployment of global interceptor missile facilities in Europe and beyond. NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said “Clearly, the development of a common Missile Defence capability will be more efficient and more cost effective if it is developed in common.” [6]

More specifically, he said that “missile defence has become a strategic imperative. To my mind, missile defence makes the most sense in an Alliance context. That way, you get forward-based sensors and infrastructure. Allied defence systems can fill the gaps in the US system’s coverage.” [7]

Daalder linked that project with NATO’s Article 5:

In his words, it is necessary “to make territorial missile defense a mission of this alliance, a mission to defend against a new kind of armed attack, that which arrives on ballistic missiles, whether these weapons come from Iran and hit Western Europe or North Korea and towards North America. In both instances, they would be a responsibility for Article 5 to be dealt with.”

Specifically mentioning the “120-some-thousand troops” from fifty nations serving under NATO command in Afghanistan and ongoing NATO naval operations in the Gulf of Aden and the Horn of Africa, he added: “Those are the kinds of operations that we are engaged in, that we are likely to continue to engage in, some of which will follow under Article 5. A defense against ballistic missile attack – even those of ballistic missiles come from very far if they attack NATO territory – would be an Article 5 contingency.”

Daalder came to his current post as U.S. ambassador to NATO from being Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and before that director for European Affairs on the National Security Council from 1995-1996, where he was responsible for the Clinton administration’s Bosnia policy.

He was an avid supporter of and advocate for the wars against Yugoslavia in 1999 – co-authoring a 2000 book titled Winning Ugly: NATO’s War to Save Kosovo – against Iraq in 2003 and against Afghanistan from 2001 to the present.

In his years at Brookings he co-authored a number of articles with James Goldgeier, a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, including a 2006 piece called “For global security, expand the alliance” which stated “since the challenges NATO faces are global, its membership should be as well.”

The authors added “NATO must become larger and more global by admitting any democratic state that is willing and able to contribute to the fulfillment of the alliance’s new responsibilities.

“NATO’s ability to bring together countries with similar values and interests to combat global problems is constrained by the exclusively trans-Atlantic character of its membership. Other democratic countries share NATO’s values and many common interests – including Australia, Brazil, Japan, India, New Zealand, South Africa and South Korea – and all of them can greatly contribute to NATO’s efforts by providing additional military forces or logistical support to respond to global threats and needs.” [8]

In the same year Daalder and Goldgeier wrote an article for Foreign Affairs, the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, entitled “Global NATO.” In contents included the contention that “the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has gone global” and that its alleged “forward defense often requires a global military reach.” [9]

The new Strategic Concept, in addition to codifying a 21st century and expeditionary NATO (the terms are those of Alliance officials and advocates), will fully launch global NATO, the world’s first international military axis.

The project promoted by Daalder and his colleagues since the early 1990s is to be brought to fruition. He was given his post last year to assist in achieving that objective.

In the tendentious journalism he practiced in the pages of major U.S. dailies and journals while senior fellow at the Brookings Institution from 1998-2009 Daalder frequently criticised the ineffectuality of the United Nations, and his program for a global NATO – his exact term, recall – is meant not to supplement but to supplant the UN. [10]

Madeleine Albright, who delivered the opening and closing remarks at the February 23 Strategic Concept seminar, has similarly derogated the role of the UN; she who was U.S. ambassador to the organization from 1993 to 1997 when she led the successful effort to depose UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali in 1997 after conspiring behind his back with Kofi Annan to obtain UN authorization for NATO’s bombing of Bosnian Serb positions in August and September of 1995. (The following month Annan was appointed UN special envoy to NATO.)

In speaking of “our vision for a revitalized Alliance for the 21st century,” Hillary Clinton celebrated Albright’s efforts throughout the post-Cold War period in her address in Washington on February 22: “She helped bring some of the countries represented here tonight into NATO in the late 1990s – an effort that many questioned at the time but which I believe has proven to be a major success. She played a central role in developing NATO’s last Strategic Concept eleven years ago.”

The vision of what NATO is to become in the new millennium was officially disclosed by Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen on February 7 at the annual Munich Security Conference. He unabashedly called for a global NATO.

Ahead of the Strategic Concept meeting in Washington, he urged that “NATO can be the place where views, concerns and best practices on security are shared by NATO’s global partners. And where … we might work out how to tackle global challenges together.” [11]

His view was seconded by Madeleine Albright, who said “I think we are talking about how we can have some coordinating mechanism for all the various organizations that exist in the world.” Raising a rhetorical question as to “which organization can make the biggest difference,” she answered it with “While I am a great admirer of the United Nations, I know what it can and cannot do.” [12]

A Russian news source responded eleven days later by revealing “NATO’s new strategy authorizing the alliance to use force in any part of the globe arouses deep concern in Moscow.

“Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said this strategy contradicts the United Nations’ Charter.”

Russia’s Lavrov warned that with the Alliance’s new Strategic Concept “NATO’s sphere of interests may cover the entire world.” [13]

That is precisely what the new doctrine and policy is designed to effect and what Rasmussen, Albright, et al. bluntly state its intention to be. The United Nations and international law will take a back seat to global NATO.

NATO “is working on a new military strategy which will let the alliance…use force globally,” of which Russia Foreign Minister Lavrov said “It does not fully comply with the UN Charter, and, of course, raises our concerns.” [14]

Not only does the Western military bloc’s plans to undermine, supersede and ultimately scrap the entire post-World War II international diplomatic and security order “not fully comply with the UN Charter,” it is a direct attack on it.

The new concept also reiterates and intensifies the complete militarization of Europe, the retention of U.S. nuclear arms and the stationing of missile shield components there and the deployment of the continent’s troops to war zones abroad. 35 of 41 European nations have deployed troops to Afghanistan on NATO’s behest, for example. [15]

It also advocates the right of the North Atlantic military bloc to intervene anywhere in the world and is increasingly reviving discussion of activating its Article 5 provision for confrontation with Russia in Europe and the South Caucasus.

Earlier this month Belgian Prime Minister Belgian Yves Leterme stated that his nation and Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway would issue a joint declaration urging consideration of the removal of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe. Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands are among five NATO countries housing the warheads, the others being Italy and Turkey. [16]

Nevertheless NATO’s position is to support the continued basing of American nuclear weapons, and the bloc will defer to Washington’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, scheduled to be submitted to Congress last December but delayed for several months.

NATO is the Pentagon’s nuclear Trojan horse in Europe.

After the founding of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in April of 1949 – four months before the Soviet Union successfully tested its first atomic bomb – the U.S. began to station nuclear weapons in Europe, as many as 7,300 by the early 1970s. [17]

The Pentagon retains as many as 350 nuclear weapons in the five nations mentioned above, a full twenty years after the end of the Cold War.

