The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine

Trigger a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust to Defend "The Western Way of Life"

 

By Michel Chossudovsky

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2008

Global Research, February 11, 2008

What the Western allies face is a long, sustained and proactive defence of their societies and way of life. To that end, they must keep risks at a distance, while at the same time protecting their homelands.

International terrorism today aims to disrupt and destroy our societies, our economies and our way of life. ...

These different sources of [Islamist] propaganda and/or violence vary in their intellectual underpinnings, sectarian and political aims, ... . But what they have in common is an assault on the values of the West – on its democratic processes and its freedom of religion...

Notwithstanding the common perception in the West, the origin of Islamist terrorism is not victimhood, nor an inferiority complex, but a well-financed superiority complex grounded in a violent political ideology.

If the irrational and fanatical [Islamist organizations] get out of hand, there is a risk that, ... the rise of fundamentalisms and despotisms will usher in a new, illiberal age, in which the liberties that Western societies enjoy are seriously jeopardized.

The threats that the West and its partners face today are a combination of violent terrorism against civilians and institutions, wars fought by proxy by states that sponsor terrorism, the behaviour of rogue states, the actions of organised international crime, and the coordination of hostile action through abuse of non-military means.

Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership".

Group report by former chiefs of staff General John Shalikashvili, (US), General Klaus Naumann (Germany), Field Marshal Lord Inge (UK), Admiral Jacques Lanxade (France) and Henk van den Breemen (The Netherlands), published by the Netherlands based Noaber Foundation, December 2007, (emphasis added)

The controversial NATO sponsored report entitled “Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership". calls for a first strike use of nuclear weapons. The preemptive use of nukes would also be used to undermine an "increasingly brutal World" as well as a means to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction: 

"They [the authors of the report] consider that nuclear war might soon become possible in an increasingly brutal world. They propose the first use of nuclear weapons must remain "in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction". (Paul Dibb, Sidney Morning Herald, 11 February 2008)  

The group, insists that the option of a nuclear first strike is indispensable, "since there is simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world." (Report, p. 97):

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate instrument of an asymmetric response – and at the same time the ultimate tool of escalation. Yet they are also more than an instrument, since they transform the nature of any conflict and widen its scope from the regional to the global. ... 

...Nuclear weapons remain indispensable, and nuclear escalation continues to remain an element of any modern strategy.

Nuclear escalation is the ultimate step in responding asymmetrically, and at the same time the most powerful way of inducing uncertainty in an opponent’s mind. (Ibid, emphasis added) 

The Group's Report identifies six key "challenges", which may often result as potential threats to global security:

• Demography. Population growth and change across the globe will swiftly change the world we knew. The challenge this poses for welfare, good governance and energy security (among other things) is vast.

• Climate change. This greatly threatens physical certainty, and is leading to a whole new type of politics – one predicated, perhaps more than ever, on our collective future.

• Energy security continues to absorb us. The supply and demand of individual nations and the weakening of the international market infrastructure for energy distribution make the situation more precarious than ever.

• There is also the more philosophic problem of the rise of the irrational – the discounting of the rational. Though seemingly abstract, this problem is demonstrated in deeply practical ways. [These include] the decline of respect for logical argument and evidence, a drift away from science in a civilization that is deeply technological. The ultimate example is the rise of religious fundamentalism, which, as political fanaticism, presents itself as the only source of certainty.

• The weakening of the nation state. This coincides with the weakening of world institutions, including the United Nations and regional organizations such as the European Union, NATO and others.

• The dark side of globalization ... These include internationalized terrorism, organized crime and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but also asymmetric threats from proxy actors or the abuse of financial and energy leverage. (Ibid) 

Deterrence and Pre-emption

According to the Report, a new concept of deterrence is required directed against both State and non-state actors, This "new deterrence" is based on pre-emption as well as on the ability to  "restore deterrence through [military] escalation". In this context, the Report contemplates, what it describes as:

  “escalation dominance, the use of a full bag of both carrots and sticks—and indeed all instruments of soft and hard power, ranging from the diplomatic protest to nuclear weapons.” (Report, op city, emphasis added). 

Iran 

In much the same terms as the Bush administration, the NATO sponsored report states, without evidence, that Iran constitutes "a major strategic threat":

"An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would pose a major strategic threat – not only to Israel, which it has threatened to destroy, but also to the region as a whole, to Europe and to the United States. Secondly, it could be the beginning of a new multi-polar nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world." (Report, op. cit., p. 45)

Careful timing? The controversial NATO sponsored report calling for a preemptive nuclear attack on Iran was released shortly after the publication of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report entitled Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities. The latter denies Iran's nuclear capabilities. The NIE report, based on the assessments of sixteen US intelligence agencies, refutes the Bush administration's main justification for waging a preemptive nuclear war on Iran. The NIE report confirms that Iran “halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003":  

"These findings constitute a damning indictment of the Bush administration’s relentless fear-mongering in relation to an alleged nuclear threat from Iran. They demonstrate that just as in the buildup to the war against Iraq five years ago, the White House has been engaged in a systematic campaign to drag the American people into another war based on lies." (See Bill van Auken, 24 January 2008)

It should be noted that this recently declassified intelligence (pertaining to Iran contained in the 2007 NIE report) was known by the White House, the Pentagon and most probably NATO since September 2003. Ironically, US military documents confirm that the Bush Administration initiated its war preparations against Iran in July 2003, two months prior to the confirmation by US intelligence that Iran did not constitute a nuclear threat. 

