no war

In "A Time to Lead: For Duty, Honor and Country," published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2007, General Wesley Clark, former four-star general, recalls two visits to the Pentagon following the terrorist attacks of September 2001. On the first visit, less than two weeks after September 11, he writes, a "senior general" told him, "We're going to attack Iraq. The decision has ... been made.”

Six weeks later, Clark returned to Washington to see the same general and inquired whether the plan to strike Iraq was still under consideration. The general's response was even more stunning: 

"'Oh, it's worse than that,' he said, holding up a memo on his desk. 'Here's the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We're going to take out seven countries in five years.' And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran." 

While Clark doesn't name the other four countries, he mentioned in televised interviews that the hit list included Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan.

In his more recent book, Don't wait for the Next War, published 2016, Clark tells us:

With the end of the Cold War [1989] came not the end of history, but the end of America's sense of its strategic purpose in the world. Then, after a decade of drift, the US was violently dragged back into international conflict. Its armed forces responded magnificently but its leaders' objectives were substantially flawed. We fought the wrong war — twice — for reasons that were opaque, and few American citizens understood the cause for which their sons and daughters were fighting and dying.

War is a poor substitute for strategic vision, and decisions made in the heat of imminent conflict are often limited by the emotions of the moment. In Don't Wait for the Next War, Wesley K. Clark, a retired four-star general of the US army and former Democratic candidate for president, presents a compelling argument for continued American global leadership and the basis on which it can succeed — a new American strategy. America needs both new power and deeper perspective. The platform for American leadership is to use America's energy resources to spark sustainable economic growth, building new strength to deal with pressing domestic issues like the deficit as well as the longer term challenges to US security — terrorism, cyber threats, the next financial crisis, China's rising power, and climate change.

Such a strategy is not only achievable but essential, and it is urgently needed. This is the true test of American leadership for the next two decades, but it must start now, so America has the power and vision to deal with the acute crises that will inevitably come — in the Mideast, Europe, or Asia.

Then came Trump… Gus-the-idiot will plunge into the deep end of the sewage pool here and say that Trump saved us, knowingly or for being a fool, or by playing a fool, from WW3. I know this is a big call and one cannot predict the alternative future of the alternative past. We’ve already mentioned this several time on this site.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, the British government through MI-6 organised the “Arab Spring” by creating civil unrest which was sold to us in the media as freedom for the Arab countries — removing "their" dictators via popular movements and replacing the governments with… worse dictatorial machines (especially the Muslim Brotherhood). With a debt to repay, the new Arab leadership would play along with the US/UK hegemony demands: oil, resources, submission, debt…

This assault on the middle East was a two prongs affair, the US direct attack on these countries and the attack from within these countries — orchestrated under the banner of “forever wars” “forever unrest” “forever control”… This was upset a tad by Vladimir Putin who in 2015 said enough is enough and used Russia’s precision warfare machine to prevent the fall of Syria to Daesh…

Daesh and the Taliban are “bitter enemies” we are told in 2015. In May 2020, the Washington Post tells us that Afghan officials at some of the highest echelons of power in Kabul are reviving claims that the Taliban and the Islamic State in Afghanistan are aiding each other in carrying out attacks and sharing training pipelines — boosting a long-held theory that threatens progress toward formal peace talks.

In 2017, research tells us:

(Niklaus Miszak, doctorant – Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Genève)

Date de publication: 

Novembre 2017

In Western media, Afghanistan is frequently portrayed as a hotbed of radical Islamist movements. Prominent examples are the Taliban and Al Qaeda present in the country since the 1990s and which have become known throughout the globe as symbols of religiously inspired violent extremist groups. While these armed groups in opposition to the Western-backed Afghan government have monopolized the language of religion to legitimize their aspirations and claims, the appearance of Daesh in Afghanistan in the summer of 2014 has added a new and significant dimension to the dynamic. 