At the Strategic Concept seminar on February 23 in Washington Ivo Daalder repeated the sixty-year NATO position on nuclear weapons in stating, “We need to continue to rely on a deterrence based on a mix of conventional and nuclear forces.”

He also linked three integral components of NATO’s now global strategy – the threat to employ nuclear weapons, a worldwide interceptor missile system and the bloc’s Article 5 war clause – in asserting that “we need, in the new environment, to make territorial missile defense a mission of this alliance, a mission to defend against a new kind of armed attack, that which arrives on ballistic missiles, whether these weapons come from Iran and hit Western Europe or North Korea and towards North America. In both instances, they would be a responsibility for Article 5 to be dealt with.”

To underscore the point – that NATO would marshal the combined military might of its 28 member states in Europe and North America in alleged defense of any member requesting it – he added, “A defense against ballistic missile attack – even those of ballistic missiles come from very far if they attack NATO territory – would be an Article 5 contingency.”

“We would like the alliance to embrace the notion that the territorial defense of our – of – that territorial missile defense is a mission of NATO and therefore ought to be a fundamental part of what NATO does on a day-to-day basis. Whether that’s in the Strategic Concept or is a separate decision at the Lisbon summit is less important. Article 5 is going to be in the Strategic Concept. Ballistic missiles that are directed at the territory of a NATO state would be an armed attack and therefore fall under the definition of Article 5.

“We believe NATO should be in the business of missile defense. The United States has offered its new approach to missile defense as its U.S.-funded contribution to a NATO system. And we hope that by Lisbon [the NATO summit in November], the entire alliance will embrace this as a mission and we move forward together in defending against the threats that are out there in the 21st century.”

Defense Secretary Gates spoke in the same vein: “The threat from rogue nations is real – in particular Iran, which is focusing its efforts on short-and-medium-range missiles that could strike most of Europe. Last year, the Obama administration announced a new plan for missile defense in Europe – a phased, adaptive approach that will give us real capabilities in a shorter period of time than the previous plan. We consider this a U.S.-funded contribution to NATO missile defense, which is critical to the collective-defense mission….”

Collective defense, sometimes deemed collective self-defense, are the NATO codewords for activating Article 5 and ordering all members to respond militarily to a threat – real or fancied – to one or more members.

Clinton followed suit in stating “Missile defense, we believe, will make us safer because, clearly, we see a threat. We see a threat that is emanating from the Middle East and we see a threat that can only be addressed in the spirit of collective defense.”

Targeting the same countries earlier identified by Daalder (two of the three so-called axis of evil nations identified as such by former president George W. Bush), she said, “nuclear proliferation and the development of more sophisticated missiles in countries such as North Korea and Iran are reviving the specter of an interstate nuclear attack. So how do we in NATO do our part to ensure that such weapons never are unleashed on the world?”

In no manner does Iran raise the “specter of an interstate nuclear attack” and Clinton knew that. But it is the pretext required by the U.S. and NATO to base interceptor missile sites along Russia’s western borders from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea.

The excuse needed to support Clinton’s demand that, more than twenty years since the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, NATO members still “need to invest in deterrence, nuclear deterrence as well as missile defense….”

The U.S. nuclear shield, linked with NATO’s Article 5, is being extended from Europe to Asia, the Middle East and ultimately the entire world. Global nuclear NATO.

In keeping with the conference held on NATO’s new Strategic Concept in London last October 1, hosted by Lloyd’s of London, in which the bloc’s Secretary General Rasmussen identified no less than seventeen nominal threats – all of them non-military in nature and all of them without geographical limitations – that NATO was prepared to respond to, [18] the Washington conference also highlighted the boundless and timeless mandate that NATO was arrogating to itself.

Rasmussen’s speech on February 23 included these observations:

“We must face new challenges. Terrorism, proliferation, cyber security or even climate change will oblige us to seek new ways of operating.

“As we deploy in operations with over 40 participating countries – Allies as well as partners – we have to move beyond a multinational force to become a truly unified force – a force where information and capabilities are shared among all to the benefit of all, and to get the job done.

“I have decided to establish a new division at NATO Headquarters to deal with new threats and challenges. Naturally Allied Command Transformation will be a key partner for this new division, which will become operational after the summer.” [19]

The previous evening Rasmussen spoke at Georgetown University in Washington, DC and elaborated on the Alliance’s Article 5 in practice rather than just in theory:

“The problems of the 21st century can only be solved multilaterally. And there is no stronger, more effective framework for that cooperation than NATO. But did you know that, on September 12th, all of America’s Allies in NATO declared that they considered this attack on America as an attack on them as well? Did you know that NATO sent aircraft to patrol the skies here in the United States? Did you know that all NATO countries put their ports and airfields at US disposal for the operation into Afghanistan? Or that most of them sent Special Forces, alongside US soldiers, in the initial military response?

“44 countries have soldiers in Afghanistan, under NATO command. Sharing the risks, the costs and the burdens with the United States. The non-US members make up 40% of the total number of forces. They also take 40% of the casualties.” [20]

He also indicated which nation NATO may next invoke its collective military assistance clause against: Russia. Unnamed but not needing to be in the context he was discussing.

“Our NATO Ally Estonia suffered a few years ago from a sustained, directed cyber attack that shut down a lot of essential services.
Read more of this post

Advertisements

Pentagon Confronts Russia In The Baltic Sea

Rick Rozoff | Twelve months ago a new U.S. administration entered the White House as the world entered a new year.

Two and a half weeks later the nation’s new vice president, Joseph Biden, spoke at the annual Munich Security Conference and said “it’s time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together with Russia.”

Incongruously to any who expected a change in tact if not substance regarding strained U.S.-Russian relations, in the same speech Biden emphasized that, using the “New World Order” shibboleth of the past generation at the end, “Two months from now, the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will gather to celebrate the 60th year of this Alliance. This Alliance has been the cornerstone of our common security since the end of World War II. It has anchored the United States in Europe and helped forge a Europe whole and free.” [1]

Six months before, while Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he rushed to the nation of Georgia five days after the end of the country’s five-day war with Russia as an emissary for the George W. Bush administration, and pledged $1 billion in assistance to the beleaguered regime of former U.S. resident Mikheil Saakashvili.

To demonstrate how serious Biden and the government he represented were about rhetorical gimmicks like reset buttons, four months after his Munich address Biden visited Ukraine and Georgia to shore up their “color revolution”-bred heads of state (outgoing Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko is married to a Chicagoan and former Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush official) in their anti-Russian and pro-NATO stances.

While back in Georgia he insisted “We understand that Georgia aspires to join NATO. We fully support that aspiration.”

In Ukraine he said “As we reset the relationship with Russia, we reaffirm our commitment to an independent Ukraine, and we recognize no sphere of influence or no ability of any other nation to veto the choices an independent nation makes,” [2] also in reference to joining the U.S.-dominated military bloc. Biden’s grammar may have been murky, but his message was unmistakeably clear.