The July 2003 war scenarios were launched under TIRANNT:  Theater Iran Near Term. 

The justification for TIRANNT as well as for subsequent US war plans directed against Iran ( which as of 2004 included the active participation of NATO and Israel), has always been that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and plans to use them against us. 

Following the publication of the 2007 NIE in early December, there has been an avalanche of media propaganda directed against Tehran, essentially with a view to invalidating the statements of the NIE concerning Tehran's nuclear program.  

Moreover, a third sanctions resolution by the UN Security Council, was initiated with a view to forcing Iran to halt uranium enrichment. The proposed UNSC resolution, which is opposed by China and Russia includes a travel ban on Iranian officials involved in the country's nuclear programs, and inspections of shipments to and from Iran "if there are suspicions of prohibited goods" (AFP, 11 February 2008). Meanwhile, French President Nicolas Sarkozy together with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, have been calling for a unified EU sanctions regime against Iran. 

Contradicting the US national intelligence estimate (NIE), Bush's most recent speeches continue to portray Iran as a nuclear threat: 

"I feel pretty good about making sure that we keep the pressure on Iran to pressure them so they understand they're isolated, to pressure them to affect their economy, to pressure them to the point that we hope somebody rational shows up and says, okay, it's not worth it anymore," Bush said.

Threat to "The Western Way of Life"

The Western media is involved in a diabolical disinformation campaign, the purpose of which is to persuade public opinion that the only way to "create a nuclear free World" is to use nuclear weapons on a preemptive basis, against countries which "threaten our Western Way of Life." 

The Western world is threatened. The NATO sponsored report, according to Paul Dibb:  "paints an alarming picture of the threats confronting the West, arguing that its values and way of life are under threat and that we are struggling to summon the will to defend them."(Dibb, op cit)

A preemptive nuclear attack -- geographically confined to Middle East (minus Israel?)-- is the proposed end-game. The attack would use US tactical nuclear weapons, which, according to "scientific opinion" (on contract to the Pentagon) are "harmless to the surrounding civilian population because the explosion is underground". (See Michel Chossudovsky The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust, Global Research, 17 February 2006)  

B61-11 bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads Made in America, with an explosive  capacity between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb, are presented as bona fide humanitarian bombs, which minimize the dangers of "collateral damage".  

These in-house "scientific" Pentagon assessments regarding the mini-nukes are refuted by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS): 

Any attempt to use a [B61-11 bunker buster nuclear bomb] in an urban environment would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area " (Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons by Robert W. Nelson, Federation of American Scientists, 2001 ).

Diabolical Military Agenda:  Nuclear War to "Halt the Spread of Nuclear Weapons"

Professor Paul Dibb is a former Australian Deputy Secretary of Defense, who has, over the years, also occupied key positions in Australia's defense and intelligence establishment. Dibb carefully overlooks the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons in a conventional war theater. According to Dibb,  NATO's preemptive nuclear doctrine, which replicates that of the Pentagon,  constitutes a significant and positive initiative to "halt the imminent spread of nuclear weapons". . 

"They [the group] believe that the West must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the imminent spread of nuclear weapons." 

Never mind the nuclear holocaust and resulting radioactive contamination, which would spread Worldwide and threaten, in a real sense, the "way of life".  

There is no "way of life" in a World contaminated with deadly radioactive material. But this is something that is rarely discussed in the corridors of NATO or in strategic studies programs in Western universities. 

What is frightening in Professor Dibb's article is that he is not expressing an opinion, nor is he analyzing the use of nuclear weapons from an academic research point of view. 

In his article, there is neither research on nuclear weapons nor is there an understanding of the complex geopolitics of the Middle East war. Dibb is essentially repeating verbatim the statements contained in NATO/Pentagon military documents. His article is a "copy and paste" summary of Western nuclear doctrine, which in practice calls for the launching of a nuclear holocaust. 

The stated objective of a Middle East nuclear holocaust is  "to prevent the occurrence of a nuclear war". An insidious logic which certainly out- dwarfs the darkest period of the Spanish inquisition...

Neither NATO nor the Pentagon use the term nuclear holocaust. Moreover, they presume that the "collateral damage" of a nuclear war will in any event be confined geographically to the Middle East and that Westerners will be spared...

But since their in-house scientists have confirmed that tactical nuclear weapons are "safe for civilians", the labels on the bombs have been switched much in the same way as the label on a packet of cigarettes:  "This nuclear bomb is safe for civilians" 

Nukes: Just Another Tool in the Military Toolbox

The new definition of a nuclear warhead has blurred the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons:

'It's a package (of nuclear and conventional weapons). The implication of this obviously is that nuclear weapons are being brought down from a special category of being a last resort, or sort of the ultimate weapon, to being just another tool in the toolbox," (Japan Economic News Wire, , 30 December 2005)

This re-categorization has been carried out. The " green light" for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in conventional war theater has been granted by the US Congress.  " Let's use them, they are part of the military toolbox." 

We are at a dangerous crossroads: military planners believe their own propaganda. The military manuals state that this new generation of nuclear weapons are "safe" for use in the battlefield. They are no longer a weapon of last resort. There are no impediments or political obstacles to their use. In this context, Senator Edward Kennedy has accused the Bush Administration for having developed "a generation of more useable nuclear weapons."

Russia and China

Who else constitutes a threat to " the Western way of life"? 