Daesh poses a serious threat to the Taliban not only militarily and as an emerging rival for state sovereignty but as a competitor in defining visions and methods for political change and organization as well as in defining the everyday practices and beliefs of Afghan Sunni Muslims. Arguably, the main challenge which Daesh presents to the Taliban goes beyond the Islamic State’s organizational life cycle in Iraq and Syria, and lies in the growing number of Salafi jihadists among the Afghan youth. This development is the result of an ongoing transformation of the Afghan religious landscape, the fragmentation of the Sunni Muslim community and the growing importance of transnational networks, money and ideas in shaping local political economies in a globalizing world. 

This is why we have been advised through DemocracyNow! that the head of Daesh in Afghanistan was killed by the Taliban, a “fact” I exposed on this site under the heading “eliminating the competition”

Is this nightmare just a game? Are we dogs fighting dogs? Is there any ethical consideration in these motivations? Are we told the truth? In 2012, the Guardian tells us:

Britain's intelligence agencies were surprised by the Arab spring, and their failure to realise unrest would spread so rapidly may reveal a lack of understanding of the region, according to the parliamentary body set up to scrutinise their activities.

A particularly sharp passage of the intelligence and security committee's (ISC) report describes as "ill-considered" an attempt by MI6 to smuggle into Libya two officers who were promptly seized by rebels.

The report says that at the time the Arab spring erupted, both MI6 and GCHQ, the government's electronic eavesdropping centre, were cutting resources devoted to Arab countries.

Is this the truth? IS THIS THE TRUTH?

By 2017, we are told by Thierry Meyssan, who has spent a lot of his life in Lebanon and the Middle East:

… MI6 is recalling its men after the botched “Arab Spring”. It was Sir James Craig who in 2004 put this project together, its essential aim being to produce an “Arab Revolt” just like Lawrence of Arabia had organized against the Ottoman empire.

During the First World War, Thomas Lawrence promised the Arabs their unity and freedom if they succeeded in toppling the Ottoman coloniser. At the end of the day, they had the British Empire.

This time the “Arab Spring” was conceived with Iran in mind. The aim was to put the Muslim brotherhood in power everywhere, for it was the Muslim Brotherhood that was the vehicle by which Anglo Saxon imperialism handed over power.

One of the key agents in this programme, Angus McKee, was appointed the UK chargé d’affaires to Syria, in December 2011. When the UK embassy in Damascus closed, he continued his functions under the same cover, albeit with a change of locus to Beirut. In March 2012, he became the consul at the Iraqi Kurdistan. He has just been recalled by the MI6 to London.

Have we been fooled? Mostly no on this site. From 2001, before this site was created in 2005, Gus and his sources were finding out the deceptions about the war on Iraq and that on Afghanistan… But has our Mass Media been aware? 

My simplistic observations are that the mass media has supported wars under the “evidence” presented by the governments. The tabloids and Fox were rabid demanding blood, while the broadsheets and CNN were more restrained in the language but still going along with the deception.

Recently, serious media has glossed over most of the secret motivations and concentrated on recapping the various actions — the wars, the devastations, the suffering, the futility and had a few bites at the motives, including fake motives, but never to the core of the orchestrated deception that was brewed since WW2, but more recently at the PNAC’s “neocons” of the Republican party — but “neocons" who also infiltrated the Democrats since JFK… Journalists need proof — documents. These documents exist but the media wont go there: the official secrets acts are a huge restraint. 

Few have exposed the deeds: Pilger, Fisk, Meyssan, Snowden, Assange… Even General Wesley Clark won’t be read by many truth seekers. Most journalists would prefer to expose George W Bush as a bubbling idiot supplied with “intelligence failures” rather than see an evil and eager conspirator influenced with PNAC and PNAC predecessors. These influenced Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. The web of deceit is built of many strands and gossamer lines. There are others than are not exposed here, but are mentioned on this site, like Zbigniew Brzezinski, but most journalists won’t go there. 