Upon his return home Biden gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal, the contents of which were indicated by the title the newspaper gave its account of them – “Biden Says Weakened Russia Will Bend to U.S.” – and which were characterized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies as “the most critical statements from a senior administration official to date vis-a-vis Russia.” [3]

It took the Barack Obama government eight months to make its first friendly gesture to Russia. In September of last year the American president and Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that they were abandoning the Bush administration’s plan to station ten ground-based midcourse interceptor missiles in Poland in favor of a “stronger, smarter, and swifter” alternative.

The new system would rely on the deployment of Aegis class warships equipped with SM-3 (Standard Missile-3) missiles – with a range of at least 500 kilometers (310 miles) – which “provide the flexibility to move interceptors from one region to another if needed,” [4] in Gates’ words.

The first location for their deployment will be the Baltic Sea according to all indications.

The proximity of Russia’s two largest cities, St. Petersburg and Moscow, especially the first, to the Baltic coast makes the basing of American warships with interceptor missiles in that sea the equivalent of Russia stationing comparable vessels with the same capability in the Atlantic Ocean near Delaware Bay, within easy striking distance of New York City and Washington, D.C.

Although Washington canceled the earlier interceptor missile plans for Poland, on January 20 the defense ministry of that country announced that not only would the Pentagon go ahead with the deployment of a Patriot Advanced Capability-3 anti-ballistic missile battery in the country, but that it would be based on the Baltic Sea coast 35 miles from Russia’s Kaliningrad district. [5]

The previous month Viktor Zavarzin, the head of the Defense Committee of the Russian State Duma (the lower house of parliament), said “Russia is concerned with how rapidly new NATO members are upgrading their military infrastructure” and “that Russia was especially concerned with the reconstruction of air bases in the Baltic countries for NATO’s purposes which include signal and air intelligence radio of Russian territory.” [6]

As it should be.

Since the Baltic Sea nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were ushered into NATO as full members in 2004, warplanes from Alliance member states have shared four-month rotations in patrolling the region, with two U.S. deployments to date.

Shortly before the patrols began almost six years ago the Russian media reported that “Relations between Russia and Estonia have been tense ever since NATO built a radar station on the Russian-Estonian border last year. On March 23, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko warned Russia would retaliate ‘if NATO planes fly over Russian borders after the Baltic nations join the alliance.'” [7] Read more of this post

Cricket terrorism

Sultan M Hali | India has used every excuse possible to turn it into an instrument of terror. It has used coercive diplomacy, taking full advantage of the reconstruction opportunity in Afghanistan to launch terror attacks in Pakistan. 9/11 was used as a ploy to ditch its erstwhile ally Russia and join the US camp to take up cudgels against Pakistan. The Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline was employed as a tool of intimidation and blackmail. The Confidence Building Measures by Pakistan were misused by India as a ploy for oppression and viewed as a sign of Pakistan’s weakness. Other nations including Pakistan make use of sports, culture and fine arts to enhance relations especially when tensions are rising. Pakistan’s president Zia-ul-Haq used cricket diplomacy to diffuse the chances of conflict between Pakistan and India when there was fear of war between the two during the Operation Brass-tacks era.

Unfortunately, India is exploiting the event of sports, especially cricket for terrorizing Pakistan. Earlier too Hindu extremists have threatened to attack and maim Pakistani cricketers in pursuance of their nefarious chauvinistic designs. They have dug up cricket pitches, created furor by inciting crowd vandalism to disrupt matches which appeared to be going against India. In the early days of Pakistan-India cricket fixtures, readers may recall an incident when Pakistan team was visiting India for a cricket series, Pakistan’s star batsman Hanif Muhammad was approached by an Indian fanatic posing to be a “fan”, who wanted to shake hands with the “Little Master” on the eve of the match. Innocently Hanif Muhammad extended his hand, but a blade concealed between the fingers of the “fan” cut his hand badly. That is another story that with a bandaged hand and three stitches, the master player went on to score 202 runs. Pakistani players playing for the Indian Premier League (IPL) who were stuck in Mumbai following the attacks on 26/11/2007 were threatened to be assassinated by Hindu militants as retaliation for the assault. Pakistani teams have time and again been threatened to desist from visiting India.

The forthcoming cricket “World Cup”, which is to be hosted by South Asia in 2011, with the venues to be divided between Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and India was sabotaged for Pakistan. Initially India raised the specter of terror threats to visiting teams in Pakistan, which caused Australia, New Zealand and England to abstain from playing in Pakistan. Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, in a show of solidarity with us, decided to send their cricket teams to Pakistan. Reportedly, Indian intelligence agency RAW organized a deadly attack on the visiting cricket team at Lahore, sealing the fate of Pakistan as venue for the World Cup. This is not only going to deprive Pakistan of revenues and Pakistani fans the chance of witnessing exciting cricket matches, but also divest the national team of vital match practice, contributing to its dismal match performance in the recent past. The latest machination by the protagonists of Hindutva and Indian extremists, in humiliating Pakistani cricketers in the IPL is not only distasteful, but requires condemnation at the international level. Pakistani cricketers are not only the world champions in the 20/20 form of cricket, but have also rendered match winning performances in their various teams during the previous IPL tournaments. They should have been in demand by each and every team contesting in the IPL. Initially, problems were created in the issuance of visas for the Pakistani players, and then they were told to face the ignominy of facing auctioneering by different team sponsors/proprietors. Once the Pakistani players were placed for bidding, to their utter humiliation, not a single Pakistani cricketer was bid for. It has now emerged that the farcical auction was engineered by RAW and militant Hindus. Rajasthan Royals’ co-owner Shilpa Shetty, co-owner of Kings XI Punjab Preity Zinta and Shahrukh Khan of Kolkata Knight riders have confirmed that the Hindu Extremist organization Shiv Sena and goons of RAW’s underworld mafia threatened the bidders to refrain from hiring Pakistani Cricket stars at the auction of the players for the 3rd session of IPL.

Without clearly naming Shiv Sena and RAW goons, the Bollywood sensations have expressed that they were threatened that if they would opt for hiring Pak cricketers, they (Pak Cricketers) would be badly harmed by them ( the Shiv Sena and RAW goons). Apart from the showbiz beauties who were amongst the bidder at the IPL auction some business tycoons at the auction, including Ness Wadia and Mukesh Ambani have also expressed the same while talking to media or commenting over the situation at private functions in Mumbai. The bidders have confirmed that the Pakistani cricketers were in great demand while some impartial and saner elements of the Indian media have disclosed opinion polls reflecting the choice of Indian fans who voted in the excess of 72% to see the star performers from Pakistani cricket playing on their soil.