Nukes are also slated to be used against Russia and China, former enemies of the Cold War era. 

This post Cold War logic was first revealed, when the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) was leaked to The Los Angeles Times in January 2002. The NPR includes China and Russia alongside the rogue states as potential targets for a first strike nuclear attack. According to William Arkin,  the NPR "offers a chilling glimpse into the world of nuclear-war planners: With a Strangelovian genius, they cover every conceivable circumstance in which the president might wish to use nuclear weapons-planning in great detail."  (Los Angeles Times, March 10, 2002)

"Decapitate Their Leadership and Destroy their Countries as Functioning Societies"

The use of nukes against "rogue states", including Iran and North Korea (which lost more than a quarter of its population in US bombings during the Korean war) is justified because these countries could act in an "irrational" way. It therefore makes sense to "take em out" before they do something irrational.  The objective is: "decapitate their leadership and destroy their countries as functioning societies":    

"One line of reasoning is that so-called rogue states, such as Iran and North Korea, are sufficiently irrational to risk a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the US or its allies, such as Israel and South Korea.

The supposition here is that deterrence - that is, threatening the other side with obliteration - no longer works. But even the nasty regimes in Tehran and Pyongyang must know that the US reserves the right to use its overwhelming nuclear force to decapitate the leadership and destroy their countries as modern functioning societies. (Dibb,  op cit., emphasis added)

Use nuclear weapons to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction? . 

But of course, lest we forget, America's nuclear arsenal as well as that of France, Britain and Israel are not categorized as  "weapons of mass destruction", in comparison with Iran's deadly nonexistent nuclear weapons program.  

Bin Laden's Nuclear Program

Now comes the authoritative part of the Pentagon-NATO preemptive doctrine: We need to use nukes against bin Laden, because Islamic "fanatics" can actually fabricate nuclear weapons or buy them from the Russians on the black market. 

The Report calls for a first strike nuclear attack directed against Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, which has the ability, according to expert opinion, of actually producing small nuclear bombs, which could be used in a Second 9/11 attack on America: . 

The second line of reasoning [contained in the NATO sponsored report] is more difficult to refute. It argues that extreme fanatical terrorists, such as al-Qaeda, cannot be deterred because (a) they do not represent a country and therefore cannot be targeted and (b) they welcome death by suicide. So, we have to shift the concept of nuclear deterrence to the country or regime supplying the terrorists with fissile material.

Nuclear weapons require materials that can be made only with difficulty. Once these materials are obtained by terrorists, however, the barriers to fabricating a weapon are much lower. In that sense the nuclear threat today is greater than it was in the Cold War and it seems the terrorists cannot be deterred.( Dibb, op cit, emphasis added)

The alleged nuclear threat by Al Qaeda is taken very seriously. The Bush administration has responded with overall defense spending (budget plus war theater) in excess of one trillion dollars. This massive amount of public money has been allocated to financing the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT). 

Confirmed by Pentagon documents, this military hardware including aircraft carriers, fighter jets, cruise missiles and nuclear bunker buster bombs, is slated to be used as part of the "Global War on Terrorism". In military jargon, the US is involved in asymmetric warfare against non-State enemies. ( The concept of Asymmetric Warfare was defined in The National Defense Strategy of the United States of America (2005) 

"The American Hiroshima"

The US media has the distinct ability to turn realities upside down.

The lies are upheld as indelible truths. The "Islamic terrorists"  have abandoned their AK 47 kalashnikov rifles and stinger missiles; they are not only developing deadly chemical and biological weapons, they also have nuclear capabilities. 

The fact, amply documented, that Al Qaeda is supported  by the CIA and Britain's MI6 is beside the point. 

The nuclear threat is not directed against the Middle East but against the USA, the perpetrators and architects of nuclear war are bin Laden's Al Qaeda (a CIA "intelligence asset"), which is planning to launch a nuclear attack on an American city: 

"U.S. government officials are contemplating what they consider to be an inevitable and much bigger assault on America, one likely to kill millions, destroy the economy and fundamentally alter the course of history,... 

According to captured al-Qaida leaders and documents, the plan is called the "American Hiroshima" and involves the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons already smuggled into the U.S. over the Mexican border with the help of the MS-13 street gang and other organized crime groups. (World Net Daily, 11 July 2005, emphasis added)

The New York Times confirms that an Al Qaeda sponsored "American Hiroshima" "could happen" .

"Experts believe that such an attack, somewhere, is likely." (NYT, 11 August 2004)  

According to the Aspen Strategy Group which is integrated, among others, by Madeleine Albright, Richard Armitage, Philip D. Zelikow, Robert B. Zoellick,  "the danger of nuclear terrorism is much greater than the public believes, and our government hasn't done nearly enough to reduce it.":

 If a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon, a midget even smaller than the one that destroyed Hiroshima, exploded in Times Square, the fireball would reach tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit. It would vaporize or destroy the theater district, Madison Square Garden, the Empire State Building, Grand Central Terminal and Carnegie Hall (along with me and my building). The blast would partly destroy a much larger area, including the United Nations. On a weekday some 500,000 people would be killed. (NYT, 11 August 2004)

"Threaten them with a devastating [nuclear] attack"

According to professor Dibb, nuclear deterrence should also apply in relation to Al Qaeda, by holding responsible the governments which help the terrorists to develop their nuclear weapons' capabilities:

"Ashton Carter, a former US assistant secretary for defense, has recently argued, the realistic response is to hold responsible, as appropriate, the government from which the terrorists obtained the weapon or fissile materials and threaten them with a devastating [nuclear] strike. In other words, deterrence would work again." (Dibb, op cit)

The real nuclear threat is coming from bin Laden. The objective is to "to do away with our way of life":  

None of this is to underestimate the impact of a nuclear weapon being detonated in an American city. It could be catastrophic, but it is highly unlikely to threaten the very survival of the US. To believe otherwise risks surrendering to the fear and intimidation that is precisely the terrorists' stock in trade.

