Provocations as Pretexts for Imperial War: From Pearl Harbor to 9/11

Wars in an imperialist democracy cannot simply be dictated by executive fiat, they require the consent of highly motivated masses who will make the human and material sacrifices. Imperialist leaders have to create a visible and highly charged emotional sense of injustice and righteousness to secure national cohesion and overcome the natural opposition to early death, destruction and disruption of civilian life and to the brutal regimentation that goes with submission to absolutist rule by the military.

The need to invent a cause is especially the case with imperialist countries because their national territory is not under threat. There is no visible occupation army oppressing the mass of the people in their everyday life. The ‘enemy’ does not disrupt everyday normal life — as forced conscription would and does. Under normal peaceful time, who would be willing to sacrifice their constitutional rights and their participation in civil society to subject themselves to martial rule that precludes the exercise of all their civil freedoms?

The task of imperial rulers is to fabricate a world in which the enemy to be attacked (an emerging imperial power like Japan) is portrayed as an ‘invader’ or an ‘aggressor’ in the case of revolutionary movements (Korean and Indo-Chinese communists) engaged in a civil war against an imperial client ruler or a ‘terrorist conspiracy’ linked to an anti-imperialist, anti-colonial Islamic movements and secular states. Imperialist-democracies in the past did not need to consult or secure mass support for their expansionist wars; they relied on volunteer armies, mercenaries and colonial subjects led and directed by colonial officers. Only with the confluence of imperialism, electoral politics and total war did the need arise to secure not only consent, but also enthusiasm, to facilitate mass recruitment and obligatory conscription.

Since all US imperial wars are fought ‘overseas’ — far from any immediate threats, attacks or invasions — US imperial rulers have the special task of making the ‘causus bellicus’ immediate, ‘dramatic’ and self-righteously ‘defensive’.

To this end US Presidents have created circumstances, fabricated incidents and acted in complicity with their enemies, to incite the bellicose temperament of the masses in favor of war.

The pretext for wars are acts of provocation which set in motion a series of counter-moves by the enemy, which are then used to justify an imperial mass military mobilization leading to and legitimizing war.

State ‘provocations’ require uniform mass media complicity in the lead-up to open warfare: Namely the portrayal of the imperial country as a victim of its own over-trusting innocence and good intentions. All four major US imperial wars over the past 67 years resorted to a provocation, a pretext, and systematic, high intensity mass media propaganda to mobilize the masses for war. An army of academics, journalists, mass media pundits and experts ‘soften up’ the public in preparation for war through demonological writing and commentary: Each and every aspect of the forthcoming military target is described as totally evil – hence ‘totalitarian’ – in which even the most benign policy is linked to demonic ends of the regime.

Since the ‘enemy to be’ lacks any saving graces and worst, since the ‘totalitarian state’ controls everything and everybody, no process of internal reform or change is possible. Hence the defeat of ‘total evil’ can only take place through ‘total war’. The targeted state and people must be destroyed in order to be redeemed. In a word, the imperial democracy must regiment and convert itself into a military juggernaut based on mass complicity with imperial war crimes. The war against ‘totalitarianism’ becomes the vehicle for total state control for an imperial war.

In the case of the US-Japanese war, the US-Korean war, the US-Indochinese war and the post-September 11 war against an independent secular nationalist regime (Iraq) and the Islamic Afghan republic, the Executive branch (with the uniform support of the mass media and congress) provoked a hostile response from its target and fabricated a pretext as a basis for mass mobilization for prolonged and bloody wars.

US-Japan War: Provocation and Pretext for War

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt set high standards for provoking and creating a pretext for undermining majoritarian anti-war sentiment, unifying and mobilizing the country for war. Robert Stinnett, in his brilliantly documented study, Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, demonstrates that Roosevelt provoked the war with Japan by deliberately following an eight-step program of harassment and embargo against Japan developed by Lt. Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence. He provides systematic documentation of US cables tracking the Japanese fleet to Pearl Harbor, clearly demonstrating that FDR knew in advance of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor following the Japanese fleet virtually every step of the way. Even more damaging, Stinnett reveals that Admiral H.E. Kimmel, in charge of the defense of Pearl Harbor, was systematically excluded from receiving critical intelligence reports on the approaching movements of the Japanese fleet, thus preventing the defense of the US base. The ‘sneak’ attack by the Japanese, which caused the death over three thousand American service men and the destruction of scores of ships and planes, successfully ‘provoked’ the war FDR had wanted. In the run-up to the Japanese attack, President Roosevelt ordered the implementation of Naval Intelligence’s October 1940 memorandum, authored by McCollum, for eight specific measures, which amounted to acts of war including an economic embargo of Japan, the shipment of arms to Japan’s adversaries, the prevention of Tokyo from securing strategic raw materials essential for its economy and the denial of port access, thus provoking a military confrontation. To overcome massive US opposition to war, Roosevelt needed a dramatic, destructive immoral act committed by Japan against a clearly ‘defensive’ US base to turn the pacifist US public into a cohesive, outraged, righteous war machine. Hence the Presidential decision to undermine the defense of Pearl Harbor by denying the Navy Commander in charge of its defense, Admiral Kimmel, essential intelligence about anticipated December 7, 1941 attack. The United States ‘paid the price’ with 2,923 Americans killed and 879 wounded, Admiral Kimmel was blamed and stood trial for dereliction of duty, but FDR got his war. The successful outcome of FDR’s strategy led to a half-century of US imperial supremacy in the Asia-Pacific region. An unanticipated outcome, however, was the US and Japanese imperial defeats on the Chinese mainland and in North Korea by the victorious communist armies of national liberation.

Provocation and Pretext for the US War Against Korea

The incomplete conquest of Asia following the US defeat of Japanese imperialism, particularly the revolutionary upheavals in China, Korea and Indochina, posed a strategic challenge to US empire builders. Their massive financial and military aid to their Chinese clients failed to stem the victory of the anti-imperialist Red Armies. President Truman faced a profound dilemma — how to consolidate US imperial supremacy in the Pacific at a time of growing nationalist and communist upheavals when the vast majority of the war wearied soldiers and civilians were demanding demobilization and a return to civilian life and economy. Like Roosevelt in 1941, Truman needed to provoke a confrontation, one that could be dramatized as an offensive attack on the US (and its ‘allies’) and could serve as a pretext to overcome widespread opposition to another imperial war.

Truman and the Pacific military command led by General Douglas Mac Arthur chose the Korean peninsula as the site for detonating the war. Throughout the Japanese-Korean war, the Red guerrilla forces led the national liberation struggle against the Japanese Army and its Korean collaborators. Subsequent to the defeat of Japan, the national revolt developed into a social revolutionary struggle against Korean elite collaborators with the Japanese occupiers. As Bruce Cumings documents in his classic study, The Origins of the Korean War, the internal civil war preceded and defined the conflict prior to and after the US occupation and division of Korea into a ‘North’ and ‘South’. The political advance of the mass national movement led by the anti-imperialist communists and the discredit of the US-backed Korean collaborators undermined Truman’s efforts to arbitrarily divide the country ‘geographically’. In the midst of this class-based civil war, Truman and Mac Arthur created a provocation: They intervened, establishing a US occupation army and military bases and arming the counter-revolutionary former Japanese collaborators. The US hostile presence in a ‘sea’ of anti-imperialist armies and civilian social movements inevitably led to the escalation of social conflict, in which the US-backed Korean clients were losing. As the Red Armies rapidly advanced from their strongholds in the north and joined with the mass revolutionary social movements in the South they encountered fierce repression and massacres of anti-imperialist civilians, workers and peasants, by the US armed collaborators. Facing defeat Truman declared that the civil war was really an ‘invasion’ by (north) Koreans against (south) Korea. Truman, like Roosevelt, was willing to sacrifice the US troops by putting them in the direct fire of the revolutionary armies in order to militarize and mobilize the US public in defense of imperial outposts in the southern Korean peninsula.

In the run-up to the US invasion of Korea, Truman, the US Congress and the mass media engaged in a massive propaganda campaign and purge of peace and anti-militarist organizations throughout US civil society. Tens of thousands of individuals lost their jobs, hundreds were jailed and hundreds of thousands were blacklisted. Trade unions and civic organizations were taken over by pro-war, pro-empire collaborators. Propaganda and purges facilitated the propagation of the danger of a new world war, in which democracy was threatened by expanding Communist totalitarianism. In reality, democracy was eroded to prepare for an imperial war to prop up a client regime and secure a military beachhead on the Asian continent.

The US invasion of Korea to prop up its tyrannical client was presented as a response to ‘North’ Korea invading ‘South’ Korea and threatening ‘our’ soldiers defending democracy. The heavy losses incurred by retreating US troops belied the claim of President Truman that the imperial war was merely a police action. By the end of the first year of the imperial war, public opinion turned against the war. Truman was seen as a deceptive warmonger. In 1952, the electorate elected Dwight Eisenhower on his promise to end the war. An armistice was agreed to in 1953. Truman’s use of military provocation to detonate a conflict with the advancing Korean revolutionary armies and then using the pretext of US forces in danger to launch a war did not succeed in securing a complete victory: The war ended in a divided Korean nation. Truman left office disgraced and derided, and the US public turned anti-war for another decade.

The US Indochinese War: Johnson’s Tonkin Pretext

The US invasion and war against Vietnam was a prolonged process, beginning in 1954 and continuing to the final defeat in 1975. From 1954 to 1960 the US sent military combat advisers to train the army of the corrupt, unpopular and failed collaborator regime of President Ngo Dinh Diem. With the election of President Kennedy, Washington escalated the number of military advisers, commandos (so called ‘Green Berets’) and the use of death squads (Plan Phoenix). Despite the intensification of the US involvement and its extensive role in directing military operations, Washington’s surrogate ‘South Vietnam’ Army (ARNV) was losing the war to the South Vietnamese National Liberation Army (Viet Cong) and the South Vietnamese National Liberation Front (NLF), which clearly had the support of the overwhelming majority of the Vietnamese people.

Following the assassination of President Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson took over the Presidency and faced the imminent collapse of the US puppet regime and the defeat of its surrogate Vietnamese Army.

The US had two strategic objectives in launching the Vietnam Was: The first involved establishing a ring of client regimes and military bases from Korea, Japan, Philippines, Taiwan, Indochina, Pakistan, Northern Burma (via the KMT opium lords and Shan secessionists) and Tibet to encircle China, engage in cross border ‘commando’ attacks by surrogate military forces and block China’s access to its natural markets. The second strategic objective in the US invasion and occupation of Vietnam was part of its general program to destroy powerful national liberation and anti-imperialists movements in Southeast Asia, particularly in Indochina, Indonesia, the Philippines. The purpose was to consolidate client regimes, which would provide military bases, de-nationalize and privatize their raw materials sectors and provide political and military support to US empire building. The conquest of Indochina was an essential part of US empire-building in Asia. Washington calculated that by defeating the strongest Southeast Asian anti-imperialist movement and country, neighboring countries (especially Laos and Cambodia) would fall easily.

Washington faced multiple problems. In the first place, given the collapse of the surrogate ‘South Vietnam’ regime and army, Washington would need to massively escalate its military presence, in effect substituting its ground forces for the failed puppet forces and extend and intensify its bombing throughout North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. In a word convert a limited covert war into a massive publicly declared war.