On the other side, Indian belligerent leaders continue to threaten Pakistan with dire consequences if 26/11 type attacks are repeated. Indian threatening attitude has taken the extreme situation, where they see PAF’s preparations for war games at Sargodha as threatening for India. Sargodha is situated in the heart of the Punjab and is a Main Operating airbase, yet it is being described as a border city and the trenches and tunnels dug for war-games, have been construed as threatening postures. Indian Air Defence has gone so berserk that it mistook its own aircraft on the radar and declared them as hostile intruders and was preparing to take punitive action. Under these circumstances, Pakistan should boycott the IPL matches. No Pakistani cable operator should broadcast the IPL matches in Pakistan. During the Cricket World Cup, Pakistan should refuse to play any match on Indian soil. In one of the previous World Cup cricket tournaments, Australia had refused to play in Sri Lanka; we can adopt a similar policy for India. Such drastic steps will expose Indian belligerence and cricket terrorism and bear pressure on it from using sports fixtures for its nefarious ends.


Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Bases, Missiles, Wars: U.S. Consolidates Global Military Network

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Rick Rozoff | Afghanistan is occupying center stage at the moment, but in the wings are complementary maneuvers to expand a string of new military bases and missile shield facilities throughout Eurasia and the Middle East.

The advanced Patriot theater anti-ballistic missile batteries in place or soon to be in Egypt, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Poland, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates describe an arc stretching from the Baltic Sea through Southeast Europe to the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and the Caucasus and beyond to East Asia. A semicircle that begins on Russia’s northwest and ends on China’s northeast.

Over the past decade the United States has steadily (though to much of the world imperceptibly) extended its military reach to most all parts of the world. From subordinating almost all of Europe to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization through the latter’s expansion into Eastern Europe, including the former Soviet Union, to arbitrarily setting up a regional command that takes in the African continent (and all but one of its 53 nations). From invading and establishing military bases in the Middle East and Central and South Asia to operating a satellite surveillance base in Australia and taking charge of seven military installations in South America. In the vacuum left in much of the world by the demise of the Cold War and the former bipolar world, the U.S. rushed in to insert its military in various parts of the world that had been off limits to it before.

And this while Washington cannot even credibly pretend that it is threatened by any other nation on earth.

It has employed a series of tactics to accomplish its objective of unchallenged international armed superiority, using an expanding NATO to build military partnerships not only throughout Europe but in the Caucasus, the Middle East, North and West Africa, Asia and Oceania as well as employing numerous bilateral and regional arrangements.

The pattern that has emerged is that of the U.S. shifting larger concentrations of troops from post-World War II bases in Europe and Japan to smaller, more dispersed forward basing locations south and east of Europe and progressively closer to Russia, Iran and China.

The ever-growing number of nations throughout the world being pulled into Washington’s military network serve three main purposes.

First, they provide air, troop and weapons transit and bases for wars like those against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, for naval operations that are in fact blockades by other names, and for regional surveillance.

Second, they supply troops and military equipment for deployments to war and post-conflict zones whenever and wherever required.

Last, allies and client states are incorporated into U.S. plans for an international missile shield that will put NATO nations and select allies under an impenetrable canopy of interceptors while other nations are susceptible to attack and deprived of the deterrent effect of being able to retaliate.

The degree to which these three components are being integrated is advancing rapidly. The war in Afghanistan is the major mechanism for forging a global U.S. military nexus and one which in turn provides the Pentagon the opportunity to obtain and operate bases from Southeast Europe to Central Asia.

One example that illustrates this global trend is Colombia. In early August the nation’s vice president announced that the first contingent of Colombian troops were to be deployed to serve under NATO command in Afghanistan. Armed forces from South America will be assigned to the North Atlantic bloc to fight a war in Asia. The announcement of the Colombian deployment came shortly after another: That the Pentagon would acquire seven new military bases in Colombia.

When the U.S. deploys Patriot missile batteries to that nation – on its borders with Venezuela and Ecuador – the triad will be complete.

Afghanistan is occupying center stage at the moment, but in the wings are complementary maneuvers to expand a string of new military bases and missile shield facilities throughout Eurasia and the Middle East.

On January 28 the British government will host a conference in London on Afghanistan that, in the words of what is identified as the UK Government’s Afghanistan website, will be co-hosted by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Afghanistan’s President Karzai and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and co-chaired by British Foreign Minister David Miliband, his outgoing Afghan counterpart Rangin Spanta, and UN Special Representative to Afghanistan, Kai Eide.

The site announces that “The international community are [sic] coming together to fully align military and civilian resources behind an Afghan-led political strategy.” [1]

The conference will also be attended by “foreign ministers from International Security Assistance Force partners, Afghanistan’s immediate neighbours and key regional player [sic].”

Public relations requirements dictate that concerns about the well-being of the Afghan people, “a stable and secure Afghanistan” and “regional cooperation” be mentioned, but the meeting will in effect be a war council, one that will be attended by the foreign ministers of scores of NATO and NATO partner states.

In the two days preceding the conference NATO’s Military Committee will meet at the Alliance’s headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. “Together with the Chiefs of Defence of all 28 NATO member states, 35 Chiefs of Defence of Partner countries and Troop Contributing Nations will also be present.” [2]

That is, top military commanders from 63 nations – almost a third of the world’s 192 countries – will gather at NATO Headquarters to discuss the next phase of the expanding war in South Asia and the bloc’s new Strategic Concept. Among those who will attend the two-day Military Committee meeting are General Stanley McChrystal, in charge of all U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan; Admiral James Stavridis, chief U.S. military commander in Europe and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander; Pakistani Chief of the Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and Israeli Chief of General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi.

Former American secretary of state Madeleine Albright has been invited to speak about the Strategic Concept on behalf of the twelve-member Group of Experts she heads, whose task it is to promote NATO’s 21st century global doctrine.

The Brussels meeting and London conference highlight the centrality that the war in Afghanistan has for the West and for its international military enforcement mechanism, NATO.

During the past few months Washington has been assiduously recruiting troops from assorted NATO partnership program nations for the war in Afghanistan, including from Armenia, Bahrain, Bosnia, Colombia, Jordan, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Ukraine and other nations that had not previously provided contingents to serve under NATO in the South Asian war theater. Added to forces from all 28 NATO member states and from Partnership for Peace, Mediterranean Dialogue, Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, Adriatic Charter and Contact Country programs, the Pentagon and NATO are assembling a coalition of over fifty nations for combat operations in Afghanistan.

Almost as many NATO partner nations as full member states have committed troops for the Afghanistan-Pakistan war: Afghanistan itself, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Colombia, Egypt, Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Jordan, Macedonia, Mongolia, Montenegro, New Zealand, Pakistan, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Arab Emirates.