General Richard Myers, another former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has claimed that if [Islamic] terrorists were able to kill 10,000 Americans in a nuclear attack, they would "do away with our way of life". But Hiroshima and Nagasaki incurred well over 100,000 instant deaths and that did not mean the end of the Japanese way of life. (Ibid, emphasis added)

In an utterly twisted and convoluted argument, professor Dibb transforms the US-NATO threat to wage a nuclear war on Iran into an Al Qaeda operation to attack an American city with nuclear weapons. 

Dibb presents the US-NATO menace to trigger what would result in a Middle East nuclear holocaust as a humanitarian operation to save American lives. By implication, the Al Qaeda sponsored "American Hiroshima" would be supported by Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. and this in turn would immediately provide a juste cause (Jus ad bellum)  for retaliation against Iran 

"What a nuclear attack on a US city would mean, however, is an understandable American retaliation in kind. So, those countries that have slack control over their fissile nuclear materials and cozy relations with terrorists need to watch out. A wounded America would be under enormous pressure to respond in a wholly disproportionate manner.

And then we would be in a completely changed strategic situation in which the use of nuclear weapons might become commonplace. Ibid, emphasis added). 

The notion of "preemption" applied to the use of nuclear weapons is predicated on the right to "self defense." "Nuclear Preemption" defines "when it is permissible to wage war" using nuclear weapons: jus ad bellum. The latter concept serves to build a consensus within the Military command structures. It also serves to convince the Military that they are using nukes for a "just cause", to "save the Western way of life".  

Dick Cheney's Second 9/11

The insinuation that Al Qaeda is preparing an attack on America has been on the lips of Vice President Dick Cheney for several years now. Cheney has stated on several occasions since 2004, that Al Qaeda is preparing  a "Second 9/11": . 

In August 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM, based at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, to draw up a "Contingency Plan", "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War, The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)

Dick Cheney's "Contingency Plan" was predicated on the preemptive war doctrine. Implied in the "Contingency Plan" was the presumption that Iran would be behind the attacks. 

The Pentagon in a parallel initiative has actually fine-tuned its military agenda to the point of actually envisaging a Second 9/11 scenario as a means to providing the US administration with a "credible" justification to attack Iran and Syria:

"Another [9/11 type terrorist] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets [Iran and Syria]" (Statement by Pentagon official, leaked to the Washington Post, 23 April 2006, emphasis added)

Meanwhile,. the US Congress is concerned that an "American Hiroshima" could potentially damage the US economy:

"What we do know is that our enemies want to inflict massive casualties and that terrorists have the expertise to invent a wide range of attacks, including those involving the use of chemical, biological, radiological and even nuclear weapons. ... [E]xploding a small nuclear weapon in a major city could do incalculable harm to hundreds of thousands of people, as well as to businesses and the economy,...(US Congress, House Financial Services Committee, June 21, 2007).

As far as sensitizing public opinion to the dangers of a US sponsored nuclear war, there is, with a few exceptions, a scientific and intellectual vacuum: No research, no analysis, no comprehension of the meaning of a nuclear holocaust which in a real sense threatens the future of humanity. This detachment and lack of concern of prominent intellectuals characterizes an evolving trend in many universities and research institutes in the strategic studies, the sciences and social sciences. 

Academics increasingly tow the line. They remain mum on the issue of a US sponsored nuclear war.  There is a tacit acceptance of a diabolical and criminal military agenda, which in a very sense threatens life on this planet.  The US-NATO doctrine to use nukes on a preemptive basis with a view to "saving the Western World's way of life" is not challenged in any meaningful way either by academics or media experts in strategic studies.

 

~ Link ~

 

Gladio - Death Plan For Democracy

By Peter Chamberlin

© Copyright Peter Chamberlin, Global Research, 2008

Global Research, February 5, 2008

In late January 2008, a secret paramilitary group (formerly?) allied with America was busted in
Turkey. Thirteen members of a shadowy right-wing group in Turkey were charged with "forming an
armed terrorist group in order to provoke members of the public into armed revolt against the
government."

http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2373933

"The detention in Istanbul last week of alleged members of a shadowy Turkish ultranationalist
group has revived charges that elements within the Turkish security apparatus have long tried
to destabilize the country through a campaign of bombings and assassinations. These allegedly
include false flag operations that have been attributed to Kurdish separatists and violent
Islamists... The Turkish media have claimed that the latest arrests follow intelligence reports
that the gang was planning to carry out a series of high level assassinations...what Turks
call... deep state has its origins in what are commonly called Gladio operations "   - Mass
Arrests Expose Operations of Turkey's "Deep State" -  By Gareth Jenkins

The use of proxy mercenary forces to terrorize nations into submitting to US political demands
has been the cornerstone of American foreign policy since at least the era of the Berlin Wall,
and it still is.

  "Terrorism - the use of violence and threats to intimidate or to coerce, esp. for political
purposes."