The second problem was the reticence of significant sectors of the US public, especially college students (and their middle and working class parents) facing conscription, who opposed the war. The scale and scope of military commitment envisioned as necessary to win the imperial war required a pretext, a justification.

The pretext had to be such as to present the US invading armies as responding to a sneak attack by an aggressor country (North Vietnam). President Johnson, the Secretary of Defense, the US Naval and Air Force Command, the National Security Agency, acted in concert. What was referred to as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident involved a fabricated account of a pair of attacks, on August 2 and 4, 1964 off the coast of North Vietnam by naval forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam against two US destroyers the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy. Using, as a pretext, the fabricated account of the ‘attacks’, the US Congress almost unanimously passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on August 7, 1964, which granted President Johnson full power to expand the invasion and occupation of Vietnam up to and beyond 500,000 US ground troops by 1966. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution authorized President Johnson to conduct military operations throughout Southeast Asia without a declaration of war and gave him the freedom ‘to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of freedom.’

On August 5, 1964 Lyndon Johnson went on national television and radio announcing the launching of massive waves of ‘retaliatory’ bombing of North Vietnamese naval facilities (Operation Pierce Arrow). In 2005, official documents released from the Pentagon, the National Security Agency and other government departments have revealed that there was no Vietnamese attack. On the contrary, according to the US Naval Institute, a program of covert CIA attacks against North Vietnam had begun in 1961 and was taken over by the Pentagon in 1964. These maritime attacks on the North Vietnamese coast by ultra-fast Norwegian-made patrol boats (purchased by the US for the South Vietnamese puppet navy and under direct US naval coordination) were an integral part of the operation. Secretary of Defense McNamara admitted to Congress that US ships were involved in attacks on the North Vietnamese coast prior to the so-called Gulf of Tonkin Incident. So much for Johnson’s claim of an ‘unprovoked attack’. The key lie, however, was the claim that the USS Maddox ‘retaliated’ against an ‘attacking’ Vietnamese patrol boat. The Vietnamese patrol boats, according to NSA accounts released in 2005, were not even in the vicinity of the Maddox — they were at least 10,000 yards away and three rounds were first fired at them by the Maddox which then falsely claimed it subsequently suffered some damage from a single 14.5 mm machine gun bullet to its hull. The August 4 ‘Vietnamese attack’ never happened. Captain John Herrick of the Turner Joy cabled that ‘many reported contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful…No actual visual sightings (of North Vietnamese naval boats) by Maddox”.

The consequences of the fabrication of the Tonkin Gulf incident and provocation was to justify an escalation of war that killed 4 million people in Indochina, maimed, displaced and injured millions more, in addition to killing 58,000 US service men and wounding a half-million more in this failed effort in military-driven empire-building. Elsewhere in Asia, the US empire builders consolidated their client collaborative rule: In Indonesia, which had one of the largest open Communist Party in the world, a CIA designed military coup, backed by Johnson in 1966 and led by General Suharto, murdered over one million trade unionists, peasants, progressive intellectuals, school teachers and ‘communists’ (and their family members).

What is striking about the US declaration of war in Vietnam is that the latter did not respond to the US-directed maritime provocations that served as a pretext for war. As a result Washington had to fabricate a Vietnamese response and then use it as the pretext for war.

The idea of fabricating military threats (the Gulf of Tonkin Incident) and then using them as pretext for the US-Vietnam war was repeated in the case of the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact Bush Administration policy makers, who launched the Afghan and Iraq wars, tried to prevent the publication of a report by the top Navy commander in which he recounted how the NSA distorted the intelligence reports regarding the Tonkin incident to serve the Johnson Administration’s ardent desire for a pretext to war.

Provocation and Pretext: 9/11 and the Afghan-Iraq Invasions

In 2001, the vast majority of the US public was concerned over domestic matters — the downturn in the economy, corporate corruption (Enron, World Com etc.), the bursting of the ‘dot-com’ bubble and avoiding any new military confrontation in the Middle East. There was no sense that the US had any interest in going to war for Israel, nor launching a new war against Iraq, especially an Iraq, which had been defeated and humiliated a decade earlier and was subject to brutal economic sanctions. The US oil companies were negotiating new agreements with the Gulf States and looked forward to, with some hope, a stable, peaceful Middle East, marred by Israel’s savaging the Palestinians and threatening its adversaries. In the Presidential election of 2000, George W, Bush was elected despite losing the popular vote — in large part because of electoral chicanery (with the complicity of the Supreme Court) denying the vote to blacks in Florida. Bush’s bellicose rhetoric and emphasis on ‘national security’ resonated mainly with his Zionist advisers and the pro-Israeli lobby — otherwise, for the majority of Americans, it fell on deaf ears. The gap between the Middle East War plans of his principle Zionist appointees in the Pentagon, the Vice President’s office and the National Security Council and the general US public’s concern with domestic issues was striking. No amount of Zionist authored position papers, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim rhetoric and theatrics, emanating from Israel and its US based spokespeople, were making any significant impact on the US public. There was widespread disbelief that there was an imminent threat to US security through a catastrophic terrorist attack, which is defined as an attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons of mass destruction. The US public believed that Israel’s Middle East wars and their unconditional US lobbyists promotion for direct US involvement were not part of their lives nor in the country’s interest.

The key challenge for the militarists in the Bush Administration was how to bring the US public around to support the new Middle East war agenda, in the absence of any visible, credible and immediate threat from any sovereign Middle Eastern country.

The Zionists were well placed in all the key government positions to launch a worldwide offensive war. They had clear ideas of the countries to target (Middle East adversaries of Israel). They had defined the ideology (“the war on terror”, “preventive defense”). They projected a sequence of wars. They linked their Middle East war strategy to a global military offensive against all governments, movements and leaders who opposed US military-driven empire building. What they needed was to coordinate the elite into actually facilitating a ‘catastrophic terrorist incident’ that could trigger the implementation of their publicly stated and defended new world war.

The key to the success of the operation was to encourage terrorists and to facilitate calculated and systematic ‘neglect’ — to deliberately marginalize intelligence agents and agency reports that identified the terrorists, their plans and methods. In the subsequent investigatory hearings, it was necessary to foster the image of ‘neglect’, bureaucratic ineptness and security failures in order to cover up Administration complicity in the terrorists’ success. An absolutely essential element in mobilizing massive and unquestioning support for the launching of a world war of conquest and destruction centered in Muslim and Arab countries and people was a ‘catastrophic event’ that could be linked to the latter.

After the initial shock of 9/11 and the mass media propaganda blitz saturating every household, questions began to be raised by critics about the run-up to the event, especially when reports began to circulate from domestic and overseas intelligence agencies that US policy makers were clearly informed of preparations for a terrorist attack. After many months of sustained public pressure, President Bush finally named an investigatory commission on 9/11, headed by former politicians and government officials. Philip Zelikow, an academic and former government official and prominent advocate of ‘preventative defense’ (the offensive war policies promoted by the Zionist militants in the government) was named executive director to conduct and write the official ‘9-11 Commission Report’. Zelikow was privy to the need for a pretext, like 9/11, for launching the permanent global warfare, which he had advocated. With a prescience, which could only come from an insider to the fabrication leading to war, he had written: “Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States (sic) might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force (torture)”, (see Catastrophic Terrorism – Tackling the New Dangers, co-authored by Philip Zelikow and published by Foreign Affairs in 1998).

Zelikow directed the commission report, which exonerated the administration of any knowledge and complicity in 9/11, but convinced few Americans outside of the mass media and Congress. Polls conducted in the summer of 2003 on the findings of the Commission proceedings and its conclusions found that a majority of the American public expressed a high level of distrust and rejection — especially among New Yorkers. The general public suspected Government complicity, especially when it was revealed that Zelikow conferred with key figures under investigation, Vice President Cheney and Presidential ‘Guru’ Karl Rove. In response to skeptical citizens, Zelikow went on an insane rage, calling the sceptics ‘pathogens’ or germs whose ‘infection’ needed to be contained. With language reminiscent of a Hitlerian Social Darwinist diatribe, he referred to criticisms of the Commission cover up as ‘a bacteria (that) can sicken the larger body (of public opinion)’. Clearly Zelikow’s pseudoscientific rant reflects the fear and loathing he feels for those who implicated him with a militarist regime, which fabricated a pretext for a catastrophic war for Zelikow’s favorite state: Israel.

Throughout the 1990’s the US and Israeli military-driven empire building took on an added virulence: Israel dispossessed Palestinians and extended its colonial settlements. Bush, Senior invaded Iraq and systematically destroyed Iraqi’s military and civil economic infrastructure and fomented an ethnically cleansed Kurdish client state in the north. Like his predecessor Ronald Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, Senior backed anti-communist Islamic irregulars in their conquest of Afghanistan via their ‘holy wars’ against a leftist secular nationalist regime.. At the same time Bush, Senior attempted to ‘balance’ military empire building with expanding the US economic empire, by not occupying Iraq and unsuccessfully trying to restrain Israeli colonial settlements in the West Bank.

With the rise of Clinton, all restraints on military-driven empire building were thrown over: Clinton provoked a major Balkan war, viciously bombing and dismembering Yugoslavia, periodically bombing Iraq and extending and expanding US military bases in the Gulf States. He bombed the largest pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, invaded Somalia and intensified a criminal economic boycott of Iraq leading to the death of an estimated 500,000 children. Within the Clinton regime, several liberal pro-Israel Zionists joined the military-driven empire builders in the key policy making positions. Israeli military expansion and repression reached new heights as US-financed colonial Jewish settlers and heavily armed Israeli military forces slaughtered unarmed Palestinian teenagers protesting the Israeli presence in the Occupied Territories during the First Intifada. In other words, Washington extended its military penetration and occupation deeper into Arab countries and societies, discrediting and weakening the hold of its client puppet regimes over their people.

The US ended military support for the armed Islamic anti-communists in Afghanistan once they had served US policy goals by destroying the Soviet backed secular regime (slaughtering thousands of school teachers in the process). As a consequence of US-financing, there was a vast, loose network of well-trained Islamic fighters available for combat against other target regimes. Many were flown by the Clinton regime into Bosnia where Islamic fighters fought a surrogate separatist war against the secular and socialist central government of Yugoslavia. Others were funded to destabilize Iran and Iraq. They were seen in Washington as shock troops for future US military conquests. Nevertheless Clinton’s imperial coalition of Israeli colonialists, armed Islamic mercenary fighters, Kurdish and Chechen separatists broke up as Washington and Israel advanced toward war and conquest of Arab and Muslim states and the US spread its military presence in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf States.

Military-driven empire building against existing nation-states was not an easy sell to the US public or to the market-driven empire builders of Western Europe and Japan and the newly emerging market-driven empire builders of China and Russia. Washington needed to create conditions for a major provocation, which would overcome or weaken the resistance and opposition of rival economic empire builders. More particularly, Washington needed a ‘catastrophic event’ to ‘turn around’ domestic public opinion, which had opposed the first Gulf War and subsequently supported the rapid withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in 1990.

The events, which took place on September 11, 2001, served the purpose of American and Israeli military-driven empire builders. The destruction of the World Trade Center buildings and the deaths of nearly 3,000 civilians, served as a pretext for a series of colonial wars, colonial occupations, and global terrorist activities, and secured the unanimous support of the US Congress and triggered an intense global mass media propaganda campaign for war.