The Afghan war zone is a colossal training ground for troops from around the world to gain wartime experience, to integrate armed forces from six continents under a unified command, and to test new weapons and weapons systems in real-life combat conditions.

Not only candidates for NATO membership but all nations in the world the U.S. has diplomatic and economic leverage over are being pressured to support the war in Afghanistan.

The American Forces Press Service featured a story last month about the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force’s Regional Command East which revealed: “In addition to…French forces, Polish forces are in charge of battle space, and the Czech Republic, Turkey and New Zealand manage provincial reconstruction teams. In addition, servicemembers and civilians from Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates work with the command, and South Korea runs a hospital in the region.”

With the acknowledgment that Egyptian forces are assigned to NATO’s Afghan war, it is now known that troops from all six populated continents are subordinated to NATO in one war theater. [3] Read more of this post

“The World’s worst terrorists based in Washington”

AMERICANS MUST ASK; WHO IS BREEDING TERRORISM?

Bush World’s No 1 Terrorist The above-captioned article was written by John Pilger in the daily The Yumiuri Shimbun, of Japan, dated 30th August, 1998. He says “In recent years Muslims have been the greatest sufferers from state terrorism.” The excerpts of his above-mentioned article are as below.

“By knowingly killing innocent people, for political ends, President Clinton is a terrorist. By supporting his actions, the Prime Minister and the Defense Secretary, of Britain, are accomplices. The dictionary meaning of terrorism allows no other interpretation; the rest is willful obfuscation, or propaganda. What matters now is our informed reaction.

In 1986, there was an ‘evil’ Colonel Gaddafi, whose country President Reagan bombed from bases in Britain, killing mostly women and children, including Gaddafi’s 16- month-old daughter.

In 1990, there was the ‘evil’ General Noriega, said to be a dangerous drug trafficker, whose capture by US Marines required a full-scale invasion of his country and the death by bombing of at least 2,000 Panamanians, mostly the poorest of the poor in their barrios. Noriega and drugs had precious little to do with it. The aim was to put Panama, its canal and its US base under direct American sovereignty, managed by other Noriegas.

I the same year, there was ‘the truly evil’ Saddam Hussein, another one of Bush’s and Reagan’s old pals, whose regime they had armed and backed (along with Margaret Thatcher, who sent most of her cabinet to Baghdad as supplicants of arms salesmen). Saddam’s use of American and British weapons in his attack on the “evil” Mullas in Iran in 1980 was perfectly acceptable. A million people died in that ‘forgotten’ war; and the Americans and British arms industries never looked back. Then Saddam Hussein attacked the wrong country, Kuwait, which was effectively an Anglo-American oil protectorate. “An uppity bastard” as one (US) State Department briefer described him more in sorrow than anger. Punishing Saddam Hussein cost as many as 200,000 Iraqi lives, according to a study by the Medical Educational Trust. These were ordinary Iraqis who died during and immediately after a period of military and economic carnage whose true scale has never been appreciated outside the Middle East.

The old fashioned colonial massacre was called the Gulf War. The dead included thousands of Kurdish and Shia people who were Saddam’s bitter opponents and whom Bush had called upon to rise up against their oppressor. Long after it was over New York Newsday revealed, from official sources, that three brigades of the US 1st Mechanized Infantry Division – “The Big Red One” had used snow ploughs mounted on tanks to bury alive Iraqis conscripts in more than seventy miles of trenches. A brigade commander said, “For all I know we have killed thousands”. This is a war crime.

The following year, Bush attacked Somalia in what was called a “humanitarian intervention”. He was in the midst of his re-election campaign. Bush said the marines were doing “God’s work saving thousands of innocents”. Like this moralizing over the Gulf war, this was generally accepted by the British media, with honorable exceptions.

American television crews were waiting as the Marines landed in a beautiful African pre-dawn: “prime time” at home. From the Somalian side there was perpetual darkness; “chaos” and “tribalism” and “warlords”. When the American warlords had completed their adventure in Somalia and taken the media home with them, the story died, as we say. According to CIA estimates, the Marines had left between 7,000 and 10,000 Somalis dead. This was not news.

Soon after he was elected in 1992, Clinton attacked Baghdad with 23 Cruise missiles which destroyed a residential area, killing, once again mostly women and children, including Iraq’s most distinguished artist, Leila al-attar. Interviewed on his way to church with his wife, Clinton said, “I feel quite good about this, and I think the American people feel quite good about it.” The pretext for attack was an Iraqi “plot” to kill George Bush on a visit to Kuwait. There was no hard evidence and the plot story widely regarded as fake.

In 1996, Clinton attacked Iraq again, this time insisting that he was “defending” Kurds against Saddam Hussein, who must pay the price”. Once again thousands of civilians, mostly innocent women and children paid the price.

In earlier 1998, Clinton very nearly attacked Iraq again. Virtually the same footage of missiles looking sleek against the dawn light, courtesy of the Pentagon, appeared on British television. What stopped him..?.

Like spontaneous combustion, public opinion all over the world raised its voice. The cameras have also shown glimpses of Iraq’s silent holocaust, the consequences of the imposition of “economic sanctions” by the United States and Britain (under the usual UN flag of convenience) against the Iraqi civilian population.

Tony Blair said he wept for the children who were killed in Omagh by the terrorist act; but he was silent on the children who died in Iraq as a result of one of the most enduring terrorist acts of the late 20th century, conducted largely by his government and its principal ally, the USA. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization, both UN agencies, more than half a million children have died as a direct result of sanctions. Other sources put the figure at over a million which could be more authentic as compared to of UN organizations which could more likely be biased. Baby food and enriched powdered milk were blockaded along with vital hospital equipments.”

What an irony of fate that Iraqi people whose country was the 2nd biggest oil producing country in the world, had been invaded by US on false pretexts, to rob off their oil and genocide of millions of Muslim Iraqi people, mostly women and children, who were slaughtered by indiscriminate bombing by US Air Force and dozens of cruise missiles by US Naval aircraft carriers. The only fault of theirs was that they belonged, to the 2nd biggest oil producing country in the world. Their one million children died of starvation because of non-availability of baby food, milk powder; ordinary medicines, not to speak of life-saving drugs and hospital equipments. Could there be a bigger terrorism of 20th and 21st centuries committed by USA and its allies, than this, and yet these countries call themselves as the flag carriers of Human Rights..? shame on them.

And when “Oil for Food” programme was launched for Iraqi people by UN, of course with the ‘permission’ from USA, number of people including then UN Secretary General’s son, Indian ex foreign minister and many other notables of the world made millions of dollars in this biggest world-fame scam. The then UN Secretary General announced for a high-level enquiry into it which is s but the enquiry into, the ‘Report’ of which is still awaited or has been hushed-up. UNO is a totally biased against Muslims as well as the most corrupt organization in the world. Muslim countries should better say ‘goodbye’ to UNO and give a stealth spine to OIC to counter terrorism of USA and its allies effectively, as a Muslim Nations Organization.