Wesley Clark's bid to be elected president in 2004 soon fell on its face. Possibly too many undermining innuendoes, even from various lefty media:

CounterPunch alleged that Clark was, to some degree, involved in the Waco siege, where 76 Branch Davidians including David Koresh were killed during the FBI's final raid on the group's compound. At least, James Ridgeway, a journalist dismisses these allegations as having "little evidence to substantiate them”. But was this enough to remove the stains? CounterPunch covers politics by "muckraking with a radical attitude” and is described as left-wing… Is it one-eyed?

Clark began planning work for responses to the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina upon his appointment in 1994 as the Director, Strategic Plans and Policy (J5) on the JCS staff. While collecting information to outline military options for resolving the conflict, Clark met with Bosnian Serb military leaders including Ratko Mladić, who was later accused of war crimes and genocide (Note: this was most likely a set-up to justify the war by the UN, the US and NATO, after the conflict). Clark was photographed exchanging hats with Mladić, and the photo drew controversy in the United States. A Washington Post story was published claiming Clark had made the visit despite a warning from the U.S. ambassador. Some Clinton administration members privately said the incident was "like cavorting with Hermann Göring”. So was this the TRUTH? Was there some massaging done here?

Clark began to truly define his politics only after his military retirement and the 2000 presidential election, won by George W. Bush*. Clark then had a conversation with Condoleezza Rice in which she told him that the war in Kosovo would not have occurred under Bush. Clark found such an admission unsettling, as he had been selected for the SACEUR position (Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO — presently held by General Tod D. Wolters) because he believed in the interventionist policies of the Clinton administration. Had he been deceived?...

Clark said things were "starting to go wrong" with American foreign policy under Bush. Yet, Clark supported the administration's War in Afghanistan in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks, but did not support the Iraq War… Had he not grasped the trickery of one but saw the other? Did Clark know that bin Laden was a US prop used to fight the Russians by proxy in the 42 year long war for Afghanistan (that is not finished yet — as NATO forces still threaten the Taliban for not allowing an extension of the “retreat”)?… Would Clark accept our assessment that Bin Laden was “terminated” not so much for 9/11 (which he may not have done) as not to reveal the extend of the US deceptive duplicity for the last 50 years?

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

For the last 20 years, since the election of George W Bush, America has changed. Or has it? What happened? Have we discovered the truth of the Empire? Has America changed for the last 75 years or so, since the end of WW2? What was America’s philosophy before WW2? Anti-union, anti-socialism comes to mind. But for the last 75 years, since Ike passed on the baton to another US president, warming us about the US military, things seems to have changed. More bullshit and less honesty. Lot less honesty — or due to various deep investigating journalists, have we discovered the dirt that was always under the carpet of deception? Is there more dirt to uncover? With the end of the disastrous "Afghanistan war”, are we at a point when we’re going to find more maturity and less hubris in the American behaviour? Can we hope for better under Joe? My simplistic view is that Joe is a brain-diminishing sod who is manipulated by the neocons, the profiteers, the donors to the Republican and Democrat parties alike, while the facade is painted green, woke and anti-Trump — while still maintaining the sad hubris towards Russia and China. 

We have been through this on this site, and studied the various motivations for such changes in America’s leadership. Is the leadership of such a country representing the people’s wishes? In democracies, it has been apparent that the "people” are not united by the same desires, but most will follow the “spirit”, the illusion and reality of being top dog. It’s patriotism plus. Let’s not forget from the onset that Joe Biden wrote the "Patriot Act”.… Are we going to sing “Stars and Stripes forever? What about “Rule Britannia"?