According to this definition from Dictionary.com, the government of the United States of
America is the primary source of state terrorism in the world.

In Europe, the American government actively sought to eliminate political opposition to its
fascist world plans through the use of open violent repression and covert terroristic "false
flag" attacks upon popular patriotic resistance movements and their leaders.  Using ultra
right-wing homegrown fascists, in both Europe and America, secret paramilitary militias were
created, called "Stay Behind" forces at the end of World War II.  Since then, the CIA activated
these groups to successfully quash anti-American liberal and social democratic popular
resistance movements.  The agency denies this, but the series of exposes of their network in
Europe since 1990 have proven the professed denials to be false.

The secret American plans to turn dissent into a weapon for destroying democracy were applied
equally, yet differently, in America and Europe.  Here, the procedure called for using more
subtlety, as opposed to Europe, where everything would happen outside of the controlled
environment of the corporate US media.  In Europe, so-called "pro-communist" forces could be
fought more aggressively, using secretive groups like Gladio to physically attack the antiwar,
Labor-oriented and liberal protest movements.  Behind the scenes, terror attacks were
carried-out by anonymous sources to be blamed on the opposition party.  Using the extreme
right-wing Gladio forces in this manner, as well as infiltrating and sabotaging leftist groups
from within, proved devastating at the polls.  People ran away from the resistance in droves,
seeking security in the waiting arms of the fascists and the all-powerful state.  But many
people did also see through the BS of the "official story" of events like the bombing of a
train stations in Bologna, Italy.

The secret plans for Europe entailed large covert paramilitary units in every NATO nation, that

were trained and ready to suppress all anti-American protests by liberals and social democrats.
  The official name of the covert programs was "Gladio."  The official cover story (and its
original purpose) was that these right-wing paramilitary units were "Stay Behind" forces, which
were created as copies of the French "underground" resistance, to be activated upon a Soviet
conquest and occupation of Europe.  The Stay Behind/Gladio forces saw a change of mission in
the sixties, when the European socialist/liberal alliance began to awaken strong nationalist
movements in every NATO country.1

The Timewatch investigation documents the secret formation of these neo-fascist units
throughout Europe, highlighting individual local leaders and their personal testimony about
participating in armed attacks upon government armories and supermarkets, as well as terror
bombings, like the bomb that was detonated at Bologna's train station, killing 85 and wounded
over 200.  Other revelations from the video about the operation include a damning investigation
of Gladio by the European Union, interviews with key Gladio players like neocon Michael Ledeen,
shadowy Iran/Contra figures Gen. John Singlaub, CIA spokesmen like former Director William
Colby and Ray Cline, as well as pivotal controversial documentation on secret Army participation.

In contradiction of CIA denials about the true purpose of Gladio and the scope of its
operations and neoconservative lies that there was no Gladio, the following excerpt, from joint
resolution (EP 22.11.90) of the European Parliament condemns actions of US and allied
intelligence agencies involved.   http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/gladio.htm

     "Whereas in certain Member States military secret services (or uncontrolled branches
thereof) were involved in serious cases of terrorism and crime as evidenced by, various
judicial inquiries... these organizations operated and continue to operate completely outside
the law...      whereas the various `GLADIO' organizations have at their disposal independent
arsenals and military resources which give them an unknown strike potential, thereby
jeopardizing the democratic structures of the countries in which they are operating or have
been operating..."

This officially condemns the lame official excuses, like that given by former CIA Director
William Colby (claiming on the video that these were small contingency plans for providing
covert intelligence sources only, in case of Soviet occupation), while exposing the duplicity
of stooges like neoconservative Michael Ledeen (who was implicated in the Gladio political
action while working for a right-wing Italian news service), who falsely argues that Gladio was
merely a Soviet disinformation program that was based:

"on an old forgery, designed to show that there's some kind of... accusing the United States
basically of what the Soviet union was doing in Italy, which was creating a secret underground
paramilitary organization capable of organizing to subvert Italian democracy."

This, "there is no spoon" explanation echoes the equally lame counter-story given by alleged
Gladio participant, Licio Gelli, Grand Master of super-secretive P2 Masonic lodge, that the
dreadful Bologna train station bombing was a "transportation accident," taking place in an open
marketplace, where explosives were commonly sold, when "someone threw a cigarette away."

The "old forgery" that Ledeen referred to was a document known as "US Defense Training Manual
30-31B.  The State Dept. claims that the CIA "debunked" this document as a Soviet forgery, even
though it is somehow listed within the classified sections of manual libraries .

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2006/Jan/20-127177.html

The allegedly forged document, signed by Army Chief of Staff Gen. W.C. WESTMORELAND, contained
the following admission:

"There may be times when host country governments show passivity or indecision in the face of
Communist subversion...US Army Intelligence must have the means of launching special operations
which will convince host country governments and public opinion of the reality of the insurgent
danger... To this end, U.S. Army intelligence should seek to penetrate the insurgency by means
of agents on special assignment, with the task of forming special action groups among the more
radical elements of the insurgency. When the kind of situation envisaged above arises, these
groups, acting under U.S. Army intelligence control, should be used to launch violent or
non-violent actions according to the nature of the case."

Since this is a very precise description of the known activities of Gladio given by
participants in it, we must assume that history has confirmed that 30-31B is real.  In Gladio
operations, like those attributed to the "Deep State" group in Turkey, the plans for covert
acts of terrorism  (which were theoretically intended to implicate the Communists or other
enemies of the US, thus turning the population against them) were supposed to be activated at
that moment in the national struggle where the Communist/liberal forces turn away from armed
struggle, to embrace non-violent democratic elections, according to the  (CIA-alleged)
disinformation known as "Army Field Manual 30-31B."  But, as described so vividly in the BBC
documentary, the right-wing terror attacks upon leftist leaders preceded the use of those
tactics by the "pro-communist" forces.  In addition to staging false flag attacks meant to be
blamed upon the leftists, an intensive effort was made to infiltrate those movements, in order
to incite radicals within them into carrying-out their own copycat attacks.

While Ledeen and the CIA try to claim that Gladio is a "legend," fabricated by the  Soviets in
an attempt to blame the US for their actions, the revelation of historical evidence is
indicting America and the agency for introducing political terrorism to Western electoral
politics.  Gladio is an ongoing operation by our government to savagely kill and wound
thousands of our own allies, in order to blackmail them into supporting America's fascist plans
for the world.  "Political action" took on a whole new meaning at the hands of the CIA and its
hidden allies.

Terrorism, as political action, became the driving force in American foreign policy, and any
nation that sought our aid, or to become allied with us, had to accept this reality and the
necessity to keep blaming others for our own commissioned attacks.  The historical record of
"terrorist" bombings throughout the world is, for the most part, a record of our actions, done
under the cover of layers of "plausible deniability," created by the compartmentalization of
terrorist strike forces into different secret levels.

If the mercenary Gladio paramilitary forces could not provide a sufficient level of violence to
satisfy the Company's needs, then the agency could rely on its own paramilitary units, or on
special troops from Defense Intelligence under the 30-31B provision.  If the work required an
extra layer of "plausible deniability" then there were always criminal organizations for hire
and the super-secret network of "rogue operators" like Ed Wilson, who were officially alleged
to be "former CIA."   In the book, Charlie Wilson's War, former agent Wilson told President
Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua that he could raise an army of 1000 "ex" agents to defeat
anti-government rebels, for the right price.

In America we have seen that same commitment to the use of political violence play-out within
the CIA/corporate/Republican alliance, especially during the Nixon Administration as seen in
bloody incidents like the Kent State massacre, where right-wing Republican Ohio Governor James
Rhodes strove to impress his Republican masters by having young unsuspecting National Guardsmen
fire live ammunition into a crowd of young unsuspecting college students.  Behind the scenes
government provocateurs led radical movements like the SDS, the Weathermen and the Black
Panthers into violent actions, intended to discredit and slander the antiwar movement.  With
the empowerment of Reagan, Bush and agency director Casey, CIA involvement in American politics
was out in the open.

Co-opting the highly patriotic party Republican Party and the American right-wing in a
subversive program to eliminate democracy by turning it into a weapon in this country was not a
simple task.  It took a great deal of foresight, intricate planning and an enormous amount of
cash.  In order to gain control over America's right-wing as it had in Europe, the Company had
to formulate a program of intricate deception, in order to gain their trust, as a first step to
dominating their efforts.

Since grassroots conservatism in this country is based on a conspiracy theory-based belief
system, the agency had to promote the far-reaching conspiracy theories that were common to the
movement.  This meant that the CIA had to promote evidence of all-encompassing theories, such
as those concerning Jews, the "Illuminati" and international bankers, to win the trust of
suspicious Republican bigots.   Undercover agents had to pose as movement leaders and
researchers, who were committed to exposing the plots of our would-be "masters."  The agency
chose to play both the race card and the religion card, by making the "Zionist" plot to
colonize Palestine (a real conspiracy) the cornerstone of the CIA/corporate plot against the
world.  The agency promoted joint CIA/MOSSAD actions for the dual purpose of forwarding both US
corporate plans for the world and Israeli designs to reclaim the land of "Greater Israel,"
which were critical to conspiracy plans for the Middle East and creating a state of permanent
war there.

The master manipulators at the agency underwrote secret efforts by Zionist agents, who also
served US interests, to undermine American democracy and simultaneously cuddling-up to the
American extreme right-wing.  The Gladio-styled plan was to take over the ultra-nationalist
right and to infiltrate and corrupt the anti-government left.  They helped to create secretive
anti-Semitic organizations, as well as Zionist groups.   The two-pronged attack focused on
exposing Zionist subversives, while working to build a popular wave of anti-Semitism as a
national counter-reaction to Zionist crimes which they had helped to expose.

The key to convincing the masses of conservative Republican voters of this vast covert
conspiracy was found in the "big lie," where the government agents chose to expose choice
tidbits of its own massive brainwashing and social control campaigns, attributing them to
agents of "Zion."  The brainwashing science possessed by the government and applied through its
foundations and institutes (such as Rand, Ford, Carnegie, Stanford and Tavistock Institute)
dwarfs the alleged manipulative powers of any imagined conspiracy.  This proved to be extremely
successful, especially when combined with spectacular fear producing terror attacks.

In truth, mind control science, developed and implemented since World War II (largely by Jewish
scientists and psychologists), is all CIA.  With the rise of former CIA director George Bush to
the position of "vice president elect," (and their "October surprise" obtained with a purloined
speech prep book for the great debate) the agency began to apply those behavioral control
techniques of Gladio to the political process.

The political product of that behavioral research, which became known as "neoconservatism,"
http://rense.com/general77/neneo.htm  was a deliberate attempt to duplicate the psychology
of pre-WWII Europe  (especially that of Nazi Germany) here in America, based on the scientific
research of the Jewish intellectuals, who had fled from there for their lives.  The recreation
of a radical anti-Semitic political belief system here would be enhanced by popular resistance
and reaction to the fascist neoconservative policies of Zionist dual-citizenship neocons.
Leaders were found who could inspire armies of individuals to believe that there is a powerful
dark conspiracy afoot that can mobilize secret armies of millions, to control every aspect of
every life, or nearly so.  The success of the brainwashing program can be measured directly by
the number and intensity of individuals who believe in theories of "racial superiority,"
whether they be believers in ideas of either "Jewish superiority" or in counter-theories of
white or "Aryan" superiority.

Today's resistance movement of counter-reaction to neoconservative/Zionist fascism is under
assault by dueling forces, who either want to silence the movement, or to misdirect and co-opt
it.  If the movement is silenced by Zionists or divided by anti-Zionists, it will not be able
to disrupt the neoconservative plans to launch nuclear war against Iran and thereby usher in a
state of permanent war.

The over-eager Zionist zealots who willingly became part of this conspiracy have unknowingly
sealed Israel's fate, as the intended target for the coming wave of anti-Semitism.  Little did
they know that their Republican friends planned to drag-up Zionism's historical record of
utilizing anti-Semites in their secret plans to force the Jewish "Diaspora" out of Europe to
forcefully colonize Palestine, as proof of a global "Jewish conspiracy."  The intensive
campaign of lies and subterfuge that have been used to hide fascist Israeli intentions to
"ethnically cleanse" Palestine and the surrounding area of its Arab inhabitants, confirm all
the negative stereotyping of the "Jewish state," especially in light of "Israel lobby" plans to
force America to fight Israel's wars, even the ones started by Israel.

The Gladio-centered US foreign policy, which was so successfully played-out in Europe,
effectively countered the Soviet expansion at a high cost to European democracy.  The
application of that policy to Islamic countries facing a Soviet threat, such as Afghanistan,
helped to roll-back the Soviets, but at a terrible cost.  The training of Islamic paramilitary
forces to carry-out terror attacks for political reasons, evolved into the unfolding nightmare
known as the war on terror.

In Afghanistan, the CIA armed, trained and supported Islamic "Gladios" who carried-out
Brzezenski's plans for staging terrorist attacks upon popular local Afghan tribal leaders, as a
means to instigate the widespread tribal warfare which eventually lured the Soviets to
intervene in December 1979.  (July 3, 1979, President Carter signed the first directive for
secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.)  Reagan whole-heartedly
supported the new terror politics as a weapon for attacking the Soviet empire, even expanding
the Islamic militant form of Gladio to all member states of the Soviet Union and their allies,
when he signed National Security Decision Directive 166 in March 1985.   In Central America,
his Gladio-like duplication trained paramilitary armies and death squads.  This policy became
known as the "El Salvador option," when George W. Bush embraced it in Iraq, making it the
centerpiece of his strategy for the "war on terrorism."

Note

1. The following three-part investigation from the BBC, entitled  "Timewatch – Operation
Gladio" can be seen at either YouTube (part 1 of 15 is embedded below),

http://youtube.com/watch?v=l2MOpkriXb4

 

~ Link ~

 

Fading fast: the NATO vision thing

The United States has gained nothing from its invasion of Afghanistan. US troops do not control even a square inch of Afghan soil. The moment a soldier lifts his boot-heel; that ground is returned to the native people. That probably won't change either. General Dan McNeill said recently that "if proper US military counterinsurgency doctrine were followed; the US would need 400,000 troops to defeat Pashtun tribal resistance in Afghanistan." Currently, the US and NATO have only 66,000 troops on the ground and the allies are refusing to send more. On a purely logistical level; victory is impossible.

The battle for hearts and minds has been lost, too. A statement from the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) sums it up like this:
"The reinstatement of the Northern Alliance to power crushed the hopes of our people for freedom and prosperity and proved that, for the Bush administration, defeating terrorism has no meaning at all....The US doesn’t want to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, because then they will have no excuse to stay in Afghanistan and achieve their economic and strategic goals in the region....After seven years, there is no peace, human rights, democracy or reconstruction in Afghanistan. The destitution and suffering of our people is increasing everyday. ...We believe that if the troops leave Afghanistan, our people will become more free and come out of their current puzzlement and doubts...Afghanistan’s freedom can only be achieved by Afghan people themselves. Relying on one enemy to defeat another is a wrong policy which has just tightened the grip of the Northern Alliance and their masters on the neck of our nation." (RAWA www.rawa.org)

Gradually, the Allies will see that Bush's war cannot be won and that continuing the fighting is counterproductive. There is no military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan and the political objectives are getting murkier all the time. This just adds to the growing sense of frustration.

[ ...]

But support for the war is waning in Europe. This is America's war, not theirs. Europeans don't need to occupy foreign nations to meet their energy needs. Their countries are prosperous and they can afford to buy for fuel on the open market. Only America wants the war. It's all part of a geopolitical "grand strategy" to project US power into the region to control its resources. So far, there's no indication that the plan will succeed.

Germany has the third biggest economy in the world. Over the last few years, they have strengthened ties with Russia and made agreements that will satisfy their long-term energy needs. But German involvement in Afghanistan has put a strain on relations with Moscow. Putin thinks that the US is using the war to put down roots in Central Asia so it can control pipeline-routes from the Caspian Basin and surround Russia and China with military bases. Naturally, Putin would like to persuade Chancellor Angela Merkel to withdraw German troops from Afghanistan so he could strike a blow against the US-led alliance.

Eventually, German leaders will see that its foolish to tweak the nose of the people who provide them with energy (Russia) just to support Washington's adventures. When Germany withdraws from Afghanistan; NATO will disband, new coalitions will form, and the transatlantic alliance fall apart. The cracks are already visible.

[ ... ]

Presently, there are no plans to remove the warlords or improve the lives of ordinary Afghans. Reconstruction is at a standstill. If the US stays in Afghanistan, the situation 10 years from now will be the same as it is today, only more people will have needlessly died. Most Afghans now understand that the promise of democracy was a lie. The only thing the occupation has brought is more grinding poverty and random violence.

There's no back-up plan for Afghanistan. In fact, there is no plan at all. The administration thought the Taliban would see America's high-tech, laser-guided weaponry and run for the hills. They did. Now they're back. And now we are embroiled in an “unwinnable” war with a tenacious enemy that grows stronger by the day.

~ From: Swan Song for NATO: The real cost of defeat in Afghanistan ~

 

The Century Of The Self - By Adam Curtis

"This series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy." - Adam Curtis

Episode 1: Happiness Machines


Episode 2: The Engineering of Consent


Episode 3: There is a Policeman Inside All Our Head: He Must Be Destroyed


Episode 4: Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering

Germany's RTL reports on chemtrails

'Economic Rationalism as a Mental Disease'

" ... There are two major problems of Western civilisation that seem unlikely to be ever properly addressed by a market-based economic system. The first is the problem of global ecological degradation caused by unrestrained economic activity. The second is mass unemployment caused by the competitive drive to automate the work-place. The one erodes the biological support system of the planet while the other erodes the social structure by turning increasing numbers of workers into surplus labour.

Economic rationalism is an attempt to avoid facing these problems by turning towards the past and seeking solace in cultural fundamentalism. This impulse stems from a deep-seated anxiety that the cultural paradigm focussed on work, productivity and consumption is no longer tenable. If reality is demanding that the industrial nations now evolve into a post-capitalist phase -- of steady-state economics -- then the avoidance of this same reality, by the adoption of economic rationalism, could be interpreted as a symptom of mental pathology. Manifestations of this pathology can be identified in the statements and exhortations of economic rationalist advocacy by referring them to psychiatric diagnostic manuals.

[ ... ]

The critics of economic rationalism are rapidly finding their confidence and are already hinting that there might be a pathological explanation for the phenomenon. They are calling it the "Anglo-disease", "economic fundamentalism" and a vehicle for celebrating individual greed as if it were a social virtue. That "avarice is a form of brain disease and such people should be locked away in new asylums for the socially dangerous". They say that "the unfortunate nation [Australia] has become split between virtually the entire people on the one side, and a narrow tripartite elite consensus on the other". That economic rationalism has its roots in "a growing pessimism connected with anxieties"; and that "it involves a foolishness which comes from ignoring the lessons of economic history".

But, perhaps like a family with a member behaving strangely, these critics are still reluctant to come out and actually state the obvious -- that economic rationalism is a form of mental disease that has been induced by an intense fear of the future. Fundamentalist movements -- whether Islamic, Christian, Hindu or the English-speaker's version of economic rationalism -- are all cultural reflex conditions involving a withdrawal into traditional values so as to escape a confrontation with the new.

Once one adopts this point of view it is not very difficult to find evidence of economic rationalism's pathology. It seems our cultural tradition has always known that it is abnormal for people to retreat into the ideology of cultural infancy. Let me briefly quote from a psychiatric manual to demonstrate how well the typical economic rationalist has been described.

The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of of Mental Disorders is the foundation-stone of orthodox psychiatric diagnosis in the United States and is used in Australia to supply the diagnostic codes necessary for lodging Medicare claims. It is a de facto international standard for diagnosing psychiatric complaints. The third edition of the manual (DSM III) identified a personality disorder which it called Compulsive Personality Disorder:

301.40 Compulsive Personality Disorder

perfectionism that interferes with the ability to grasp "the big picture"; .... Preoccupation with rules, efficiency, trivial details, procedures, or form interferes with the ability to take a broad view of things .... Although efficiency and perfection are idealised, they are rarely attained. Individuals with this disorder are always mindful of their relative status in dominance-submission relationships ....

A more recent revision of the manual (DSM IV) has a slightly altered definition of the the disease and has codified the character traits:

Diagnostic criteria for 301.4 Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder

A pervasive pattern of preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and mental and interpersonal control, at the expense of flexibility and openness, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

(1) is preoccupied with details, rules, lists, order, organisation, or schedules to the extent that the major point of the activity is lost

(2) shows perfectionism that interferes with task completion (e.g., is unable to complete a project because his or her overly strict standards are not met)

(3) is excessively devoted to work and productivity to the exclusion of leisure activities and friendships (not accounted for by obvious economic necessity)

(4) is overconscientious, scrupulous, and inflexible about matters of morality, ethics, or values (not accounted for by cultural or religious identification)

(5) is unable to discard worn-out or worthless objects even when they have no sentimental value

(6) is reluctant to delegate tasks or to work with others unless they submit to exactly his or her way of doing things

(7) adopts a miserly spending style towards both self and others; money is viewed as something to be hoarded for future catastrophes

(8) shows rigidity and stubborness. ... "