As John Pilger came out with the facts and has criticized USA and its main ally, Britain, for state terrorism and genocide of Muslims, renowned American scholar, thinker and an intellectual superstar of the 20th century, a philosopher of languages and political campaigner of towering academic reputation, Dr. Noam Chomsky, has also declared “US a terrorist state and the US foreign policy is straight out of mafia”. By the way what does he mean of “mafia”…? He means the American Jews in White house, US administration, CIA, and the Pentagon. Dr. Chomsky also said, “United States did not seek authorization for launching air strikes on Afghanistan from the United Nations because the involvement of the world body could have limited its unilateral power to act.” He did not agree that the American people had supported US attacks on Afghanistan and accused US and Britain of abusing power in ‘war’.

In addition to the above statements, from John Pilger and Dr. Noam Chomsky, a British journalist, George Monblot has said, “US treats the rest of the world as its doormat”, in Guardian News Service. He further said, “Since Bush, Jr. came to office, the United States has torn up more international treaties and disregarded more UN conventions than the rest of the world has done in 20 years. It has scupper-ed the biological weapons convention while experimenting, illegally, on its own. It has permitted CIA hit squads to recommence covert operations of the kind which included, in the past, the assassination of foreign head of state. It has sabotaged the small arms treaty, undermined the international criminal court”.

After taking-over as the President of USA, George W. Bush has also been following the footprints not only of his father but of his predecessors, as well. He also attacked Iraq on illogical pleas as he changed the justification on attack on Iraq twice. At first, Iraq was named as potential target because it was “assisting Al-Qaida”. This turned out to be untrue. Then the US government claimed that Iraq had to be attacked because it could be developing weapons of mass destructions (WMDs), and was refusing to allow weapons inspectors to find out if this was so. Whereas, in fact Saddam Hussein had only a few lame Scud missiles. This allegations also proved to be untrue when Bush himself confessed that he acted on a false and unconfirmed report from CIA, but the damaged had been done as at least half-a-million innocent Iraqis had be massacred, so what…? Iraq had a few lame Scud missiles and nothing else whereas US, Britain, Israel have multiple types of WMDs in abundance but that can’t be questioned. This is terrorism of USA, Britain and Israel. Moreover, according to George Monblot, US have to remain on war with any country so that its war-ammunition factories keep on working, throughout the year. After Iraq it is Afghanistan and Pakistan, then its Iran or Sudan, and Yemen, on USA’s agenda of war.

The Muslim states are always ‘suspected’ of making WMDs, by USA and its allies, whereas the blamers have stored numerous types of WMDs piled up in their respective countries, their ammunition factories running 24 hours preparing WMDs to be used on weaker Muslim civilians/countries with the only objective of genocide, of Muslims, and to have control on their natural resources as they are getting oil for free by printing dollars which is NOT backed by gold which means that it’s just a piece of printed paper.

Similarly, under the guise of “War-on-terror”, Bush Jr. invaded Afghanistan, in the name of “Crusade”, killing at least about a million innocent Afghan civilians in the process while unleashing the rain of cruise missiles, Daisy Cutter bombs, the Cave-busters and also experimented the Mother-of-all bombs on poor Afghan civilians, treating them as “collateral damage’ and afterward the files closed. Isn’t it biggest terrorism of the century…?

As a matter of fact the post WW-II generation of US leaders, specifically the Presidents, CIA and Pentagon chiefs, have developed the psyche of terrorism, in the name of “US Interests”, all around the world, compared to of pre-WW-II era. The majority of hawks, mostly Jews who crept into the important organizations, US administration, CIA, Pentagon, US Justice Dept, FBI, National and Homeland Security, the Police, as a planning and succeeded in their objectives of taking control of these important pillars of US government, and thus running the US government as they want. In other words the Jews are ruling the world that is why a vast difference could be observed between the psyches of the generations of US leaders of pre and the post WW-II generations, as said earlier, and this phenomenon occurred, after the birth of Israel, in 1948. As a matter of fact Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, is more active in USA than anywhere else  in the world as it’s an anytime-life-threat to non-Jewish politicians of USA as the American Jews have spread in almost all the important domestic organizations of the US, like FBI, the Justice Dept; the Police, National/Homeland security, like cancer.

According to Hesham Tillawi’s (Ph.d.) Report, John F. Kennedy and his brother, “Bobby”, Robert Kennedy, who were against Israel’s nuclear development programme, were killed by Israel, in collaboration with some Jewish CIA agents, as proved by him. The documentary could be viewed on the video.

By virtue of being US citizens the Jews have also taken-over control of international financial and media communication. On the media front the Jews own 6 out of 9 international media organizations including all TV channels of USA, hence, they control the world media and give fabricated news of their interest only. They can not tolerate and let survive Muslims in these two fields, for example they couldn’t tolerate fast expansion and popularity of Al-Jazira TV network, therefore, by taking some bogus pleas they arranged (CIA) sponsored attack on the head office of Al-Jazira TV because this (Muslim) TV net-work used to telecast the news without any fabrication and used to give the true picture of events and the news which and was against the western (Jewish) media. Isn’t it terrorism…?

Then, on financial side, the western (Jewish) bankers and financial top guns, became afraid of the fast expansion and patronization, of BCCI, by Muslims states i.e. Gulf and the M.E. Therefore, foreseeing that all the Muslim wealth which they were using from decades may out-flow from their banks to this Islamic bank, BCCI, so, they leveled and framed false allegation of money laundering and malpractices in the money markets. Whereas, on the other, almost all the banks of Switzerland and Britain are openly involved in money laundering and other malpractices but these banks have never been pointed out for ‘crimes’, BCCI was punished. It’s a well known fact that Britain, Switzerland and Spain are the main hubs of money laundering. According to a survey only in London 50% of global money laundering is being done by the banks in London, having their head offices in US and Israel, so, where are those “Policemen of the world Financial markets” who got BCCI closed for money laundering and irregular banking practices..?. Isn’t it terrorism against Muslim countries by US…?

The Jews own world biggest banks and the financial institutions which lend to the third world countries on their terms and conditions. The big question is from where they got so much money to control finance of the world. The answer is simple; they made fool of the Sheikhdoms and sucked their wealth of oil by giving them paper-money, printing dollars, after de-linking with equivalent gold reserves, in 1970, so that they may print as much (paper) dollars as possible as the dollar had become the only currency in the world which was always in demand because the world finance controllers, the Jews, had put conditions on international trading, through US administration, that the payments of not only oil but also of all the business transactions, will be made in dollars, therefore, they printed dollars as much as they could as they were NOT supposed to keep equivalent reserves in gold, and sucked-in the whole worlds’ resources, particularly and, in fact, practically they started getting oil almost for free, against ‘paper money’. The Arab Sheikhs did not realize that the dollar they are getting against selling trillions of barrels of oil has no backing of gold reserves, that is how the Jews, in US administration made fool of these Arab Sheikhs and sucked their oil wealth sitting in US.