So the US had a few foreign issues to dead with, most self-invented and self-fulfilled. The cold war, the Cuban revolution, the various interferences in South America, Panama et Central America, Indonesia and Japan. Had the USA become an Empire after WW2?… 

We know that the recalcitrant General de Gaulle refused to be part of it and made France repay, in full, the Marshall plan which was a pseudo-debt for “rebuilding” but designed to never be repaid as a capital, but stay as a debt, only repaid in interest moneys and devotion to the Empire… 

The French were about to lose Vietnam and the US invented a pretext to take over the war, to be finally out of there in 1975, with their tail between their legs. No glory. Just brickbats and shame. And refugees… This should have been a wake up call. Yet, the hatred of communism and socialism in the USA never abated. As mentioned before, the US management will finance terrorism to prevent socialism to become a reality in ANY country of the world. Capitalism has to reign — including despotic capitalism like that of the Saudis. 

Now, as the US leaves Afghanistan in a very similar manner, in “defeat”, the last 20 years have been like a bad dream. What happened?… Have all the deaths and suffering cause by some ideals been worth it? The list of major US wars for the last 20 years has Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen at the top and a plethora of several African nations, where the US troops or mercenaries have interfered into. 

Did the US really think that they could transform such countries into “little” Americas or peaceful dens, by invading? Was the mood of the US people for wars and more wars? Why would a US president decide to wage war on false information which he knows to be false, while bamboozling a compliant media? We know of the alliance between Rupert Murdoch and Ronald Reagan, but what about the other media? Were they in favour of these wars as well? While playing ingenue like the New York Times after the fact? Was there a hurt pride to seek redress from the defeat in Vietnam?

9/11 became a catalyst for a nearly whole nation to seek “revenge”? Suddenly it seems that we need to attack Afghanistan and Iraq a bit later for good measure. Do we invent lies to justify our quests? Was “seven countries in five years” the Bush administration's secret strategies for regime change in Iran and elsewhere? Or was this a badass dream?

Al Gore won the elections in 2000, yet the college of the state of Florida, where the number of votes had been contested by George W Bush’s mob, got awarded to Bush by a strange means: Apparently the high court allowed the governor of Florida decide the "final tally". G W Bush was awarded the college by his brother Jeb. Is this true?

Had Al Gore won the elections in 2000, would the history of the US have changed, or were there secret undercurrents that would have achieved the same wars?… All fair questions…

The answer may lie in the PNAC ascendency. The Project for a New American Century, led by Bill Kristol and Kagan — a hot bed of warmongers: Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld… Had Al Gore won, what were his chances of surviving an assassination? Did he know/guess this possibility when he capitulated to the High Court decision?

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. that focused on United States foreign policy. It was established as a non-profit educational organization in 1997, and founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. PNAC's goal was "to promote American global leadership.” War was their method.

Of the twenty-five people from PNAC’s statement of principles, ten people went on to serve in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. One of the PNAC’s signatory was also Jeb Bush, George W Bush’s brother… When PNAC sent a letter to President Bill Clinton, calling for the ouster of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, Jeb’s name was absent from the letter. As the group’s founders pressed for war with Iraq after Sept. 11, 2001, Jeb Bush played no visible role. His duty” had been done by anointing his brother… When trying to become president in the 2016 elections, Jeb Bush made an impression on one GOP’s wealthiest donors, the hawkish casino magnate Sheldon Adelson… Irwin Stelzer and Dave Grondin have suggested that the PNAC played a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the Bush Administration, particularly in building support for the Iraq War. Academics such as Inderjeet Parmar, Phillip Hammond, and Donald E. Abelson have said PNAC's influence on the George W. Bush administration has been exaggerated. I am more on the Stelzer side on this issue. Academics can be fooled easily.  

The Project for the New American Century ceased to function in 2006; it was rehashed as a new think-tank named the Foreign Policy Initiative, co-founded by Kristol and Kagan in 2009. The Foreign Policy Initiative was dissolved in 2017. Rupert Murdoch’s involvement in PNAC is very difficult to know, but we know that Rupert was the main sponsor for the election of Trump — the mad mad man. What was the plan?

More to come.

Gus Leonisky

Mad as a rabid existentialist.