The Politics of Military Provocations

Ten years of starving 23 million Iraqi Arabs under the Clinton regime’s economic boycott, interspersed with intense bombing was a major provocation to Arab communities and citizens around the world. Supporting Israel’s systematic dispossession of Palestinians from their lands, interspersed with encroachment on the Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem was a major provocation, which detonated scores of suicide bomb attacks in retaliation. The construction and operation of US military bases in Saudi Arabia, home of the Islamic holy city of Mecca, was a provocation to millions of believers and practicing Muslims. The US and Israeli attack and occupation of southern Lebanon and the killing of 17,000 Lebanese and Palestinians were a provocation to Arabs.

Ruled by pusillanimous Arab regimes, servile to US interests, impotent to respond toward Israeli brutality against Palestinians, Arabs and devout Muslim citizens were constantly pushed by the Bush and especially Clinton regime to respond to their continued provocations. Against the vast disproportion in fire-power between the advanced weaponry of the US and Israeli occupation forces (the Apache helicopter gun ships, the 5,000 pound bombs, the killer drones, the armored carriers, the cluster bombs, Napalm and missiles) the secular Arab and Islamic resistance had only light weaponry consisting of automatic rifles, rocket propelled grenades, short-range and inaccurate Katusha missiles and machine guns. The only weapon they possessed in abundance to retaliate was the suicidal ‘human bombs’.

Up to 9/11, US imperial wars against Arab and Islamic populations were carried out in the targeted and occupied lands where the great mass of Arab people lived, worked and enjoyed shared lives. In other words, all (and for Israel most) of the destructive effects of their wars (the killings, home and neighborhood destruction and kinship losses) were products of US and Israeli offensive wars, seemingly immune to retaliatory action on their own territory.

September 11, 2001 was the first successful large-scale Arab-Islamic offensive attack on US territory in this prolonged, one-sided war. The precise timing of 9/11 coincides with the highly visible takeover of US Middle East war policy by extremist Zionists in the top positions of the Pentagon, the White House and National Security Council and their dominance of Congressional Middle East policies. Arab and Islamic anti-imperialists were convinced that military-driven empire builders were readying for a frontal assault on all the remaining centers of opposition to Zionism in the Middle East, i.e. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Southern Lebanon, the West Bank, Gaza, as well as in Afghanistan in South Asia and Sudan and Somalia in North-East Africa.

This offensive war scenario had been already spelled out by the American Zionist policy elite headed by Richard Pearl for the Israeli Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in a policy document, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. This was prepared in 1996 for far-right Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu prior to his taking office.

On September 28, 2000, despite the warnings of many observers, the infamous author of the massacre of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, General Ariel Sharon profaned the Al Aqsa Mosque with his huge military entourage — a deliberate religious provocation that guaranteed Sharon’s election as Prime Minister from the far right Likud Party. This led to the Second Intifada and the savage response of the Israelis. Washington’s total support of Sharon merely reinforced the worldwide belief among Arabs that the ‘Zionist Solution’ of massive ethnic purges was on Washington’s agenda.

The pivotal group linking US military-driven empire builders with their counterparts in Israel was the major influential Zionist public policy group promoting what they dubbed the ‘Project for a New American Century” (PNAC). In 1998 they set out a detailed military-driven road map to US world domination (the so-called ‘Project for a New American Century’), which just happened to focus on the Middle East and just happened to coincide exactly with Tel Aviv’s vision of a US-Israel dominated Middle East. In 2000 the PNAC Zionist ideologues published a strategy paper ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’, which laid down the exact guidelines which incoming Zionist policy makers in the top spheres of the Pentagon and White House would follow. PNAC directives included establishing forward military bases in the Middle East, increasing military spending from 3% to 4% of GNP, a military attack to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and military confrontation with Iran using the pretext of the threats of ‘weapons of mass destruction’.

The PNAC agenda could not advance without a catastrophic ‘Pearl Harbor’ type of event, as US military-driven empire builders, Israelis and US Zionist policy makers recognized early on. The deliberate refusal by the White House and its subordinate 16 intelligence agencies and the Justice Department to follow up precise reports of terrorist entry, training, financing and action plans was a case of deliberate ‘negligence’: The purpose was to allow the attack to take place and then to immediately launch the biggest wave of military invasions and state terrorist activities since the end of the Indochina War.

Israel, which had identified and kept close surveillance of the terrorists, insured that the action would proceed without any interruption. During the 9/11 attacks, its agents even had the presumption to video and photograph the exploding towers, while dancing in wild celebration, anticipating Washington’s move toward Israel’s militarist Middle East strategy.

Military-Driven Empire Building: The Zionist Connection

Militaristic empire building preceded the rise to power of the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) in the George W. Bush Administration. The pursuit of it after 9/11 was a joint effort between the ZPC and long-standing US militarists, like Rumsfeld and Cheney. The provocations against Arabs and Muslims leading up to the attacks were induced by both the US and Israel. The current implementation of the militarist strategy toward Iran is another joint effort of Zionist and US militarists.

What the Zionists did provide, which the US militarists lacked, was an organized mass-based lobby with financing, propagandists and political backing for the war. The principle government ideologues, media ‘experts’, spokespeople, academics, speechwriters and advisers for the war were largely drawn from the ranks of US Zionism. The most prejudicial aspects of the Zionist role was in the implementation of war policy, namely the systematic destruction and dismantling of the Iraqi state. Zionist policymakers promoted the US military occupation and supported a massive US military build-up in the region for sequential wars against Iran, Syria and other adversaries of Israeli expansion.

In pursuit of military–driven empire building in accord with Israel’s own version, the Zionist militarists in the US government exceeded their pre-9/11 expectations, raising military spending from 3% of GNP in 2000 to 6% in2008, growing at a rate of 13% per year during their ascendancy from 2001-2008. As a result they raised the US budget deficit to over $10 trillion dollars by 2010, double the 1997 deficit, and driving the US economy and its economic empire toward bankruptcy.

The Zionist American policy makers were blind to the dire economic consequences for US overseas economic interests because their main strategic consideration was whether US policy enhanced Israel’s military dominance in the Middle East. The cost (in blood and treasure) of using the US to militarily destroy Israel’s adversaries was of no concern.

To pursue the Zionist-US military-driven imperial project of a New Order in the Middle East, Washington needed to mobilize the entire population for a series of sequential wars against the anti-imperialist, anti-Israeli countries of the Middle East and beyond. To target the multitude of Israeli adversaries, American Zionists invented the notion of a ‘Global War on Terrorism’. The existing climate of national and international opinion was decidedly hostile to the idea of fighting sequential wars, let alone blindly following zealous Zionist extremists. Sacrificing American lives for Israeli power and the Zionist fantasy of a US-Israeli ‘Co-Prosperity Sphere’ dominating the Middle East could not win public backing in the US, let alone in the rest of the world.

Top policymakers, especially the Zionist elite, nurtured the notion of a fabricated pretext — an event which would shock the US public and Congress into a fearful, irrational and bellicose mood, willing to sacrifice lives and democratic freedoms. To rally the US public behind a military-driven imperial project of invasion and occupation in the Middle East required ‘another Pearl Harbor’.

The Terror Bombing: White House and Zionist Complicity

Every level of the US government was aware that Arab extremists were planning a spectacular armed attack in the United States. The FBI and the CIA had their names and addresses; the President’s National Security Adviser Condeleeza Rice publicly admitted that the Executive branch knew that a terrorist hijacking would occur… only they had expected, she claimed, a ‘traditional hijacking’ and not the use of ‘airliners as missiles’. The Attorney General John Ashcroft was acutely aware and refused to fly on commercial airliners. Scores of Israeli spies were living blocks away from some of the hijackers in Florida, informing headquarters on their movements. Overseas intelligence agencies, notably in Germany, Russia, Israel and Egypt claimed to have provided information to their US counterparts on the ‘terrorist plot’. The President’s office, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the FBI allowed the attackers to prepare their plans, secure funding, proceed to the airports, board the planes and carry out their attacks…all carrying US visas (mostly issued in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia — once a prominent site for processing Arabs to fight in Afghanistan) and with ‘pilots’ who were US-trained. As soon as the terrorists took control of the flights, the Air Force was notified of the hijacking but top leaders ‘inexplicably’ delayed moves to intercept the planes allowing the attackers to reach their objectives…the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The military-driven empire builders and their Zionist allies immediately seized the pretext of a single military retaliatory attack by non-state terrorists to launch a worldwide military offensive against a laundry list of sovereign nations. Within 24 hours, ultra-Zionist Senator Joseph Lieberman, in a prepared speech, called for the US to attack ‘Iran, Iraq and Syria’ without any proof that any of these nations, all full members of the United Nations, were behind the hijackings. President Bush declared a ‘Global War on Terror’ (GWOT) and launched the invasion of Afghanistan and approved a program of extraterritorial, extrajudicial assassinations, kidnappings and torture throughout the world. Clearly the Administration put into operation a war strategy, publicly advocated and prepared by Zionist ideologues long before 9/11. The President secured nearly unanimous support from Congress for the first Patriot Act, suspending fundamental democratic freedoms at home. He demanded that US client-states and allies implement their own versions of authoritarian anti-terrorist laws to persecute, prosecute and jail any and all opponents of US and Israeli empire building in the Middle East and elsewhere. In other words, September 11, 2001 became the pretext for a virulent and sustained effort to create a new world order centered on a US military-driven empire and a Middle East built around Israeli supremacy.

Provocations and Pretexts: the Israeli-US War Against Iran

The long, unending, costly and losing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan undermined international and national support for the Zionist-promoted New American Century project. US militarists and their advisers and ideologues needed to create a new pretext for the US plans to subdue the Middle East and especially to attack Iran. They turned their propaganda campaign on Iran’s legal non-military nuclear energy program and fabricated evidence of Iran’s direct military involvement in supporting the Iraqi resistance to US occupation. Without proof they claimed Iran had supplied the weapons, which bombed the American ‘Green Zone’ in Baghdad. The Israeli lobby argued that Iranian training and weapons had been instrumental in defeating the American-backed Iraqi mercenaries in the major southern city of Basra. Top Zionists in the Treasury Department have organized a worldwide economic boycott against Iran. Israel has secured the support of top Democrat and Republican Congressional leaders for a military attack on Iran. But is Iran’s existence a sufficient pretext or will a ‘catastrophic’ incident be necessary?

Conclusion: Provocations and Imperial Wars:
Behind every imperial war there is a Great Lie’

One of the most important political implications of our discussion of the US government’s resort to provocations and deception to launch imperial wars is that the vast majority of the American people are opposed to overseas wars. Government lies at the service of military interventions are necessary to undermine the American public’s preference for a foreign policy based on respect for self-determination of nations. The second implication however is that the peaceful sentiments of the majority can be quickly overturned by the political elite through deception and provocations amplified and dramatized through their constant repetition through the unified voice of the mass media. In other words, peaceful American citizens can be transformed into irrational chauvinist militarists through the ‘propaganda of the deed’ where executive authority disguises its own acts of imperial attacks as ‘defensive’ and its opponent’s retaliation as unprovoked aggression against a ‘peace loving’ United States.

All of the executive provocations and deceptions are formulated by a Presidential elite but willingly executed by a chain of command involving anywhere from dozens to hundreds of operatives, most of whom knowingly participate in deceiving the public, but rarely ever unmask the illegal project either out of fear, loyalty or blind obedience.

The notion, put forward by upholders of the ‘integrity’ of the war policy, that given such a large number of participants, ‘someone’ would have ‘leaked’ the deception, the systematic provocations and the manipulation of the public, has been demonstrated to be false. At the time of the ‘provocation’ and the declaration of ‘war’ when Congress unanimously approved ‘Presidential Authority’ to use force, few if any writers or journalists have ever raised serious questions: Executives operating under the mantle of ‘defending a peaceful country’ from ‘unprovoked treacherous enemies’ have always secured the complicity or silence of peacetime critics who choose to bury their reservations and investigations in a time of ‘threats to national security.’ Few academics, writers or journalists are willing to risk their professional standing, when all the mass media editors and owners, political leaders and their own professional cohorts froth over ‘standing united with our President in times of unparalleled mortal threat to the nation — as happened in 1941, 1950, 1964 and 2001.

With the exception of World War Two, each of the subsequent wars led to profound civilian political disillusion and even rejection of the fabrications that initially justified the war. Popular disenchantment with war led to a temporary rejection of militarism… until the next ‘unprovoked’ attack and call to arms. Even in the case of the Second World War there was massive civilian outrage against a large standing army and even large-scale military demonstrations at the end of the war, demanding the GI’s return to civilian life. The demobilization occurred despite Government efforts to consolidate a new empire based on occupation of countries in Europe and Asia in the wake of Germany and Japan’s defeat.

The underlying structural reality, which has driven American Presidents to fabricate pretexts for wars, is informed by a military-driven conception of empire. Why did Roosevelt not answer the Japanese imperial economic challenge by increasing the US economic capacity to compete and produce more efficiently instead of supporting a provocative boycott called by the decaying European colonial powers in Asia? Was it the case that, under capitalism, a depression-ridden, stagnant economy and idle work force could only be mobilized by the state for a military confrontation?

In the case of the US-Korean War, could not the most powerful post-World War US economy look toward exercising influence via investments with a poor, semi-agrarian, devastated, but unified, Korea, as it was able to do in Germany, Japan and elsewhere after the war?

Twenty years after spending hundreds of billions of dollars and suffering 500,000 dead and wounded to conquer Indochina, European, Asian and US capital entered Vietnam peacefully on the invitation of its government, hastening its integration into the world capitalist market via investments and trade.

It is clear that Plato’s not-so ‘noble lie’, as practiced by America’s Imperial Presidents, to deceive their citizens for ‘higher purposes’ has led to the use of bloody and cruel means to achieve grotesque and ignoble ends.

The repetition of fabricated pretexts to engage in imperial wars is embedded in the dual structure of the US political system, a military-driven empire and a broad-based electorate. To pursue the former it is essential to deceive the latter. Deception is facilitated by the control of mass media whose war propaganda enters every home, office and classroom with the same centrally determined message. The mass media undermine what remains of alternative information flowing from primary and secondary opinion leaders in the communities and erode personal values and ethics. While military-driven empire building has resulted in the killing of millions and the displacement of tens of millions, market-driven empire building imposes its own levy in terms of massive exploitation of labor, land and livelihoods.

As has been the case in the past, when the lies of empire wear thin, public disenchantment sets in, and the repeated cries of ‘new threats’ fail to mobilize opinion. As the continued loss of life and the socio-economic costs erodes the conditions of everyday life, mass media propaganda loses its effectiveness and political opportunities appear. As after WWII, Korea, Indochina and today with Iraq and Afghanistan, a window of political opportunity opens. Mass majorities demand changes in policy, perhaps in structures and certainly an end to the war. Possibilities open for public debate over the imperial system, which constantly reverts to wars and lies and provocations that justify them.


Our telegraphic survey of imperial policy-making refutes the conventional and commonplace notion that the decision making process leading up to war is open, public and carried out in accordance with the constitutional rules of a democracy. On the contrary, as is commonplace in many spheres of political, economic, social and cultural life, but especially in questions of war and peace, the key decisions are taken by a small Presidential elite behind closed doors, out of sight and without consultation and in violation of constitutional provisions. The process of provoking conflict in pursuit of military goals is never raised before the electorate. There are never investigations by independent investigatory committees.

The closed nature of the decision making process does not detract from the fact that these decisions were ‘public’ in that they were taken by elected and non-elected public officials in public institutions and directly affected the public. The problem is that the public was kept in the dark about the larger imperial interests that were at stake and the deception that would induce them to blindly submit to the decisions for war. Defenders of the political system are unwilling to confront the authoritarian procedures, the elite fabrications and the unstated imperial goals. Apologists of the military-driven empire builders resort to irrational and pejorative labeling of the critics and skeptics as ‘conspiracy theorists’. For the most part, prestigious academics conform closely to the rhetoric and fabricated claims of the executors of imperial policy.

Everywhere and at all times groups, organizations and leaders meet in closed meetings, before going ‘public’. A minority of policymakers or advocates meet, debate and outline procedures and devise tactics to secure decisions at the ‘official’ meeting. This common practice takes place when any vital decisions are to be taken whether it is at local school boards or in White House meetings. To label the account of small groups of public officials meeting and taking vital decisions in ‘closed’ public meetings (where agendas, procedures and decisions are made prior to formal ‘open’ public meetings) as ‘conspiracy theorizing’ is to deny the normal way in which politics operate. In a word, the ‘conspiracy’ labelers are either ignorant of the most elementary procedures of politics or they are conscious of their role in covering up the abuses of power of today’s state terror merchants.

Professor Zelikow – Where do we go from here?

The key figure in and around the Bush Administration who actively promoted a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ and was at least in part responsible for the policy of complicity with the 9/11 terrorists was Philip Zelikow. Zelikow, a prominent Israel-Firster, is a government academic, whose expertise was in the nebulous area of ‘catastrophic terrorism’ — events which enabled US political leaders to concentrate executive powers and violate constitutional freedoms in pursuit of offensive imperial wars and in developing the ‘public myth’. Philip Shenon’s book, The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation, pinpoints Zelikow’s strategic role in the Bush Administration in the lead up to 9/11, the period of ‘complicit neglect’, in its aftermath, the offensive global war period, and in the government’s cover-up of its complicity in the terror attack.

Prior to 9/11 Zelikow provided a‘blueprint’ for the process of an executive seizing extreme power for global warfare. He outlined a sequence in which a ‘catastrophic terrorist event’ could facilitate the absolute concentration of power, followed by the launching of offensive wars for Israel (as he publicly admitted). In the run-up to 9/11 and the multiple wars, he served as a member of National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice’s National Security Council transition team (2000-2001), which had intimate knowledge of terrorist plans to seize US commercial flights, as Rice herself publicly admitted (‘conventional hijackings’ was her term). Zelikow was instrumental in demoting and disabling the counter-terrorism expert Richard Clark from the National Security Council, the one agency tracking the terrorist operation. Between 2001-2003, Zelikow was a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. This was the agency, which had failed to follow-up and failed to pursue the key intelligence reports identifying terrorist plans. Zelikow, after playing a major role in undermining intelligence efforts to prevent the terrorist attack, became the principle author of the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States, which prescribed Bush’s policy of military invasion of Iraq and targeted Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and other independent Arab and Muslim countries and political entities. Zelikow’s ‘National Security Strategy’ paper was the most influential directive shaping the global state terrorist policies of the Bush regime. It also brought US war policies in the closest alignment with the regional military aspirations of the Israeli state since the founding of Israel. Indeed, this was why the former Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stated at Bar Ilan University that the 9/11 attack and the US invasion of Iraq were ‘good for Israel’ (see Haaretz, April 16, 2008).

Finally Zelikow, as Bush’s personal appointee as the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, coordinated the cover-up of the Administration policy of complicity in 9/11 with the Vice President’s office. While Zelikow is not considered an academic heavyweight, his ubiquitous role in the design, execution and cover-up of the world-shattering events surrounding 9/11 and its aftermath mark him as one of the most dangerous and destructive political ‘influentials’ in the shaping and launching of Washington’s past, present and future catastrophic wars.

58 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. evie said on May 26th, 2008 at 7:43am #

    Was helping my 15-year-old granddaughter study for history finals and we were discussing how US wars are staged provocation and pretext (not covered in her textbooks), and the Anglo/Complicit staged 9/11 events (definitely not in her textbooks).

    She came up with the chart below, looks at me and says “I thought Democrats were the party of peace?”

    Woodrow Wilson
    Twenty-Eighth President
    Democrat. WWI.

    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    Thirty-Second President
    Democrat. WW II.

    Harry S Truman
    Thirty-Third President
    Democrat. WWII, Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Korea.

    Lyndon B. Johnson
    Thirty-Sixth President
    Democrat. Vietnam.

    Are the Democrats better at pretext or what? (rhetorical question.) Get your duct tape and plastic now – as Hillary/Obama are scheduled to handle the next phase in the one world odor.

    P.S. What did other imperial powers, e.g. Japan, Germany, Egypt, Greek, Rome, Mongolia, etc. use as pretext?

  2. hp said on May 26th, 2008 at 8:53am #

    It’s hard to believe anyone could condense so much treachery and treasonous deceit into such a short article, but Mr. Petras has managed to do so.
    Only one small event missing. The attack on the USS Liberty, by Israel, in an attempt to draw the US into a war against Egypt (Islam). War crimes if there ever were such a thing.
    If nothing else, this shows the complicity of our Congress, a blatant display of sacrificing our sailors to the vile dreams of the Jewish apartheid state.
    (ever notice that LBJ and Golda Meyerson look like twins?)

    “Evidence linking these Israelis to 911 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence which has been gathered. It’s classified information.”
    Who was the federal judge who released these “five dancing Israelis” and let them all go home?
    Yep, none other than another Israeli, a ‘dual citizen’ Israeli, and current Attorney General of the USA, Michael Mukasey.
    Who’d a thunk it!

  3. evie said on May 26th, 2008 at 9:11am #

    I thought her name was Meir. But yessir, LB and Golda could have been a set of ugly twins.

    CIA/MI5 may be grinning as the focus is laid at the feet linking these dancing Israelis to 911 as classified. All that is eventually declassified may hold no truth other than the approved script.

    Deceit may be more deceptive than ya think.

  4. George Thompson said on May 26th, 2008 at 9:15am #

    9/11 was a false flag, not complicity in the events of that day. Do the research or watch some of the films. They are all over the internet. You cannot have an opinion until you have real evidence, not just nativist mantra. Alex Jones is not a kook but Bush and Cheney are murderers. All the reputable people in 9/11 truth, including scientists and engineers, cannot possibly be lying or mentally deranged. Our government kills its own citizens. The hard part for white America will be dealing with the fact their white skin didn’t save them and won’t save them in the future. The elite only care about money and power, not race except when it’s used to divide to masses.

  5. Michael Kenny said on May 26th, 2008 at 10:05am #

    What always shocks me about Professor Petras is he always assumes that the American “master race” (in which he also seems to have a 50-year membership!) can manipulate the other peoples of the world as if they were Pavolv’s dogs. This particular European dog herewith utters a bark of protest!

    I leave others around the world to defend themselves, but the instant, European, bone of contention is ex-Yugoslavia which, according to Professor Petras, was “dismembered” by Clinton. Did the people of these countries not have any say in the matter? If they did not want the break-up of Yugoslavia, why did they not fight against it? If they want to re-create Yugoslavia now, what is stopping them? All those countries have had a series of free elections since the break-up of Yugoslavia and none of them have elected leaders who wanted to go back to the old days. Equally, since Professor Petras asserts that Yugoslavia was “dismembered” by the US, does he also claim the the US would be entitled to “re-member” it without any regard to the will of the people of the six successor states?

    In fact, Yugoslavia fell apart because it was an artificial construct, reflecting the post-WWI idea that small states could not survive. The end of the cold war and the success of the EU, and in particular of small countries like Ireland in it, showed the “small” peoples of Europe that they could survive as independent states within the EU. At that point, Yugoslavia was a political dinosaur and it was bound to fall apart sooner or later. Clinton could not have stopped it, but equally, he could not have “manufactured” it. He simply screwed things up even more than they already were. That has been an American tradition in Europe since 1917!

    Also, Hitler called his ideology “national socialism”, and it started out as an ideology of the screwball left, just like communism, so that the fact that all the communist dictatorships, including Yugoslavia, called themselves “socialist” doesn’t prove anything. Communism is best understood as the first, and most successful, of the many forms of what is commonly, but somewhat inaccurately, called fascism.

  6. hp said on May 26th, 2008 at 10:26am #

    Evie, Mabovitch/Meyerson/Meir was born in Kiev, Ukraine.
    David Ben-Gurion, was born David Gruen/Green in Poland.
    And on and on..
    Highly doubtful that any of these ‘Israelis’ had any ancestors who actually originated/lived or ever even visited the ‘Holy Land’ back in the day.
    There’s the norm for the so-called ‘right of return.’
    Return to where?
    Russia, Poland and Brooklyn N.Y.?

  7. bozhidar balkas said on May 26th, 2008 at 11:07am #

    it was croatian intellectuals led by bishop strosmajer who who most strongly advocated establishement of state for s.slavs.
    slovenes also willinggy joined the new state- monarchy, tho- as they feared being assimiliated by austrians.
    croats, on the other hand, feared losing much of croat’n littoral and dalmatia to italy, also joined the monarchy of their own free will.
    serbs have joined the new state for their own reasons; i.e., getting all serbs in one country.
    so, it was a mess right from the start. and i need not enumerate what went wrong; most of thereaders no the salient facts.
    however, these facts should be posited.
    1. serbia abrogates in ‘ 87 kosovo autonomy. that may have been casus bellicus
    2. in ’91 it attacks slovenia and croatia
    3. 1n ’92, it invades bosnia; in order to dismember it.
    4.nato war against serbia was not a major war. there was a possibility that serbia would expell albanians.
    serbia actually did that in ’99 but the left (i’m a socialist) blamed serb crimes on nato invasion.
    serbia always had been the darling not only of the left but also of the right.
    all four serb aggressions were approbated by west and people on left and right.
    in’94, clinton turned agaist serbs. thank u

  8. Ron Horn said on May 26th, 2008 at 11:32am #

    Thank you once again, James Petras, for an article so appropriate for this day which the ruling class media is using to praise the veterans who “gave their lives in the service of their country”, i.e., the ruling class of the country; and like every ruling class they are unfortunately addicted to power and wealth. Were that there were more courageous people like yourself to expose their lies, to show them as they are–war criminals

  9. evie said on May 26th, 2008 at 1:14pm #

    I hold no support for Israel or their phony industries.

    I believe there are 2 factions of the global ruling class – those that would prefer to make us their slaves and those that would prefer to make us their slaves.

    And always, always at the end of the day and their infighting over money/power, both factions walk off arm and arm into the sunrise, literally over our dead bodies.

  10. Giorgio said on May 26th, 2008 at 2:21pm #

    After reading this deppresssing historical account of US imperialism my question is:

    Well, even more deppressing to me is that after all that instructive palaver and readers’ comments not a word is said about the man who has taken this IMPERIAL BULL by the HORNS!
    He’s not only determined to end the Iraq war but shut down the 700+ US military bases in the world. As evie’s granddaughter, whom I wholeheartedly give her 10/10 for History, showed in the chart above, Democrats are NOT the party of peace! Ron Paul has repeatedly made this point, too. And I now wonder whether Liberals are such peace loving creatures OR they just LOVE talking about it in their living rooms.

    Then evie ends her comment with this Million Dollar question:
    “P.S. What did other imperial powers, e.g. Japan, Germany, Egypt, Greek, Rome, Mongolia, etc. use as pretext?”

    Well I have no answer to this one, except for this tiny clue. Hitler is reported to have said ” The world hates Germans for our success, not what we do”
    So did GW Bush state: “They hate us because we are FREE!”
    See the similarity in reasoning?

  11. brian said on May 26th, 2008 at 4:09pm #

    ‘Every level of the US government was aware that Arab extremists were planning a spectacular armed attack in the United States’

    and WHO were these arab extremists? It certainly wasnt Osama Bin laden!

    ‘On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

    Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

    Prof Petras needs to take the next step. Which he can do after doing a little more investigation.

  12. evie said on May 26th, 2008 at 4:25pm #

    This 700+ US bases around the world is another one of those “left” popular phrases that is not quite truthful. Of those 700+ approximately 450 are on US soil. Of the remaining 300 or so not all are large complex military installations.

    The 700+ figure comes from folks who use DoD’s Base Structure Report of real property owned around the world – but some spun as “military bases” are no more than a guard shack at a check point in South Korea or a dozen man military listening post somewhere in the world, or a hangar on an airstrip in Ecuador. The “left” spins it as if all 700+ are large scale installations with massive capacity to inflict war and death when that’s not true.

    Another point is these installations employ tens of thousands of civilians at home and abroad. Most of the employed and the ruling class in host countries do not want the US to pack up and go home. Bringing home “defense pork” is all that keeps half of congress reelected, see John Murtha.

    If Paul is willing to shut down all – even those 450 or in the continental US – he’s a bigger fruitcake than I thought.

    I believe most of the older imperial powers didn’t need a pretext – their people supported and enjoyed the benefits of conquest with little, if any, conscience.

  13. Hue Longer said on May 26th, 2008 at 4:44pm #


    When it comes to the military, you seem to be compartmentalized when defending it (it’s a rather loose defense, but it appears you do) at the same time as being cynical to the powers wielding it. I know you and yours have benefited from employment in the military, but where is your healthy cynicism regarding that?

  14. evie said on May 26th, 2008 at 6:17pm #

    I wouldn’t say it’s a defense of the military per se – I just dislike spin and misinformation – regardless where I find it.

    I believe the majority of military brass and DoD/Pentagon “wielders” are incompetent, overpaid, self-serving corporate lackeys, but that the majority of the troops are decent men and women who enlist for a variety of reasons and circumstances.

  15. James said on May 26th, 2008 at 6:44pm #

    How can you say that americam troops are decent, Anyone who shoots children down in the street and delebertly drops cluster bombs on hospitals can’t be decent no mater what reason, If you say americans are decent you have to say that the SS troops at Barbe Yar were decent just that their masters were corporate scum.

  16. sk said on May 26th, 2008 at 8:08pm #

    An interesting take on ‘the true “soft bigotry of low expectations.”‘

  17. Giorgio said on May 26th, 2008 at 8:21pm #

    Thx for your comment.
    As for Paul being a big fruitcake… well that’s the root of the problem! Can you name for me another one, Left, Right or Center, who could bring this imperialist juggernaut to a HALT?
    I wonder if you have ever accessed this site:
    I just got to know of it a couple of days ago.
    There’s a series of 9 videos by a guy Bob Schulz on the US Constitution and the Plan to Restore Constitutional Order. I recommend them to you and, hopefully, after watching them you change your mind about your perception of Ron Paul being such a HUGE FRUITCAKE.

    Regarding your statement that:
    “…. these installations employ tens of thousands of civilians at home and abroad. Most of the employed and the ruling class in host countries do not want the US to pack up and go home.”

    Of course, they (the ruling class) don’t want the US to pack up and go home. Obviously they need them there plus US Aid to keep them in power. Pakistan’s dictatorship is a good example. Paul would put an end to that. Can you see anyone else in the horizon who would do it?

  18. evie said on May 26th, 2008 at 9:29pm #

    I’ll check out the site tomorrow – nearing my bedtime.

    Paul would be unable to change anything as Congress would not work with him on his proposals. Besides, one anthrax letter and he would do as he’s told. US presidents follow instructions of the powers that be. Boy Bush was selected b/c he was the village idiot and if plans went disastrously the fool would get the blame. Contrary to what most folks may think, I believe so far the past 8 years have went more or lass as planned by the ruling class. They may be evil and viscious but they’re not stupid.

    At the moment I see no one on the horizon but that doesn’t mean there isn’t anyone out there.

    Another note – the military in the last decade has began hiring more and more civilians, here at home, for support type jobs that previously only military personnel performed, this includes accountants, attorneys, computer technicians, etc., while increasing the numbers of the “fighting force.” I think this threatens the freedom to dissent, as it makes more and more American civilians dependents on the military/Pentagon/DoD for their livelihood.

  19. evie said on May 26th, 2008 at 9:58pm #

    I said the majority of troops – not all. I will not use a knee-jerk blanket to condemn the entire US military.

    A percentage of the US troops in every war have committed atrocities, more than today’s troops b/c a gullible public was willing to overlook it and cheer it on 60-65 years ago, hence the military didn’t worry about troop conduct or prosecute troops for atrocities.

    sk – I stopped reading Counterpunch and Commondreams a couple of years ago as they are “left” gatekeepers, no more honest or objective than the “right”.

    But hey, I’m ready to sit around the campfire and sing folk songs with 6-1/2 billion other folks – just let me know when and where.

  20. evie said on May 26th, 2008 at 10:05pm #

    Oh, one more thing – has it occured to anyone to wonder – with hundreds of thousands of troops rotating in and out of Iraq/Afghanistan for 7 years now – nearly all armed with cameras to record their deployments – why isn’t the public absolutely flooded with pics and videos of atrocities?

  21. Hue Longer said on May 26th, 2008 at 10:13pm #

    evie said on May 26th, 2008 at 9:58 pm #

    “But hey, I’m ready to sit around the campfire and sing folk songs with 6-1/2 billion other folks – just let me know when and where”.

    6- 1/2 billion people under employ from the military all distributing cokes to one another and singing, just may get rid of that reputation of the military being all about bad and unnecessary things like killing people and sucking up resources

    You may be on to something about the need for the military, Evie…we should forget about who’ll collect the food and do the real toil and we’ll all join!

  22. evie said on May 26th, 2008 at 11:14pm #

    Oh no Hue – why join anything.

    Without a military sucking up resources we won’t need to toil – we can collect food stamps and let the socialist leaders of the world do all the work b/c they love us more than we love ourselves.

  23. Hue Longer said on May 27th, 2008 at 1:46am #

    what a choice!

  24. bozhidar balkas said on May 27th, 2008 at 6:19am #

    glad to read on thi s page that democrats are warsellers and not only republicans.
    i’v been saying this for two decades. however, US corporate media have rejected all my letters dealing with that issue as well as all others.
    what we have in US and much of the world is one goose with two wings.
    when dealing with minor changes one wing may flip the other flop but when it comes to major issues the wings beat in unison.
    in short, rich people rule everywhere and not just US.
    what can be done to change the structure of governance? or to lessen the iron grip of the ruling class?
    education! since schools are controled by the GOOSE , children will continue to be intellectually enslaved.
    so, one way to inform deluded moms and dads would be to stand on street corners and propagate knowledge. thank u.

  25. Lloyd Rowsey said on May 27th, 2008 at 7:53am #

    evie. you wrote:

    …I just dislike spin and misinformation – regardless where I find it.

    Why not take a trip to your post of two days ago, May 24, to the article “Cuba Supports Press Freedom” — and why not comment on my comment to it? As far as I can tell, except for its first paragraph, your comment is PURE spin and misinformation. No wait. There’s also some gratuitous insulting of an acquaintance of yours.


  26. evie said on May 27th, 2008 at 8:28am #

    The “left” romanticizes Fidel and Cuba, as they do any and all latin “socialist” revolutions, shoveling as much b.s. as the “right.” When I hear hands off Cuba I apply that to left and right.

    Reality in such countries is not as romantic as some would want me to believe. For example, high literacy rates – generally means the masses of poor can now sign their name and manage to read through the local newspaper telling them how good things are for them with the revolution.

    Free healthcare means the basics if you manage to get to the clinic, meanwhile the elite still travel to Madrid or Miami for serious medical care. Castro could not leave – to save face he had to have surgery in Cuba by Cubans. I checked out Cuba’s childhood cancer treatments years ago for our daughter as I had heard they were excellent; they were not, even though they were still receiving aid from the USSR at that time.

    It means beans and rice and rationing – just like before the revolution.

    Ever wonder why the US allowed Castro to hold power for 50 years? You really think the CIA couldn’t have done away with him if they wanted to?

    As for my acquaintance – he’s representative of many of America’s “left” who spend a lifetime floating from one “revolution/movement” to the next enjoying the attention of being unique in an ordinary world. A star on stage. A big fish in a little pond.

    You may have to be more specific as I’m not sure what “spin” you’re talking about in another topic.

  27. hp said on May 27th, 2008 at 10:14am #

    Very good point, evie.
    To believe Castro is somehow invincible all these years is nonsense.
    He could have been removed whenever. Like any of us.
    So to continue on after knowing this, as though Castro is some demi-god, is delusional and perhaps a little childish.

  28. Lloyd Rowsey said on May 27th, 2008 at 12:25pm #

    No, hp, what evie says is nonsense. She’s obviously never been to Cuba, mixes the distant past with the present which has been opened to thousands of “permitted” (by America) business visitors, and generally she parrots the american bullshit view of conditions in Cuba to such an extent that I’m almost speehless.

    For example, her level of ignorance is so extreme, I won’t even dignify her demonstration — that some rich American like herself can find better treatment for her cancer-struck daughter by paying for it than by obtaining treatment in Cuba — with statistics on general health comparisons. I’ll just say, OF COURSE you can pay for better care somewhere else, and especially in America, than in a socialist country, if you can afford it.

    So, hp. Why don’t you try to learn Spanish, no, why don’t you just try to travel to Cuba yourself?

  29. Lloyd Rowsey said on May 27th, 2008 at 1:07pm #

    evie. Why don’t we continue this little diversion from Mr. Petras’ fine article, over at “Cuba Supports Press Freedom”? Dated March 24. The very title of the article indicates not only the subect to that piece, but the subject of my post (free speech in Cuba), and the subject that your last post about, above, mentions NOT EVEN IN PASSING.

    Who knows? Maybe the author of that DV article, Peter Phillips, will critique your penetrating insights there…


  30. evie said on May 27th, 2008 at 2:53pm #

    You seem distraught and I’m not understanding why.

    I’m not “rich” – I spend money as fast as I earn it so the kids will have nothing to argue about when I’m dead.

  31. Lloyd Rowsey said on May 27th, 2008 at 3:47pm #

    I will not continue this exchange here, evie. Making even the smallest contribution to ending the Iraq War is my first priority and I will not continue diverting the subject from Mr. Petras’ fine article on The War. Making even the smallest contribution to ending the longest and most inhumane arms-length treatment of one nation by another, since nations began (ie, the American embargo of Cuba), is my second priority. And that is why I insist we continue this exchange at Peter Phillips’ DV article of two days ago, “Cuba Supports Press Freedom.”

  32. brian said on May 27th, 2008 at 5:10pm #

    Evie is a right wing troll.

  33. hp said on May 27th, 2008 at 8:01pm #

    Lloyd, I was only remarking on the idea that if the powers that be wished Castro to be dead, he would be dead. At any time.
    Ask the Kennedys. Wasn’t that seat Hillary ‘won’ destined for JFK jr.?
    Look at the body count Clinton chocked up. Men, women, kids, animals…

  34. John Wilkinson said on May 27th, 2008 at 8:36pm #

    Back to the “fine” article.

    First off, yugoslavia. It is really aggravating to have the american left constantly muscle in, without knowing thing one as to what really happened, and take away OUR responsibility for OUR actions (I mean the people’s who live there as I was born and raised there). To you, we are a bunch of savages or monkeys or children. We are incapable of independent thoughts and actions, we are incapable of realizing we did wrong, we are incapable of morality and qualms of conscience. When we do horrible things you’re going to jump in there and blame it all on your american empire. How insulting. We are not capable of heinous war crimes, according to you. Even if we are, we didn’t know what we were doing, so you have to gently remove our responsibility and our conscience from the scene and substitute your damn empire fixation.

    We cannot hold our elites – who profited handsomely from those crimes, who had motives, opportunities and weapons to commit the same – we cannot hold them responsible. Only you can hold your elites responsible. How arrogant. We cannot hold ourselves responsible, you have to interfere.

    So this was all a mirage according to you. I have already explained the why and the how of the breakup of Yugoslavia in my comments to a similarly delusional Gary Leupp DV article around February 18 or so. There is absolutely no need to invoke some sinister (yet never errant) deus ex machina, we did it all by ourselves, it is clear as a bell, I lived — and relived every moment of this, yet you persist in your blame games. To you, these are just games; but REAL people – hundreds of thousands of them, REAL families, REAL men, women and children were MASSACRED.

    And now we can’t hold those who did it and those who supported them (many “ordinary” people) and enabled them, we can’t hold them responsible, according to you, the GOD.

    Because we the non-American peoples are incapable of either the crimes or the assuming of responsibility, so in your infinite wisdom you invoke your damn Clinton fantasies, without a scintilla of evidence, of course. (It’s the way it is because YOU, the GOD, say so). According to you, we the non-American savages can’t hold responsible those of us who built fabulous mansions, built on the bones and the blood of those massacred, while ordinary people over there live in destitution.

    The Europeans BEGGED Clinton to do something about the instability (genocide) in the Balkans. Yes, BEGGED. (And there were NATO obligations to protect Greece and Turkey from spillover effects, but that’s another story). I was following the situation closely, because I was vitally interested in this, that WAS how it was.

    For the longest, wrenching time, they were begging him while he demurred (nobody really knew what to do and he’d already had a bad experience in Somalia), while the situation was spiraling out of control, while the bad people were doing bad things. This went on for YEARS!!!! But you’re now going to rewrite history to fit your mold and your pre-conceived ideas as to how the world runs. And to heck with morality, right?

    And how did America supposedly profit from this breakup? You go over there, as I do, and you see that some European companies have gained a foothold. But you have to search far and wide for an American company.

    Yes, there is an occasional McDonald’s (in a city of 2 million people you may find two of them). And even a Western Union outpost here and there. Maybe you can find a Coca Cola sign if you search hard enough. And there’s a US army base in Kosovo, and maybe, just maybe, another one in Bosnia (unless it’s been dismantled).

    That’s pretty much it for American presence. Pretty poor showing for the terror masterminds, pretty poor return on their imaginary “investment”, don’t you think? So, you’re full of shit.

  35. Hue Longer said on May 27th, 2008 at 9:08pm #

    Hello John,

    Did you see the mass graves? No one with a camera has

    There’s other interests aside from putting a MacDonald’s on every corner. Just the example of an independent nationalist state is enough to invoke US participation. You don’t think people calling the shots profited from this?

    I know there are also plenty of Cubans “begging” for the US to invade…there were plenty of Vietnamese “begging” for the US to invade them too–I wouldn’t stick so hard to that one

  36. John Wilkinson said on May 27th, 2008 at 9:18pm #

    Point two on the “fine” article.

    There were “cables to FDR” about Pearl Harbor? How? You quote some book/article by someone else, if it’s so convincing why not summarize it here. I am not saying it’s implausible an American president would act like that, I just haven’t seen the evidence in this instance, and I have questions.

    Do you know how big the Pacific is? It is BIGGER than ALL the continents on Earth combined!!! OK, so we can discount South Pacific for that purpose, so we’re left with about half the total world landmass as the area to be searched. Back then they didn’t have satellites either for communications or for spying. How were they to find the Japanese task force? — only by flying airplanes off the islands, the continent or the aircraft carriers, if they suspected something was afoot. And the range of those airplanes (much smaller than today’s, with inefficient propeller engines) was a few hundred miles at most, they didn’t have mid-air refueling. Compare that with the size of the Pacific to be searched.

    Cables from whom and how? You don’t explain. The task force sailed in radio silence. So, only if they had moles in Tokyo. Japanese codes weren’t cracked until shortly before the battle of Midway. And the cables were sent where and by what method? No satellites and war raging all over the place.

    And the Japanese were angels. The rape of Nanking had happened before this, along with a bunch of other attrocities, not to mention subjugating several countries to the Japanese rule. But who cares, it’s important to fit inconvenient facts into your pre-conceived theories.

    The US made life impossible for Japan, so she had to resort to Pearl Harbor? How? You don’t explain. All of Japanese aggression toward others can be explained by US actions? The US made them do it.

    The truth is, the US and Japan were on a collision course. For a variety of reasons, war was inevitable. And it was better that it start while Japan was still engaged in various conflicts (and its Axis allies Germany and Italy) than when they had consolidated their power over the vast expanses and resources of the globe.

    You think it was OK what the Axis powers were doing, only the US is the villain? They came with 500 bombers and bombed my hometown on April 6, 1941 (a Sunday), at 6 am, while everybody was sleeping. 30,000 people were killed. No declaration of war, simply because the people refused to let their country join the Axis powers. A small episode out of many in that war. In another, in the same country, 7,000 students were taken out of schools in a small city and shot, as a revenge for killing of some German soldiers by the resistance. In all, in a country of 12 million people, 1.7 million were killed in that war (and hardly any Jews lived there, either, but we never hear about the non-Jewish peoples who suffered greatly). But all that is OK, as long as you get your dibs on your empire. That’s how points are made, how money and fame is accrued on the left. So let’s invent the “facts”. FDR is immoral because he was drawn into a war not of his making (or did he make Hitler do it, too?). They tried appeasement first (minding their own business), but it didn’t work with Hitler (or am I “demonizing” him now?)

  37. John Wilkinson said on May 27th, 2008 at 9:33pm #

    as for the gulf of Tonkin, OK, yes I agree that one is a genuine example. Very likely same goes for 9-11, though no smoking gun yet, just a lot of anomalies.

    and fdr (a democrat) was at the helm when WW2 happened, only because herbert hoover (the repub before him) visited a horrible catastrophy on the american people, the great depression.

    and since we’re making the list of wars, make a complete one (y r u starting with WW1?) and you’ll see there’s no diff btw. the parties. incl. the civil war (since we don’t care about merit). your granddaughter is not aware that her father/uncle is in iraq (according to your post elsewhere), and that that is a war, and that that is a republican president’s war, started on lies? or how about bush I and Iraq I? or the bunch of little wars under reagan? or sleazy undercover wars (Chile) under Nixon? as for vietnam, the seeds were planted under eisenhower. either she’s learning selective history or you’re misrepresenting what she wrote.

    sure both parties are corrupt, esp. now (at least fdr tried to ameliorate what was happening to the ordinary folk, economically, and i’m sure he wasn’t perfect like none of us are), but let’s have the truth fall where it may instead of making it fit the wishes of article writers.

  38. John Wilkinson said on May 27th, 2008 at 10:28pm #

    Hello Hue. I traveled all over that country (except Bosnia, the hardest hit part). I saw the aftermath. I saw holes in buildings (incl. bldgs my relatives lived in). I talked to parents who lost their only child. I talked to others who lost children in some kind of camp, I didn’t inquire what kind. Maybe these parents were best Hollywood actors — their tears, their despair all fake, of course.

    My relatives, who are a minority in one of the ex-republics, showed me where children were playing when a shell (from “our side”) exploded among them. Where two boys were when the bridge was rocketed from jets, but they missed the bridge, didn’t miss the boys. One of my relatives almost lost his whole family, only due to luck were they not at home when shrapnel from a shell ricochetted around their apartment. In a city of 35,000, about 1% died from this indiscriminate shelling, one, two or five at a time; so no mass graves for them, but this was not in the area where the war really raged at full intensity, just sporadic shelling on and off. Etc., etc., etc. And the same things had happened in history before, from all sides, there’s a lot of hatred. (Actually, what is presented here is mild compared to things that have happened, the slitting of throats of whole families, etc.)

    And, yes, I heard how people in my country talk about the “other”. (I have relatives in various “mutually hostile” parts of the country and I’m from a mixed marriage). And I saw (e.g., grafitti on every corner) and heard hateful nationalist propaganda. And it’s not any stretch of imagination that some of the people acted on how they thought and how they were brainwashed, when given weapons in hand. (But I forget, only you Americans are brainwashed; only you can be hateful and kill with weapons). And there were vast repositories of weaponry as Yugoslavia had one of the most potent militaries in the world.

    And I am aware of the elites who started all this, and am aware of their fabulous wealth and how they got it. And how they manipulated the country into war. And this means elites on all sides (all of the sides committed attrocities, but some more than the others) — they are fabulously rich now, and in control.

    But you know best. You didn’t see this, so it doesn’t exist. Let’s close our eyes to the victims. You read some blogs claiming nothing happened. (Is that possible?) You believe there are no mass graves (are there single graves?), OK, several hundred thousand people just disappeared. I’ve heard otherwise, but it doesn’t matter, what I saw, what I’ve heard, the hatred, the weaponry, the motivation all point to that conclusion. (Even now, people are dying every day in some parts, due to mines). What I saw, what I heard was a mirage. You believe what you want to believe. That is how the left operates, shut down anyone presenting inconvenient facts.

    In answer to your questions, yes the people calling the shots profited handsomely — they are the elites over there, that’s why they did all those things (massacres, etc.). One way is, first you kill someone, then you cart off their property. And you do that a thousand times over. (Of course, you have paid “help” doing the dirty work). This was a war for profit, pure and simple (except the ordinary folk over there, some of them, STILL don’t realize it, and they were played for the suckers by the hateful nationalist propaganda). And no, no-one invited the US over there, what are you talking about, did you read a word of what I said? They did it all by themselves, like I said.

    So, in your opinion, everywhere there’s bad stuff happening in the world, the US must be the mastermind, right? Without the US, there wouldn’t be wars, killing, etc., right? Other peoples are incapable of such things, right? When other people do bad things you feel free to interfere and hold the US, not them, responsible?

  39. John Wilkinson said on May 27th, 2008 at 10:50pm #

    the ones who committed more (the bulk of) attrocities, were the ones who held the weapons caches of the army, and thus had more weapons. so, simple math there, not any genetic predisposition to badness.

  40. Shabnam said on May 27th, 2008 at 11:00pm #

    I am surprised to see some of the readers of this site have difficulties to
    understand why we say American empire. They have NO CONFIDENCE and have accepted the image of themselves which has been defined by the empire:
    ” we are a bunch of savages or monkeys or children. We are incapable of independent thoughts and actions, we are incapable of realizing we did wrong, we are incapable of morality and qualms of conscience.”

    This is the description of those who have accepted, the “civilizing mission” of racists and warmongers who are pleased with those who are ……….. IN BLODD AND AMERICAN IN THOUGHS. Majority of elite of “developing countries” under the influence of major power have an image similar to this: “we are incapable of independent thought….” Because these people have been trained in the so called leading educational system of a dominant power and frankly their status as “elite” requires them to be dependent, servant and” incapable of morality and qualms of conscience.” These people have internalized the myth that is not equal to those who represent the civilizing mission rubbish and therefore they have accepted these people’s remedy to control their Feeling of INFERIORITY.
    Let me tell you that against these inferior, servant and immoral people are many who never accept this image as THEIR OWN IMAGE and actually they are fighting against oppressor and their enablers in the “developing countries” because they know the history of the empire and imperialism for the past 500 years and their policies in the colonies where they want to bring the indigenous population under control and therefore these people are determined by working together to maintain their destiny under their own control and cut the hegemony of those who want to bring every nation with their resources under their control to support WORLD GOVERNMENT of racists and mass murderers to reduce people to nothing but a petty consumer, if they can afford it, and themselves as producer and owner who dictate rules of the game.
    One of the old tools of the empire is “divide and conquer” which is used today in the targeted countries like Iran, Sudan and other countries besides occupied Iraq. Iraq has a soft partition now. This was the plan from the beginning. In fact the “new middle east” is based upon a divided and partitioned regional countries and creation of Kurdistan, a spy network of Israel, to weaken Iraq as an Arab state to improve Israel position in the region and make it easier to build Israel as a “regional power” against Iran which has historically been a regional power and more likely is going to remain as the regional power in the Middle East.
    What is the gain out of the partition of Yugoslavia? The only beneficiary is the empire. What does Kosovo, with 2 millions do? Kosovo is not able to become a great nation. Kosovo and other microscopic states where have been separated since the break down of Yugoslavia never going to be a great nation. But it is good for the empire to have many microscopic states in the UN to act as its allies to help the empire’s vicious goals. Examples are numerous around the world. Look at the divided Arab land where heads of the Arab states are nothing but puppets. The reason for partition and division is to weaken any movement that might challenge their power. It is easier to control and manipulate them. That’s why the United States extension of the British Empire is afraid of China and Russia and always they try to prevent these powerful states to work together. They want a weak Iran in the region to be able to control the country and its resources for their own plan against stronger states.

  41. John Wilkinson said on May 27th, 2008 at 11:30pm #

    and, hue, the shelling of sarajevo (a city of 350,000) for 3.5 long years by 2,000 pieces of heavy artillery didn’t happen, either, right. neither did the sniping. and no need for mass graves there either.

    they didn’t find american-made mass graves in iraq either, so no american attrocities must have occurred there. so, the left’s claim of 1 million dead there due to our invasion must be untrue, right? i am not justifying the iraq thing, just using your faulty logic.

  42. Shabnam said on May 28th, 2008 at 5:03am #

    and these supporters of the “civilizing mission” of racists and warmongers who are ….. IN BLOOD AND AMERICAN IN THOUGHTS
    do not know that Saddam and other dictators like the Shah, and many more around the world were let to power by American imperialism. The political party of Saddam, the Baath party, was let into power by the CIA. They found Saddam “strong” enough to do their job for them, killing of more than 30,000 Iraqis, mainly men, who wanted nothing but the best for their country under the pretext of “cold war” and “communism” to keep the middle east and its resources under their tight control to build their empire on cheap oil to protect their dictators and their investment against the population of these countries by selling these dictators their old weapon of mass destruction for billions of dollars of oil revenue that should have been spent in the country to expand their power and influence towards building WORLD GOVERNMENT of racist and war mongers with help of the internal enablers, like in Kosovo and north of Iraq with the help of the Kurdish terrorists today. The dictators were allowed and helped to build their interrogation centers and torture chambers to have the country under the American Imperialism, tomorrow may be Canadian or Australian imperialism but all coming from the same source, the British, against others. Let’s not forget more than 3 millions death in Vietnam, thousand of deaths in Iran, Chili, Congo, Sudan, Japan, Pakistan, Philippine, Indonesia and many more, all with the help of these racist and warmongers. Today, we are witnessing the same under phony “war on terror, which is nothing but destruction of the Islamic societies with its people and civilization to bring their resources and its people as cheap labor under full control to help Israel and expand their influence and power to bring down other strong states such as India, China, and Russia under their full control to bring the racist “civilizing mission” into conclusion. We never accept their rule, only the fools can do that.

  43. Hue Longer said on May 28th, 2008 at 5:57am #

    John, it sounded from your previous posts that you were exonerating the US (along with the UN) for attacking under false pretenses. If you’re agreeing that they did but you just needed to vent some steam on US leftists thinking that that’s all there was to it, cool…but you come off as a bit scattered. It sounds like there may may be some emotions getting in the way of saying what you’re trying to say. I’m trying to hear you, mate…and I’m sorry for any pain you have over what happened

  44. heike said on May 28th, 2008 at 7:38am #

    So much of this article is an excursion into revolutionary fantasyland. The above entry should enlighten on the Muhajadin; to suggest that the Clinton “regime” (!!) was responsible for importing them into Bosnia requires a fertile imagination. Atrocities in Bosnia have been extensively documented. If HL is somehow in denial about mass graves, he can input mass graves bosnia into Google and will get more than he bargained for.

    As a typical propagandist, Petras finds a few “sources” that would confirm his red-colored view of the world and simply glosses over all others. Stinnett’s work has been thoroughly debunked. Here’s an especially telling commentary by a cryptologist:

    Much has been written as well about the origins of the Korean War, and it is grotesque, as well as unscholarly to use the terminology of Petras to try to insinuate a sinister U.S. plot to take over Korea, north or south. Even a high school student studying world history knows that the June 25, 1950 attack by North Korea was preceded by Dean Acheson’s famous statement that Korea lies beyond the sphere of U.S. strategic interests.

    For the complete documentary record of the origins of the Korean War, please see:

  45. Lloyd Rowsey said on May 28th, 2008 at 8:01am #

    I wonder: are all you folks so happy to vent on US leftists just trying to get Dissident Voice to shut down it’s open-posting policy? Or asked another way: are you so ignorant of history as my father’s generation was, and believe the left and the right are interchangeable? (And the mama bear’s porridge was JUST RGHT — ie, in between?) God, you folks eat shit.

  46. John Wilkinson said on May 28th, 2008 at 12:03pm #

    So, OK, let’s say the Japanese sent cables to their ambassador in Berlin. Or the German ambassador in Tokyo sent cables to Hitler. What were those cables likely to say: ‘’Something big is coming. Prepare for imminent war with America”. They were not very likely to say, “Task force steaming to Pearl Harbor, will be there Dec. 7” (not even vice-adm. Nagumo in charge of the strike, knew when they would arrive at their destination, it depended on the weather). Why would they say something like that and jeopardize their secrecy, why would their ambassador or Hitler need to know these operational details? So the cables were not very useful to prepare for defense at a certain spot on a certain date. Maybe they just indicated Japan’s intention to declare war on America in the near future, not some sneak attack. And even if sneak attack, they could have attacked Alaska (e.g., the Aleutian Islands, which they did later in the war), Los Angeles, etc. There were other fleet harbors in the Pacific and California. Maybe Hawaii did make the most sense from the tactical and strategic point, but in war you never know, you can never predict what your enemy will do.

    If such cables had been intercepted and deciphered, all FDR had to do, was go before the American public and read the cables. Doesn’t such info signify a desire of Japan to enter war with the US? If so, then a state of war factually exists, and once known, it’s out of anyone’s hands, hostilities can begin at any time according to international law. Why would he need to keep anything secret, why would he need to jeopardize the fleet at Pearl Harbor and thus severely jeopardize the eventual outcome of the war? Or, another option, warn the Pearl Harbor commanders the attack was coming. Wouldn’t a frustrated attack be sufficient cause for war, yet leave the US in a much better position?

    Let’s look at the situation at that time. The US was woefully unprepared for any large scale war. Its industrial capacity was awesome, but its weapons inventory was minuscule compared to that of Germany, Japan, etc. If anything, FDR might have wanted to postpone entry into the war until these capacities had been built up (but for other reasons, explained above, he wouldn’t have wanted to wait too long). Just look at the awesome power of Japan vs. that of the US. The task force that was steaming toward Pearl Harbor had SIX large, fleet aircraft carriers, only a fraction of the total Japanese inventory. The total number of carriers in the ENTIRE US inventory at the time was 3. The carriers proved to be the decisive factor in the naval warfare, esp. in the Pacific.

    But that was not entirely settled at the time. Another view in the naval circles at the time, a continuation of the naval doctrine from previous times, was that the battleship would be the decisive factor. That’s why the battleship limits in the naval limitation treaty of 1922 had been violated by all the Axis countries in the 30s. And yes, the US had quite a few of the battleships itself (which later proved pretty useless in WW2, except for sinking Allied shipping by the Germans). So, it would have been particularly reckless to park (no – double park!!!) a large chunk of the US battleship inventory at Pearl Harbor, if someone had known the attack was coming. And no, you don’t build another battleship, or an aircraft carrier, in a day. Before Pearl Harbor, it took 39 months for a battleship and 32 months for a carrier. Even after, it was 32 and 15.

    Why would they want to fight Japan – and Germany (which would have automatically entered the war on behalf of Japan per the Axis treaties), with one hand tied behind their back? A two-ocean war, a several-continent war, with battle tested, well prepared opponents who seemingly could do nothing wrong in war, severely handicapped? Then you must believe that your elites are Gods (the American exceptionalism again), who could predict and control the future with such mastery, precision and certainty. (So what happened in the meantime, how did this magic capability evaporate all of a sudden?)

    This conspiracy theory of FDR’s foreknowledge is nothing new. For example, it is discussed (and debunked) on page 69-70 in the book “The Two-Ocean War” by Samuel Morison, copyright 1963. (Yes, there were cables – from the US ambassador in Tokyo, speculating on the Japanese capability to “rush headlong into a suicidal conflict with the US”, and “Japan’s resort…to war measures…may come with dramatic and dangerous suddenness.” This was November 3, 1941. This translates into foreknowledge of attack on Pearl Harbor?)

    And, by the way, at one point the writer states that “over 3,000” American servicemen perished at Pearl Harbor, while a bit later he states the number at 2,900 something. That indicates a lack of care and proof reading the article. The whole article is full of bold assertions, but very little evidence, we’re supposed to trust whatever appears in non-traditional media.

  47. John Wilkinson said on May 28th, 2008 at 6:33pm #

    And I have problems with the simplistic picture painted for korea and vietnam as well. Don’t get me wrong, vietnam especially was a terrible blunder and a terrible crime. But i don’t accept the picture of some malignant gathering of all the elite in this country, making sinister plans to screw us all, just for the sake of screwing us, each and every day, in some dark, smoke-filled room. All acting in concert, in perfect sync. And all so omnipotent and omniscient, those plans always so flawlessly executed for the Dark Side; and those plans always work so perfectly and so in sync with their interests which are always perfectly opposed to our interests.

    (This is notwithstanding the fact that slowly, inexorably, corruption is creeping in, into all facets of the government, the military, etc. It’s the mathematical (thus ultra-potent) law of increasing entropy, which can only be countered by inputs of energy to diminish it, but that’s a topic for another time).

    The elites are not a monolith. What is in the interest to the weapons industry may or may not be in the interest of the oil companies or the coal industry or the banks. What is in the interest of the Irish lobby may not be in the interest of our “special” relationship with Britain. And just like the president is not omnipotent – he’s severely constrained, so are these “elites”.

    Anyway, they had this dominoes theory, which made sense at the time (and maybe had some truth to it). So, yes, at the time of the cold war, with the nuclear-armed Soviet Union menacing us, yes, on some level, both Korea and Vietnam were deemed, by some, I believe earnestly, as somewhat of existential threat. Not right away, but down the road, when the whole world turned communist because we were asleep at the switch in korea and vietnam (i am just paraphrasing what they might have been thinking at the time). (Of course, the weapons complex might have wanted a war for their own reasons). So no, there were no sinister meetings in dark rooms finding ways how to screw us all. And guess what, the OTHER side, the Soviets, the Chinese, had the exact same theories and the exact same actions, they mirrored everything we did and vice versa. They saw themselves surrounded and acted accordingly. So, there was no question of vietnam being some economic market for chinese goods (China at the time was piss-poor and couldn’t feed its own people, the author forgets that, forgets Mao Tse Tung and his cultural revolution; and they had not had a friendly history with vietnam, which was mostly a Soviet client state). The Soviets didn’t benefit from vietnam economically (neither did the Chinese from Korea) – they sank enormous sums and aided them with weapons, in accordance with their own domino theory.

  48. John Wilkinson said on May 28th, 2008 at 6:40pm #

    as far as korea is concerned, one only need look at how the people in north korea are living, and how their leader is living (and compare that to South Korea), to see that there’s more to this than is superficially discussed in the article. now yes, the us could have (should have?) stayed out of this. but it wouldn’t have resulted in a utopia for the people there.

  49. Hue Longer said on May 29th, 2008 at 7:28am #


  50. heike said on May 29th, 2008 at 11:16am #

    Hey Lloyd: are you suggesting that the purpose of DV is to censor views that bring information that contradicts the party line? Or that people who bring forth such views are trying to get themselves censored? Just because people disagree with you does that mean they are ignorant? If DV were consistent in its policy of shutting down people for personal attacks, they would push you off their board. In Russia, they refer to people like yourself as “nekulturniy.”

    And remember when to use “it’s” and “its.”

    p.s. go look up white supremacist websites like or

  51. Shabnam said on May 29th, 2008 at 12:18pm #

    “as far as korea is concerned, one only need look at how the people in north korea are living, and how their leader is living (and compare that to South Korea), to see that there’s more to this than is superficially discussed in the article.”

    What is really superficial is the analysis which has no value when the root causes are not mentioned. If South Korea is subjected to the same US economic and scientific sanction which has a phony name “UN sanction”, and South Korea is contained through military blockade then South Korea’s living condition will be deteriorated fast. People should remember what happened to Iraq before the invasion where Iraq with natural resources and educated labor force became poor and destitute where the country lost more than 650,000 people due to economic sanction and partial occupation. Targeted countries, such as North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan are subjected to severe sanction by the imperialist, Zionist and their servants who are …… IN BLOOD AND AMERICAN IN THOUGHT, for further action. This illegal sanction intends to disrupt the economic life of the country and brings unemployment and hunger and therefore riots, civil disobedience where leads to break down of the society. The first groups who are willing to give in and cooperate with the enemy are those who are designated as “elite” because they have the “education” and the language skill to be able to dissolve into the scum of the empire and “improve” themselves accordingly. Today, we are witnessing many Iranians who are in the business of NGO, to receive money from the intelligent organizations of the imperialist and Zionist, “to work” in many areas such as Women, youth, labor, human rights, and culture due to lack of job opportunities, to bring velvet revolution to speed up the process of the “regime change.” So, how long the puppet Kosovo and the Kurdish terrorists can survive if the imperialist and the Zionist impose the same type of sanction on these slaves? I bet you not long.

  52. hp said on May 29th, 2008 at 4:47pm #

    Kosovo houses the largest US military base since Vietnam. Camp bondsteel (“a smaller version of Guantanamo”). There’s a reason for Camp Bondsteel and it’s not to defend against Serbs, protect the “poor Albanians.”
    More than one commander said, after the assault and occupation, “we bombed the wrong side.”
    Such is multinational treason and treachery Inc.

  53. heike said on May 29th, 2008 at 7:24pm #

    HP: what other commander except Lewis MacKenzie said so? Did you know MacKenzie was on the Serb payroll? That he is a Muslim holocaust denier as far as Srebrenica is concerned? That he spread the lie that the Muslims bombed themselves to elicit Western sympathy? What did he protect when he was head of UNPROFOR?

  54. hp said on May 29th, 2008 at 9:45pm #

    My brother, for one.

  55. hp said on May 29th, 2008 at 10:03pm #

    Don’t forget, this was the precursor to Iraq, the newly founded, loudly touted “humanitarian intervention” excuse for invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation.
    The first time NATO, which had never fired one solitary bullet in fifty years, was unleashed against, basically, a civilian target along with their infrastructure. Pure war crimes in the name of humanitarianism.
    This also followed up Gulf War I in the use of prodigious amounts of DU in a civilian scenario.
    Ten years later we, and NATO, are still there.

  56. heike said on May 30th, 2008 at 5:13am #

    None of your links repeat the MacKenzie line. Frankly, if you are still fighting the “Srebrenica was a hoax” cause, you are really fighting a losing battle. The former president of the RS himself admitted to the atrocity and apologized to the rest of the world. Eight thousand bodies or parts thereof have been recovered. What’s your point? The Serbs are innocent little lambs? You don’t think for a minute that they committed any atrocities in Kosovo (not to mention Bosnia, Croatia), now do you?

  57. hp said on May 30th, 2008 at 1:11pm #

    You mean like Krajina?


  58. heike said on May 31st, 2008 at 5:06am #

    Almost the entire leadership of the RSK was indicted for war crimes! I spoke in Knin with Croatian women who had been ethnically cleansed and barely escaped with their lives when the Serbian paramilitary killers came to “purify” the land back in 1991. One of them was the infamous Arkan. If the name is new to you, I can enlighten you. You know the expression, “You reap what you sow”?

    Are you serious about using “Global Research” as an objective source? Look at the fantasies they publish on Srebrenica! Yes, it was all an American imperialist plot, now wasn’t it? Do you know the story of the RSK, or do you get all your “knowledge” from the radicals in Quebec?