There is an open ended excuse of US administration, given by the ‘Hawks’, the American Jews, is to safeguard “US Interests” which, predominantly, is a big threat not only to the third world countries but to those EU countries, as well, which oppose US against its discriminatory policies. I have written in one of my previous articles that the US may even bomb a EU member country under the garb of “US Interests” as the ‘war-on-terror’ is going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan as, Obama has recently said, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan may attack USA. Is it really believable that tiny countries like Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan may attack US, in the presence of her bases in the whole of Europe, M.E and the Far East, plus the 9 roaming naval fleets equipped with all sorts of WMDs and even nukes …? These US bases in Britain and also in almost all European countries plus the year-round roaming USA’s 9 naval fleets, are there to terrorize the weak and the third world countries, specially the Muslim.

The US economic terrorism could also be vouched through its’ economic policies for the third world countries so that these countries may not be able to stand on their feet, ever, and keep begging before US, IMF or the World Bank. The book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”, written by John Perkins, a former respected member of the international banking community: John Perkins verifies it as he described “How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries out of Trillions. And how as a highly paid professional, he helped the U.S. cheat poor countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then take over their economies.” While giving an interview to Amy Goldman he disclosed, “I was initially recruited while I was in business school back in the late sixties by the National Security Agency, the nation’s largest and least understood spy organization; but ultimately I worked for private corporations. The first real economic hit man was back in the early 1950’s, Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of Teddy, who overthrew of government of Iran, a democratically elected Mossadegh’s government, who was Time‘s magazine person of the year; and he was so successful at doing this without any bloodshed—well, there was a little bloodshed, but no military intervention, just spending millions of dollars and replaced Mossadegh with the Shah of Iran. At that point, we understood that this idea of economic hit man was an extremely good one. We didn’t have to worry about the threat of war with Russia when we did it this way. The problem with that was that Roosevelt was a C.I.A. agent. He was a government employee. Had he been caught, we would have been in a lot of trouble. It would have been very embarrassing. So, at that point, the decision was made to use organizations like the C.I.A. and the N.S.A. to recruit potential economic hit men like me and then send us to work for private consulting companies, engineering firms, construction companies, so that if we were caught, there would be no connection with the government.”

Exactly, the same US/CIA has created “Blackwater”, the mercenary force to get USA achieve its’ (heinous) objectives against smaller and weaker states like Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. In Pakistan the “Blackwater” is known as “Xe-Services”, hired by DynCorp through a Pakistani sub-agency, so that USA could not be blames of its’ direct involvement in “Blackwater” or Xe-Services’s activities of killing, abduction, bombing the crowded market through remote controlled car/truck bombings as had been done in Iraq and now going on in Pakistan.

Perkins further writes, “The book was to be dedicated to the presidents of two countries, men who had been his clients whom I respected and thought of as kindred spirits–Jaime Roldós, president of Ecuador, and Omar Torrijos, president of Panama. Both had just died in fiery crashes. Their deaths were not accidental. They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire. We Economic Hit Men failed to bring Roldós and Torrijos around, and the other type of hit men, the CIA-sanctioned jackals who were always right behind us, stepped in.”

John Perkins goes on to write: “I was persuaded to stop writing that book. I started it four more times during the next twenty years. On each occasion, my decision to begin again was influenced by current world events: the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1980, the first Gulf War, Somalia, and the rise of Osama bin Laden. However, threats or bribes always convinced me to stop.” But now Perkins has finally published his story. The book is titled Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. John Perkins joins us now in our Firehouse studios.

USA has developed a complex of all types of ammunition producing factories, including WMDs, and in order to keep these factories working throughout the year she needs to use the ammunition, as briefly mentioned earlier. The British journalist George Monblot, of The Guardian News Service, writes, “The United States also possess a vast military-industrial complex which is in constant need of conflict in order to justify its’ staggeringly expensive existence. Perhaps more importantly than any of these factories, the hawks who control the White House, perceive that perpetual war results in the perpetual demand for their services. Therefore, the hawks know that they will win, whoever loses. In other words, if the US were not preparing to attack Iraq, it would be preparing to attack another nation. The US will go to war with that country because it needs a country with which to go to war.” He was totally justified in saying it as US took false pleas to attack Iraq and simultaneously also attacked Afghanistan, after finishing the ‘jobs’ of genocide of Muslims and continuously sucking in Iraqi oil for free. Isn’t it US terrorism…?

Now US eying to have control of worlds largest gold and copper reservoirs of Balochistan apart from vast gas, oil and rich mineral resources of Afghanistan, and that could only be achieved by denuclearizing Pakistan, first. Since India and Israel will be the prime beneficiaries so US/CIA also using their “investment” in the shape of supply of ammunition to militants, the TTP, US mercenary army, military training of Afghans gorillas in India, exactly as India trained 300,000 Mukti Bahinis, sent inside E. Pakistan, to attack (E. Pakistan) from 9 inside. Whereas, US is apparently ‘partner’ of it’s an old ally, Pakistan but stabbing in the back (of Pakistan) to achieve the desired objectives, which are as under, therefore, the hawks, the Jews, giving their total attention to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

* Denuclearize Pakistan, in order to provide security to Israel and India, USA’s two hands for terrorism in the third world.
* Take control of worlds’ largest gold and copper reservoirs, apart from other rich metals & minerals in Balochistan whereas Afghanistan is rich in having big reservoirs of precious stones, as well.
* Genocide of the world’s greatest warrior race, the Pashtuns, whom US have seen fighting with USSR, therefore, is afraid of and wants either to tame them or turn them into a very small tribe, and
* Prepare India as a Super power in the S.E to bring her at par and be a threat to China.

The hawks, the American Jews, in US administration, CIA and in Pentagon, just can not tolerate a Muslim country with Nukes so they are now after Pakistan and keeping the bogy of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaida, alive under the slogan of “war-on-terror’, on. But they are also afraid of Pakistan’s nukes that is why they are reluctant to attack on Pakistan as Pakistan has the capability to attack Israel with all its might as Pakistan’s missile are capable to hit Israel to the extent of wiping it off from the map of the world. Pakistan army and the people are prepared of a backlash of nukes but they are in favor of to defend the country at all costs, come what may. Although India will also face thousands of casualties if there is s nuclear war in this region but the US is NOT concerned about casualties of any other nation/s except of Americans or Jews, in any war.

Another glaring example of US‘s terrorism was Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, of Pakistan about whom Kissinger said in an interview to Oriana Falaci, who asked him, “which head of the state impressed him most..?” Kissinger paused for a moment and said, “Ali Bhutto of Pakistan, I used to think twice before talking to him”. In view of Indian hegemonies after she successfully detonated the first nuclear test in Oct;1974, Bhutto made lot of hue and cry before the world but no country spoke against India and rather no sanctions were applied on her, therefore, Bhutto also decided to go for nuclear telling the west clearly, “India has become a nuclear power and constantly threatening and terrorizing Pakistan, therefore, we also want to go for nuclear but for peaceful purposes as this is our right to use nuclear technology, to produce electricity, for medical treatments and to enhance agriculture output by enhancing yield, apart from meeting the balance of power in the region, which has been tilted towards India.”

But the US hawks, the American Jews, did not want that a Muslim country to go for nuclear, therefore, they first tried to bribe him to not to go for nuclear but when they failed they threatened and terrorized him of dire consequences, through Henry Kissinger in a crucial meeting at Lahore on 15 August, in 1976. Bhutto remained adamant and Pakistan had almost succeeded in achieving the desired results of nuclear capability, Bhutto was overthrown by Chief of army, Gen. Ziaul Haq, on lame excuses but, as said, CIA bought a bunch of generals, including Ziaul Haq and also a religious political party which had strong street power, and got Bhutto overthrown in the mid night of 4th & 5th July, 1977. Bhutto was invited by US ambassador, on the evening of 4th July, 1977, the USA’s Independence Day party and at the midnight between 4th & 5th July,1977, the US ambassador told Bhutto that  the “party is over”. Bhutto, being sharp enough, took the lead and went back to his residence and enquired if all is well but the ISI and the MI chiefs, had already bargained their loyalties, therefore, it was too late to do anything, as according to John Perkins, “the CIA-sanctioned jackals had stepped-in”..

As a matter of fact rampant terrorism flourished after the birth of Israel as USA, Britain, Australia, Canada and France have played a key role in making Israel a real terrorist state in the Middle East. Israel is an undeclared nuclear power with more than 150 nukes in her stocks, a permanent threat and a terror in the region, for Palestinians, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the tiny Gulf states. But, on the other, another Islamic state, Iran, is under heavy threats of attack from US, Israel and Britain for being accused of developing nukes, therefore this is an open terrorism of US and Britain that no Muslim country can become a nuclear power. Bhutto has written in his book, “If I am assassinated”, “Why is it so that Muslims, despite being the richest nation in the world, have no nuclear umbrella for their safety and security”, that is why he wanted to go for nuclear which the US and its’ allies did not like and they got him overthrew, by buying off a dozen top generals of Pakistan army in 1977, as said.

Likewise Israel, now USA preparing India to be practically a dominant regional super power and keep on terrorizing her neighbors, particularly Pakistan and Bangla Desh as Afghanistan is already in her lap, plus the Central Asian States, if required, moreover, USA also wants India to match China which is asking too much, I believe. But probably USA betting on a wrong horse as India, despite being a big country and having one of the largest armies in the world, won’t be able to deliver the desired results as the Hindus are NOT a warrior race, as compared to the Muslims of Pakistan and Afghanistan, therefore, even if Hindus are many times more in numbers, compared to Muslims of Pakistan and the Pashtuns tribes of Afghanistan, but they can’t stand before Muslims, which is a proven fact.

There are four evils states in the world i.e. USA, Britain, Israel and India, as these countries carrying on genocide of innocent Muslim civilians labeling them as ‘terrorists’, but in view of the ruthless slaughter of Muslims in Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and now going on in Pakistan, the readers could very well imagine which are the real terrorist states in the world, US, Israel, India and Britain or Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the small weak and meager states..? What the US and its arch allies, Britain and Israel, have been doing since 1956 when Britain Israel and France attacked Egypt to take control of the Suez Canal. In 1967 Israel invaded Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon and extended her borders. Apparently that was only Israel’s war with Arabs but in fact the US army and USAF fully participated in it. An air bridge had been made between Washington and Tel Aviv of aircraft bringing in ammunition and the army personnel to Israel. Syria captured 20 USAF pilots and “presented” to the US ambassador.

Israel has become a real terrorist state not only for Palestinians but also for all Muslim states in the M.E and the Gulf. The massacre in Gaza, in 2008 of innocent men, women and children and particularly the way Israel killed innocent school children through the rain of white sulpheuric powder is a vital proof of it, whereas, US, Britain, Canada, Australia and other EU countries, the champions of Human Rights, are keeping quite on Israel’s terrorism as it is backed by US. Moreover, Israel’s terrorist activities, through Mossad, have been extended to Pakistan and Afghanistan, in collaboration with India, backed by US, Britain and other EU countries.

The US have labeled false and baseless allegations against the Muslims states, under the garb of “war-on-terror”, taking the plea of 9/11 about which former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, has told Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies. The details of the proofs could be viewed by visiting the site http://how911wasdone.blogspot.com/.
“On September 10, 2001, the Army School of Advanced Military Studies issued a report written by elite US army officers, which was made public just prior to 9/11. The report gave the following description for the Mossad: “Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.” [Washington Times, 9/10/01]

But US slaughtered millions of Muslims civilians by indiscriminate bombing through its’ forces, in Iraq and Afghanistan, under the wake of 9/11 and “war-on-terror”, and the killing, of civilians, declared as  ‘collateral damage’, a new terminology to hush-up the killing of innocent civilians. Well, if it was so then the civilians killed in Twin Tower, on 9/11, could also be considered as ‘collateral damage’ because the US considers 9/11 affair as a ‘war’ against US and then why cases have been filed in the US courts against Saudis, blocking their 3.4 trillion dollars until decision of the cases. Then, likewise, should Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis killed in Drone attacks, also file cases against the US in their respective countries’ courts and also get the US assets, in these countries, be blocked, until decision of the cases.

The massacre of Muslims in Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and now in Pakistan, apart from the massacre of Palestinian Muslims through mini USA, the Israel, is a glaring example of genocide of Muslims by USA through sheer terrorism, as rightly declared by the independent journalists, John Pilger, George Monblot and many others, including the living legend, thinker and scholar Noam Chomsky that USA is the world’s worst terrorist state, can’t be wrong.

The US Presidents and their accomplices can’t be tried at The Hague for War crimes or Crime against Humanity as the US cunningly did not sign The Hague protocols, because she knew that US will have to go for illegal wars, on reasons beyond logic. So what if they are not punished, in this world, for their crimes against humanity, but they will be tried by Allah on the day of judgment as it is very clearly written in Quraan, “the cruel will be dragged to the Hell with chains in their necks by fiercely looking angels. They will be thrown in the bottom of the hell for ever after”, and Quraan speaks the truth, believe it or not. Allah-ho-Akbar

S Ansari

%d bloggers like this: