Tag Archives: NATO

Cheney, the Turks, and Nuclear Proliferation


The exposure of the Valerie Plame Wilson and her CIA non-official cover Brewster Jennings & Associates front company and her official cover Counter-Proliferation Division colleagues by neo-con elements in the Bush administration has taken a deeper turn down the rabbit hole of the CIA Leakgate scandal. While the neo-cons in Washington and Jerusalem continue to rattle sabers against Iran’s nuclear program and were responsible for the phony intelligence on Iraq’s non-existent nuclear program, the very same neo-con elements have not only turned a blind eye to Turkey’s acquisition of nuclear technology but have been involved in the proliferation of such technology to and through Turkey. The interest of Brewster Jennings and the CIA in Turkish nuclear smuggling activities potentially involved moving up the food chain and stinging individuals close to Vice President Dick Cheney, including Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

Turkey, a country that has been a nexus of nuclear technology and drug smuggling and a center of attention for Russian, Israeli, and Turkish criminal syndicates, NATO, the powerful American Turkish Council and its defense contractor sponsors, the Mossad, the Turkish Armed Forces and MIT intelligence agency, the Abdul Qadeer (AQ) Khan nuclear smuggling network, and financiers of the so-called “Al Qaeda,” has been intent on acquiring nuclear technology for many years with scant western media attention. In the last several months, Turkey has made a hasty decision to build a nuclear reactor at the Black Sea port of Sinop, ironically the location of a former National Security Agency listening station that monitored, among other things, nuclear developments in the USSR.

The most likely choice has emerged as Canadian CANDU (CANada Deuterium Uranium reactors manufactured by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.). The main concern about these style reactors is the ease with which they can produce tritium. Tritium can be used as the trigger catalyst for both fission and fusion nuclear bombs. India’s 1998 nuclear test was accomplished with tritium from CANDU reactors. More ominously, CANDU reactors are ideal for producing weapons grade plutonium.

On November 4, 1996, an auto accident on the Susurluk-Bursa highway in Turkey focused the attention of Turks on the close ties between the Turkish government and narcotics and weapons smugglers. Killed in the car were police officer Husein Kotzadag, a close aide to Home Affairs Minister Mehmet Agar, a former high police official. Also killed was his fellow passenger, Abdullah Tzatli, the chief of the right-wing fascist Grey Wolves. Injured in the accident was Sedat Butzak, a member of Parliament for the right-wing DYP (True Path Party).

Tzatli was involved in the escape of Mehmet Ali Agca from a Turkish prison. Agca then traveled to Rome where he attempted to assassinate Pope John Paul II in 1981. Although the assassination attempt on the Pope was blamed on the Soviet KGB and Bulgarian intelligence, the plot was a “false flag” operation designed to ratchet up tensions with the Soviet Union at a time when a group of former Democratic Cold Warriors, who once nested in Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson’s office, became arch anti-Soviet officials in the Reagan administration. Many of these same individuals would later serve in the George W. Bush administration where they were not only the architects of America’s failed invasion and occupation of Iraq but were also deeply involved in the nuclear and narcotics smuggling activities of Turkey’s devlin deret (deep state).

Tzatli was also wanted on a number of Interpol red notices (criminal arrest warrants). However, his Turkish diplomatic passport managed to get him out of prison in France and Switzerland.

The CIA itself assisted members of the Turkish “deep state.” The agency was implicated in allowing a Interpol wanted, drug smuggler and Turkish government hit man, Abdullah Catli, to “escape” from a Swiss prison. Catli was serving time for conviction of heroin smuggling. Catli’s influence permitted Mesut Yilmaz to become the ANAP-Motherland Party’s chief leader and later Prime Minister of Turkey through the use of Catli’s “support” network in the eastern Turkish border regions. These support networks were directly involved in the smuggling of drugs and other illegal cargo. Both Tansu Ciller, a later DYP Prime Minister, and Yilmaz openly defended accusations of their supporting smuggling as necessary to defend the Turkish State against terrorists (i.e. Kurdish resistance). However, this was merely a reason for the state to be involved in narcotics smuggling. Yilmaz was charged by the State Public Prosecutor with corruption during his tenure as prime minister. He was found innocent under by the Supreme Court in 2006 in a case that lacked transparency. Three months ago, Yilmaz announced he would return to politics.

Mesut Yilmaz is allegedly a key element of the drug trade and money laundering and its international dimensions. Yilmaz’s nephew, Mehmet Kutman, is the owner/founder of Global Menkul Degreler (Global Securities). According to experienced Istanbul bankers, “They [Global Securities] came from nowhere” and quickly amassed enough money to compete with the top echelons of Turkish banking and brokerage houses. Kutman, on a personal level, has made hundreds of millions of dollars from insider information passed on by his uncle’s political appointees in Ankara. In 1999, it was reported by the Cumhurriyet newspaper that he made 2.5 billion US dollars from advance information gleaned from IMF documents held by Ankara authorities and leaked to him by his uncle.

Global Securities is also reportedly a linchpin in transfer and laundering of the Turkish state illicit drug money. His blatant flouting of the law has earned Kutman a number of enemies in Turkey. A failed bomb attempt on his life last year was largely unreported by the media. Currently, the largest retail stock broker in Turkey, Global Securities is suspected of involvement in worldwide drug laundering activities.

The largest port in Turkey, Kusadasi, was refinanced in a deal through Global Securities that enabled the Romanian-born Israeli shipping billionaire Sami Ofer (owner of Zim Shipping) to acquire the largest stake. Later, Zim shipping tendered a bid to acquire and develop the largest port in Istanbul, Galataport. The Turkish Maritime Authority overturned Zim shipping’s winning bid when it learned that the Turkish government granted a hugely favorable financing scheme to Zim Shipping.

The Turkish government also secretly sold 15 percent of the state owned oil firm TUPRAS through Global Securities. Turkish courts overturned this sale after the Islamist AKP Party Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, admitted that he had being lying about a personal relationship with Zim after newspapers disclosed his travel tickets to the Far East with Ofer. Erdogan also equivocated about his meeting with Ofer’s son, Eyal, at the annual elitist gab fest at Davos, Switzerland. In fact, the relationship between the Islamist Erdogan and Ofer are so close, Ofer has publicly referred to Erdogan as the “second Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.” Ataturk is the revered founder of the modern Turkish state.

Recently, the Italian bank IMI (Banca IMI) purchased 90 percent of Global Securities. Banca IMI is reported to be involved in narcotics money laundering. Banca IMI also just purchased the American Bank of Albania in Kosovo. In May, IMI bought the Albanian-Italian Bank. Kosovo, a UN-run contrivance that is protected by the United States military, is a well-known distribution center for Turkish refined heroin from a current bumper crop of opium in American and NATO-occupied Afghanistan.

There has also been a recent rush by neo-con influenced media empires to acquire Turkish media enterprises. For example, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation recently purchased Turkey’s huge TGRT television network, while CanWest Global, which is owned by hard-line supporters of Israel’s Likud Party, purchased Turkish radio stations Super FM and Metro FM, with the help of Global Securities.

The Brewster Jennings & Associates/CIA interest in Turkey’s role in nuclear proliferation led to individuals with ties to Cheney’s office.

How does Israel figure into a government led by Turkish Islamists? Global Securities’ Mehmet Kutman introduced Prime Minister Erdoğan to Sami Ofer in order to gain political support for Zim’s bid for the Istanbul port. There is now a nuclear reactor suddenly announced by Erdogan to be built in Sinop. Along with the reactor, a huge port facility is to be announced for the city of only 250,000. Zim Shipping is bidding for the Sinop port construction. Some observers believe that Zim wants to be close to the Afghan opium trans-shipments to Europe through a modern port on the Black Sea.

Others say it is part of a Israeli-Turkish ploy to provide cover for the CANDU nuclear reactors and secretly extract weapons grade plutonium from the reactor. Global Securities’ Canadian co-owner is currently being investigated by the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) for not reporting undisclosed assets—million dollar homes on the Aegean Sea and in the United States.

Bringing together an Islamist Party and Israel would, at first, appear to be an awkward alliance. However, there is a track record between Israel and Dubai, the financial center that helped transfer money from Pakistan to the 911 hijackers. When the Bush administration was hammering out a deal to allow Dubai Ports World to manage ports throughout the United States, there was a huge public outcry. However, support for Dubai Ports World soon came from an unusual source: Zim Shipping. The defense of Dubai Ports World, owned by the Dubai government, came despite the obvious prohibition of the UAE to do business with Israel pursuant to the Arab Boycott.

The US also arrested an South African Orthodox Jewish businessman named Asher Karni for selling nuclear parts to Pakistan via Dubai interlocutors. Karni’s friend, Zeki Bilmen of New Jersey-based Giza Technologies, a Turkish Jewish businessman, was also implicated in selling nuclear triggered spark caps to Pakistan. And one company suddenly moved out of the World Trade Center North Tower to Norfolk, Virginia with its 200 workers shortly before 9-11, in order to “save on rent” despite a decades long presence and forfeiture of a $50,000 lease guarantee. That company — Zim Shipping.

On June 13, 2006, WMR reported the following: The Turkish nexus of the Karni-Bilmen-Humayun [Khan]/A Q Khan smuggling network was of primary interest to both the CIA and FBI. It is also noteworthy that Judge [Thomas]Hogan, who dealt with the Karni case, was also the judge who ordered the FBI raid of Louisiana Democratic Representative William Jefferson’s congressional office. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who has reportedly been under investigation for receiving Turkish campaign donations and his ties to [Jack] Abramoff, strongly condemned the FBI raid of Jefferson’s office. After Hastert’s protests, the Justice Department leaked word to the media that the Abramoff scandal extended to include Hastert. Essentially, Abramoff money was being used by the Justice Department as a weapon against Bush administration critics. WMR has also learned that Abramoff’s money was also used to blackmail other members of Congress who were investigating the Israeli connection to nuclear smuggling and the A Q Khan network.Source


NATO Operation Gladio: the secret war on Europe (pdf)

Read more here,download and save.
daniele ganser – nato’s secret armies – operation gladio and terrorism in western europe

INTRODUCTION As the Cold War ended, following juridical investigations into mysteriousacts of terrorism in Italy, Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti was forcedto confirm in August 1990 that a secret army existed in Italy and other countriesacross Western Europe that were part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO). Coordinated by the unorthodox warfare section of NATO, the secretarmy had been set up by the US secret service Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)and the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6 or SIS) after the end of theSecond World War to fight Communism in Western Europe. The clandestine network, which after the revelations of the Italian Prime Minister was researched by judges, parliamentarians, academics and investigative journalists across Europe, is now understood to have been code-named ‘Gladio’ (the sword) in Italy,while in other countries the network operated under different names including’Absalon’ in Denmark, ‘ROC’ in Norway and ‘SDRA8’ in Belgium. In each country the military secret service operated the anti-Communist army within the state in closecollaboration with the CIA or the MI6 unknown to parliaments and populations.In each country, leading members of the executive, including Prime Ministers,Presidents, Interior Ministers and Defence Ministers, were involved in the daniele ganser – nato’s secret armies – operation gladio and terrorism in western europe conspiracy, while the ‘Allied Clandestine Committee’ (ACC), sometimes also euphemistically called the ‘Allied Co-ordination Committee’ and the ‘Clandestine Planning Committee’ (CPC), less conspicuously at times also called ‘Coordination and Planning Committee’ of NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe(SHAPE), coordinated the networks on the international level. The last confirmed secret meeting of ACC with representatives of European secret services took place on October 24, 1990 in Brussels.As the details of the operation emerged, the press concluded that the ‘story seems straight from the pages of a political thriller’.
The secret armies were equipped by the CIA and the MI6 with machine guns, explosives, munitions andhigh-tech communication equipment hidden in arms caches in forests, meadow sand underground bunkers across Western Europe. Leading officers of the secretnetwork trained together with the US Green Berets Special Forces in the United States of America and the British SAS Special Forces in England. Recruitedamong strictly anti-Communist segments of the society the secret Gladio soldiers1

Wikileaks : Libya,Raytheon,Bhopal,Lockheed,Chavez and the US

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered “global intelligence” company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal’s Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor’s web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.
Re: [alpha] INSIGHT – Some thoughts on US, UK, France, Turkey
Email-ID 67353
Date 1970-01-01 01:00:00
From bhalla@stratfor.com
To alpha@stratfor.com
no one said the entire reason Libya is happening is because of these
reasons. what they were explaining was that on the mil side of the
equation, they’re getting a lot out of the mission and it’s not a total
drain on them


From: “Marko Papic”
To: “Alpha List”
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 11:11:53 AM
Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT – Some thoughts on US, UK, France, Turkey

Zagros… sounds like Lord of the Rings (yes, I know, the mountains).

I call bullshit on the entire reason Libya is happening is so that
Americans can teach UK-France how to do command and control. That is
post-facto reasoning by military guys who see that as the biggest
positive, so they are rationalizing it after the fact.

On 5/19/11 10:50 AM, Emre Dogru wrote:

Yeah, same in NATO. NATO sometimes organizes simulations based on
totally faked countries, flags and geography. I worked in one of those.
But this one is a bit different. Because everything is based on real
facts except for Iran.


From: “scott stewart”
To: “Alpha List”
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 6:44:32 PM
Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT – Some thoughts on US, UK, France, Turkey

But that is actually a pretty common longstanding practice.

When I was in the Army used to always make up goofy country names for
the scenarios we created for exercises. But of course anybody who read
the scenario could tell exactly what country the scenario was referring

From: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:alpha-bounces@stratfor.com] On
Behalf Of Emre Dogru
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 11:38 AM
To: Alpha List
Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT – Some thoughts on US, UK, France, Turkey

hahaha, gotta love this part. and you know why

They’re about to do what sounds like a pretty elaborate war game within
NATO, and they complain that every time they do this, they’re not
allowed to call Iran ‘Iran’ in the game. It’s referred to as ‘Zagros’.
Why? Because the Turks insist on not calling Iran by it’s name in these


From: “Reva Bhalla”
To: “Alpha List”
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 6:24:55 PM
Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT – Some thoughts on US, UK, France, Turkey

My briefing yesterday with the USAF’s strategy group was to help prep
the USAF chief of staff before his trip to Turkey the first week of
June. In this meeting, there was a US lt col, French lt col guy and
British group captain, as well as the Europe guy from the State Dept’s
Office of the Secretary (who I completely owned in the discussion. he
finally quit trying and then literally applauded stratfor’s knowledge of
these issues). Most of the discussion I had with them centered on our
view on Turkey, the intermarium, Turkey’s power struggle, etc. so
nothing new to add there. The State Dept is still trying to wrap its
head around how to deal with Turkey more effectively when it’s becoming
clear that Turkey isn’t ready to handle everything on its plate. THere’s
also a lack of understanding on why Azerbaijan matters in this mix.
They’re about to do what sounds like a pretty elaborate war game within
NATO, and they complain that every time they do this, they’re not
allowed to call Iran ‘Iran’ in the game. It’s referred to as ‘Zagros’.
Why? Because the Turks insist on not calling Iran by it’s name in these

When I brought up Libya, and asked what’s next in terms of the air
campaign, the British adn French guys had an interesting response. The
talk of UK only having 6 more months of funding for this air campaign is
all about inter-service rivalry, justifying budgets, etc. The Brits and
the French really don’t seem concerned at all about the financial
aspect. THey said it’s an expense, but it’s not expensive. It’s costing
each 1.3 million euro per month to do Libya (including the daily patrols
and everything else). By comparison, Afghanistan costs them 1.4 million
per month.

They are fine with the stalemate. The British guy, who had met with the
British air force chief a few days ago, said that no one is really
trying to force the issue at this point. the rebels don’t want to ask
for state recognition until they get the West back. No one seems really
prepared to force regime change and give that commitment, but they’re
willing to wait this one out until something gives within to make
Ghadafi fall (non-militarily.)
The money isn’t what matters. What the Brits and the FRench are really
getting out of this mil campaign is a good, hard lesson from their
“American cousins” on command and control for these missions. The lesson
here is vital for them. THey gave all sorts of examples. When the LIbya
campaign began, France was still coordinating its mission with the UK
through this lt col French liaison in the Pentagon instead of directly
with UK. Now, finally, the Brits have set up a command office in Paris
for them to coordinate. Little things like that make a huge difference,
and the US is helping them along the way so that they can prove they can
do missions like this more independently and manage their neighborhood.
Classic balance of pwoer, as they put it. French-UK cooperation has
really benefited from this whole thing. They could really care less that
it’s about Libya. They see this mission as a very useful boost for NATO
and that this raises the bar for new entrants.

I countered that you can’t consider it a boost for NATO when you’re
missing GERMANY (!) They acknowledged that NATO’s original purpose is
broken. These regional realignments, with France, UK adn US working
closely together is the new future. They still seem to think that
despite warming German-Russian ties, they don’t need to worry yet about
Germany. Their military is still largely seen as irrelevant, and so in
that sense, NATO is still doing the job of keeping Germany down and
Russia out.

The French guy joked that now Strauss-Kahn is out of the running,
Sarkozy doesn’t need to continue the war in Libya anymore. He’s got the

Emre Dogru
Cell: +90.532.465.7514
Fixed: +1.512.279.9468

Emre Dogru
Cell: +90.532.465.7514
Fixed: +1.512.279.9468

Marko Papic
Senior Analyst
+ 1-512-744-4094 (O)
+ 1-512-905-3091 (C)
221 W. 6th St, Ste. 400
Austin, TX 78701 – USA


The Globalization of War

The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest.

The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.

The concept of the “Long War” has characterized US military doctrine since the end of World War II. The broader objective of global military dominance in support of an imperial project was first formulated under the Truman administration in the late 1940s at the outset of the Cold War.

In September 1990, some five weeks after Saddam Hussein’s Iraq invaded Kuwait, US President and Commander in Chief George Herbert Walker Bush delivered a historical address to a joint session of the US Congress and the Senate in which he proclaimed a New World Order emerging from the rubble of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union.

Bush Senior had envisaged a world of “peaceful international co-operation”, one which was no longer locked into the confrontation between competing super powers, under the shadow of the doctrine of “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD) which had characterized the Cold War era.

George H Walker Bush addressed a Joint Session
of the US Congress and the Senate, September 1990

Bush declared emphatically at the outset of what became known as “the post-Cold War era” that:

“a new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times… a new world order can emerge: A new era freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony.”

Of course, speeches by American presidents are often occasions for cynical platitudes and contradictions that should not be taken at face value. After all, President Bush was holding forth on international law and justice only months after his country had invaded Panama in December 1989 causing the deaths of several thousand citizens – committing crimes comparable to what Saddam Hussein would be accused of and supposedly held to account for. Also in 1991, the US and its NATO allies went on to unleash, under a “humanitarian” mantle, a protracted war against Yugoslavia, leading to the destruction, fragmentation and impoverishment of an entire country.

Nevertheless, it is instructive to use Bush Senior’s slanted vision of a “New World Order” as a reference point for how dramatically the world has changed in the intervening 20 years of the so-called post-Cold War era, and in particular how unilaterally degenerate the contemporary international conduct of the US has become under the Clinton, G. W. Bush Junior and Obama administrations.

Bush Senior’s “promise” of world peace has opened up, in the wake of the Cold War, an age of continuous warfare accompanied by a process of economic dislocation, social devastation and environmental degradation.

In a bitter irony, this concept of peaceful international co-operation and partnership was used as a pretext to unleash The Gulf War, which consisted in “defending the sovereignty” of Kuwait and “upholding international law” following the Iraqi 1990 invasion.

Global Warfare

We are dealing with a global military agenda, namely “Global Warfare”. Far from a world of peaceful cooperation, we are living in a dystopian world of permanent wars – wars that are being waged in flagrant contravention of international law and against public opinion and interest.

Far from a “new era more secure in the quest for peace” we may see a world more akin to George Orwell’s 1984, dominated by perpetual conflict, insecurity, authoritarian surveillance, doublethink and public mind control.

A problem for many citizens is that “doublethink and mind control” have become so deeply embedded and disseminated by the mass media, including the so-called quality free press, such as The New York Times and The Guardian.

The Post 9/11 Era: America’s Doctrine of Pre-emptive Warfare

Allegedly sponsored by Al Qaeda, the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon played a central role in molding public opinion. One of the main objectives of war propaganda is to “fabricate an enemy”. The “outside enemy” personified by Osama bin Laden is “threatening America”.

Pre-emptive war directed against “Islamic terrorists” is required to defend the Homeland. Realities are turned upside down: America is under attack.

In the wake of 9/11, the creation of this “outside enemy” served to obfuscate the real economic and strategic objectives behind the American-led wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. Waged on the grounds of self-defense, the pre-emptive war is upheld as a “just war” with a humanitarian mandate.

“The Outside Enemy” Osama bin Laden, portrayed by the mainstream

From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in the early 1980s, the US intelligence apparatus has supported the formation of the “Islamic brigades”. Propaganda purports to erase the history of Al Qaeda, drown the truth and “kill the evidence” on how this “outside enemy” was fabricated and transformed into “Enemy Number One”.

The US intelligence apparatus has created it own terrorist organizations. And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist warnings concerning the terrorist organizations which it has itself created. Meanwhile, a cohesive multibillion dollar counterterrorism program “to go after” these terrorist organizations has been put in place.

Instead of “war” or “state terrorism”, we are told of “humanitarian intervention” directed against “terrorists”.

Instead of “offence”, we are told of “defense” or “protection”.

Instead of “mass murder” we are told of “collateral damage”.

A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. The perpetrators of war are presented as the victims. Public opinion is misled: “We must fight against evil in all its forms as a means to preserving the Western way of life.”

Breaking the “Big Lie” which presents war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.

Spawning Militarism: “War is Normal”

In truth, as this new Interactive Reader from Global Research will demonstrate, we are living in an era hallmarked by “The Globalization of War” conducted by the very states that proclaim to be defenders of democratic rights and international law.

The chief protagonist of this globalized war is the United States of America. The US, along with its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Britain, France, Canada and Germany among others, as well as an array of proxies – such as the Persian Gulf Arab states – is now emboldened to strike militarily in any region of the world.

It should be noted that on a tour of the Asia-Pacific region in November 2011, US President Barack Obama’s rhetoric was laden with bellicose statements towards China, citing the latter as a military threat to the hemisphere that the United States was ready to confront. Obama’s aggressive rhetoric towards Beijing should have been widely seen as unprecedented and unacceptable. But from a reading of the Western mainstream media, the warmongering by the US president was somehow made into normal, reasonable discourse.

This spawning militarism is rationalized with a variety of seemingly palatable pretexts: securing the world against “Islamic terrorism”, as in Afghanistan; securing the world against “weapons of mass destruction”, as in Saddam’s Iraq and currently Iran; defending human rights, as in Libya; humanitarian intervention, as in Somalia; and protecting small nations, as in confronting China on behalf of Southeast Asian states, or constructing a Ballistic Missile Defense system along the Eastern European borders of Russia. And again, the Western mainstream media plays a huge role in rationalizing the irrational, normalizing the abnormal, justifying the unjustifiable – akin to the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984.

We may accept these pretexts at face value and attempt to “normalize” a world of seemingly chaotic conflicts, as the Western mainstream media would have us. Or we can choose to see the world as it really is, that is, one where such wars and war-making are correctly understood as abominations of international law and human relations.

It is our objective in this Interactive Reader to help citizens free themselves from the indoctrinated doublethink of “wars as normal”. In a global survey, we will show that the US and its allies are fulfilling an agenda of “full spectrum dominance” in which no nation deemed to be obstructing that agenda for domination by the US and its allies is tolerated, and is in fact made a target for war.

The dynamic for globalized war has deep historical roots in the imperialism of capitalist governments. Rivalry for the raw materials of capitalist economies and geopolitical control were at the root of World Wars I and II – See the essays by Jacques Pauwels on the role of corporate America in supporting both Britain and Nazi Germany. The same impetus lay behind countless invasions and proxy wars in Latin America, Asia and Africa by the US since World War II under the guise of “defending the free world from the Evil Soviet empire”.

But with the collapse of the Soviet Union as a countervailing power, the US and its allies have become uninhibited over the past two decades to “go it alone” to assert imperial dominance. This dynamic has only been reinforced by the economic exhaustion of the capitalist powers since the onset of the financial crisis of 2008. Indeed, the rise of militarism can be seen as a compensatory corollary of their economic demise – a demise that is structural and deeply protracted beyond anything that may be deemed as the usual “end of business cycle”. We are perhaps witnessing an historic collapse in the capitalist system far greater in scope than the Great Depression. And with that, disturbingly, the rise of militarism takes on a much greater significance.

Crucial to the global control of resources are the raw materials of energy: oil and gas. Whether it is wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, or confrontation with Iran, China, Russia and Venezuela, the fundamental point of contention is control over this lifeblood of the capitalist economy. All other espoused pretexts are mere window dressing, regardless of what the mainstream media would have us believe.

World War III Scenario

The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran – which has the world’s third largest known reserves of oil behind Saudi Arabia and Iraq – has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon since 2005.

If such a war were to be launched, the entire Middle East/Central Asia region would be drawn into a conflagration. Humanity would be precipitated into a World War III scenario.

Incredibly, the very real danger of World War III is not front-page news. The mainstream media has excluded in-depth analysis and debate on the implications of these war plans. The onslaught of World War III, were it to be carried out, would be casually described as a “no-fly zone”, an operation under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) with minimal “collateral damage” or as “surgical” punitive bombings against specific military targets, all of which purport to support “global security” as well as “democracy” and human rights in the targeted country.

NATO’s “Humanitarian Intervention”
Mandate defined in an ICISS report on R2P

Public opinion is largely unaware of the grave implications of these war plans, which contemplate the use of nuclear weapons, ironically in retaliation to Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program. Moreover, 21st Century military technology combines an array of sophisticated weapons systems whose destructive power would overshadow the nuclear holocausts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Lest we forget, the United States is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians.

Militarization at the global level is instrumented through the US military’s Unified Command structure: the entire planet is divided up into geographic Combatant Commands under the control of the Pentagon. According to former NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon’s military road-map consists of a sequence of war theaters: “[The] five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.” Like a cancer, the US war unleashed in 2003 on Iraq is mutating into a global disease.

While The New York Times and other mainstream media outlets hailed 15 December 2011 as marking the “official” end of the nearly nine-year US war in Iraq, in reality that devastated country will remain an American war theater for the foreseeable future. Pentagon military advisers and contractors will continue to reside there and the people of Iraq will for generations be left with a legacy of US-imposed conflict and barbarity. The Pentagon’s “shock and awe” campaign in Iraq may have subsided, but its repercussions and criminal precedents are still very much extant, not only in Iraq but in the wider region and, increasingly, globally.

The 2000 Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was the backbone of the NeoCon’s agenda, was predicated on “waging a war without borders”. The PNAC’s declared objectives were to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars” in different regions of the world as well as perform the so-called military “constabulary” duties “associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions”. Global constabulary implies a worldwide process of military policing and interventionism, including covert operations and “regime change”.

This diabolical military project formulated by the NeoCons was adopted and implemented from the very outset of the Obama administration. With a new team of military and foreign policy advisers, Obama has been far more effective in fostering military escalation than his White House predecessor, George Bush Junior, who has recently been condemned by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal for “Crimes against the Peace”.

This continuum of the military agenda testifies to the fact that the two governing parties in the US, Democrat and Republican, are but two sides of a centrally planned military-industrial complex that is impregnable to the opinions, desires and interests of the American electorate.

Military Escalation and Preview of this Book

Contrary to the myth of “the good war”, we show in this Interactive Reader that the US entry into World War II was a deliberate strategy for self-serving imperialist gains. While the men and women who fought that war may have had moral convictions, the planners in Washington were operating on calculations of geopolitical control that had little to do with morals or legal principles – see the essays by Jacques Pauwels. The dropping of atomic bombs on Japan by the US in August 1945, obliterating hundreds of thousands of civilians, was an act of heinous barbarity that reflected the callousness of America’s imperial design. The nuclear holocaust also set the nefarious parameters of the subsequent Cold War that gripped the world for nearly five decades following World War II. Essays by Brian Willson, Alfred McCoy and Michel Chossudovsky illustrate how the Pentagon’s genocidal wars in Asia were a continuation of America’s imperialist design – albeit under the cover of the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

Hiroshima mushroom cloud. By executive order of President
Harry S. Truman, the U.S. dropped the nuclear bomb “Little Boy”
on Hiroshima, Monday, August 6, 1945

Nagasaki, August 9, 1945

Survivors: August 1945. In the wake of Hiroshima

The fall of the Soviet Union may have brought an end to the Cold War, but soon the US would find new pretexts for waging war on the world and asserting hegemony on behalf of its capitalist allies. These new pretexts included “upholding international law” as in the First Gulf War against Iraq that Bush Senior embarked on in 1990, presaging the Second Gulf War that Bush Junior would reprise in 2003. And the US planners innovated the “humanitarian” pretext for the invasion of Somalia in 1991 and NATO’s war on Yugoslavia – see the essay by Sean Gervasi among others. In many ways, the “humanitarian war” in Yugoslavia served as the prototype for NATO’s 2011 military attack on Libya and what appears to be an imminent onslaught against Syria – see essays by Rick Rozoff and Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya.

To the Pentagon’s silo of propaganda justifying “wars without borders” we have the additional pretexts of the “global war on terrorism” and “pre-emptive strikes against weapons of mass destruction”. Fittingly, as Washington’s wars multiply, so too it seems have the phony pretexts for these wars, as the essays on Iraq and Afghanistan by Felicity Arbuthnot and Jack Smith reveal.

Permanent Belligerence: The Globalization of War

In Part VII, which also serves as the title of this Online Interactive E-Reader, The Globalization of War, we show how American-led imperialism has evolved from bloody bouts of episodic militarism over several decades to the present day state of permanent belligerence, with wars or war-making stretching from North and East Africa into the Middle East and Central Asia and beyond to Eurasia (Russia), the Far East (China) and Arctic (Russia again) – See the essays by James Petras, Rick Rozoff, Peter Dale Scott, F. William Engdahl, Finian Cunningham, the interview with Fidel Castro, Michel Chossudovsky and Jules Dufour.
Of most immediate concern are the ongoing American-led war plans within the broader Middle East/Central Asian region involving coordinated actions against Iran, Syria and Pakistan – see essays by Michel Chossudovsky, Tom Burghardt, Rick Rozoff and Mahdi Nazemroaya.

Were these war plans to be carried out, this would lead to an extended regional war theater. The three existing and distinct war theaters (Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine) would merge into a broad regional war extending from the Lebanese-Syrian East Mediterranean coastline to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with Western China. Israel, Lebanon and Turkey would be engulfed in a conflict that would herald World War III.

Building an Effective Antiwar Movement

Meanwhile, the antiwar movement is in crisis: civil society organizations are misinformed, manipulated or co-opted. A large segment of “progressive” opinion is supportive of NATO’s R2P “humanitarian” mandate to the extent that these war plans are being carried out with the “rubber stamp” of civil society.

There is an urgent need to rebuild the antiwar movement on entirely new premises.

The holding of mass demonstrations and antiwar protests is not enough. What is required is the development of a broad and well-organized grassroots antiwar network, across the land, nationally and internationally, which challenges the structures of power and authority. People must mobilize not only against the military agenda – the authority of the state and its officials must also be challenged.

Challenging and defeating the US/NATO global war agenda is profoundly predicated on the mass of people in Western countries asserting democratic governance and the genuine “rule of the people”. It will involve the mass of people breaking out of the two-party charade that hitherto passes for “democracy” – not only in the US but also in other Western states ­– to form new political organizations that truly represent the needs and interests of the majority of people. War-making, as with servile abeyance to corporate and financial elites, is endemic to the dominant political parties. It must be realized that voting for these same parties has become futile as a means to effect democratic change.

One practical way forward is for citizens to empower themselves legally. It should be understood that whatever its justification, war is a “Crime against the Peace” under Nuremberg. George Walker Bush and former British Prime Minister Anthony L. Blair have been condemned by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal for waging a criminal war of aggression against Iraq. They are war criminals and citizens’ initiatives that are growing across the world for the arraignment of Bush and Blair are one practical step towards mobilizing a popular challenge to the war system.

War crimes, however, are not limited to the former US president and British prime minister. There are “New War Criminals on the Block”. They include the current president of the United States, Barack Obama, among others. The acting heads of state and heads of government who support US-NATO-Israel wars of aggression are also war criminals under international law. This proposition, which consists in unseating the war criminals in high office, is central to the waging of an effective antiwar movement.

It is also our intention to show citizens that the root cause of war lies in the prevailing, but failing, global capitalist economic system – the very system that is not only destroying lives in foreign countries but which is destroying the material and moral foundations of Western society.

We hope that this Interactive Reader, The Globalisation of War, will empower citizens to mount an all-encompassing social movement against this diabolical military agenda and for the establishment of real democracy.

Intracom,Selex,Syria,Raytheon and the Patriot Missiles

Why was Greece spending so much money on defense systems,and especially,via a doubted company involved in so many domestic scandals? Who entitled Intracom to conduct the defense contracts?Why we never knew of the Intracom/Selex?Syrian/Russian connections?Raytheon is the HAARP/OIL company.. What’s the game??

INTRACOM Defense Electronics, the largest Hellenic defense electronic systems manufacturer, has signed a new contract related to Patriot Air and Missile Defense System with RAYTHEON. The current agreement is worth $83.2 million and will be completed by the end of 2015. Furthermore INTRACOM Defense Electronics will allocate to other Greek companies a significant part of the project thus positively contributing in the industrial production of our country.

With this contract INTRACOM Defense Electronics based on its manufacturing capabilities, consistency, quality and cost competitiveness further enhances and solidifies its international presence and orientation, as indicated by the export activities that exceeded 98% of the company’s 2011 turnover.

About INTRACOM Defense Electronics

INTRACOM Defense Electronics, Greece’s largest defense electronics systems provider, is a subsidiary of Intracom Holdings, one of the largest multinational technology groups in Greece. The company designs, develops and manufactures state-of-the-art military communication systems, encryption devices, command, and communication systems (C³), missile electronic components, radars, simulators, and testing equipment. INTRACOM Defense Electronics participates in a number of domestic as well as international R&D and co-production programmes, and is a registered member on NATO’s vendors list. The Company’s products and services are deployed in Belgium, Cyprus, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the USA.

For more information please visit: http://www.intracomdefense.com

Syria : NATO's next "humanitarian" war

A report recently released by DEBKAfile, an Israeli military intelligence website, which is believed to have close links to Israeli intelligence sources, has shown that the UK is providing logistical support to armed terrorist groups in Syria.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Michel Chossudovsky, the director of the Centre for Research on Globalization in Montreal, Canada, to further discuss the issue.

The video offers the opinions of two additional guests: Sukant Chandan, a filmmaker and political commentator in London and Hisham Safiedding from Al Akhbar, a Lebanese daily published in Beirut.

The following is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Doesn’t this undermine the United Nations and its role, by the UK and Qatar, if this is true?

Chossudovsky: Well, I should disclose the fact that this news concerning British special forces is nothing new. There’s evidence of foreign interference in affairs of Syria, going back right to the beginning, when you know the… started in Dara’a, in southern Syria in March of 2011. We know, that these armed groups, which were recognized in fact in the Arab League report, are all supported by foreign powers, and they are operatives of those foreign powers on the ground inside Syria. We know that Turkey is involved, and we know that they are supporting those groups.

So in effect, what the report published by Debka, the intelligence news agency or related to the Israeli intelligence is suggesting is something we know already, that this insurrection, this armed insurrection, is supported by foreign powers. And in fact, we have previous reports to the fact that both NATO and Turkey are not only recruiting fighters to go in, mercenaries, but they are also training them…

Press TV: If they had been on a patch in terms of interference, their assistance and arming, was going to the UN then only a face-saving show for the world?

Chossudovsky: Well, it’s a face-saving show that had unexpected results. Because as you recall, the Arab League commissioned a mission to go into Syria, with a view of establishing the nature of this insurrection and the nature of the protest movement.

The assumption was that the Arab League would instruct its mission to toe the line of media disinformation and come up with a report saying, blaming the government for the civilian deaths, when in fact what they presented was a much more balanced report, where they said there is an armed entity, and that armed entity is committing crimes against the civilian population, killing people and involved in terrorists acts. And consequently it’s not an issue of blaming the Syrian authority, but one of acknowledging the existence of an armed insurrection.

And of course they didn’t mention who was behind it, but it ties in with other reports that we have that this armed insurrection is supported by foreign forces. I think that the issue of resolution between the government and the opposition is a red herring, because it can only proceed if these armed gangs are neutralized and that foreign forces withdraw from the country.


There is an opposition within Syria, but what is at stake, in this insurrection is not an opposition, these are mercenary forces. These are trained paramilitary, they are equipped with heavy machine guns and so on, but they’re not protesters.

The “protests” did not emanate from internal political cleavages as described by the mainstream media. From the very outset, they were the result of a covert US-NATO intelligence operation geared towards triggering social chaos, with a view to eventually discrediting the Syrian government of Bashar Al Assad and destabilizing Syria as a Nation State.

Since the middle of March 2011, Islamist armed groups –covertly supported by Western and Israeli intelligence– have conducted terrorist attacks directed against government buildings including acts of arson. Amply documented, trained gunmen and snipers including mercenaries have targeted the police, armed forces as well as innocent civilians. There is ample evidence, as outlined in the Arab League Observer Mission report, that these armed groups of mercenaries are responsible for killing civilians.

While the Syrian government and military bear a heavy burden of responsibility. it is important to underscore the fact that these terrorist acts –including the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children– are part of a US-NATO-Israeli initiative, which consists is supporting, training and financing “an armed entity” operating inside Syria.

The evidence confirms that foreign intelligence operatives, according to reports, have integrated rebel ranks:

“As the unrest and killings escalate in the troubled Arab state, agents from MI6 and the CIA are already in Syria assessing the situation, a security official has revealed. Special forces are also talking to Syrian dissident soldiers. They want to know about weapons and communications kit rebel forces will need if the Government decides to help.

“MI6 and the CIA are in Syria to infiltrate and get at the truth,” said the well-placed source. “We have SAS and SBS not far away who want to know what is happening and are finding out what kit dissident soldiers need.” ” Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star). (emphasis added)

The Free Syrian Army (FSA) is a creation of the US and NATO. The objective of this armed insurrection is to trigger the response of the police and armed forces, including the deployment of tanks and armored vehicles with a view to eventually justifying a military intervention, under NATO’s “responsibility to protect” mandate.

A NATO-led intervention is on the drawing board. It was drafted prior to the onset of the protest movement in March 2011. According to military and intelligence sources, NATO, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have been discussing “the form this intervention would take”.

US, British and Turkish operatives are supplying the rebels with weapons. Britain’s Ministry of Defence confirms that it “is drawing up secret plans for a NATO-sponsored no-fly zone [in coordination with its allies] “but first it needs backing from the United Nations Security Council.” (Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star). According to these secret plans: “fighting in Syria could be bigger and bloodier than the battle against Gaddafi”.(Ibid ).

A “humanitarian” military intervention modeled on Libya is contemplated. NATO Special Forces from Britain, France, Qatar and Turkey are already on the ground inside Syria in blatant violation of international law. Reports from British military sources (November 2011) confirm that:

“British Special forces have met up with members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA)… The apparent goal of this initial contact was to establish the rebel forces’ strength and to pave the way for any future training operations. … More recent reports have stated that British and French Special Forces have been actively training members of the FSA, from a base in Turkey. Some reports indicate that training is also taking place in locations in Libya and Northern Lebanon. British MI6 operatives and UKSF (SAS/SBS) personnel have reportedly been training the rebels in urban warfare as well as supplying them with arms and equipment. US CIA operatives and special forces are believed to be providing communications assistance to the rebels.” Elite Forces UK, January 5, 2012 (emphasis added)

The Social and Political Context in Syria

There is certainly cause for social unrest and mass protest in Syria: unemployment has increased in recent years, social conditions have deteriorated, particularly since the adoption in 2006 of sweeping economic reforms under IMF guidance. The later include austerity measures, a freeze on wages, the deregulation of the financial system, trade reform and privatization. (See IMF Syrian Arab Republic — IMF Article IV Consultation Mission’s Concluding Statement, 2006).

Moreover, there are serious divisions within the government and the military. The populist policy framework of the Baath party has largely been eroded. A faction within the ruling political establishment has embraced the neoliberal agenda. In turn, the adoption of IMF “economic medicine” has served to enrich the ruling economic elite. Pro-US factions have also developed within the upper echelons of the Syrian military and intelligence.

But the “pro-democracy” movement integrated by Islamists and supported by NATO and the “international community” did not emanate from the mainstay of Syrian civil society.

The wave of violent protests represents a very small fraction of Syrian public opinion. They are terrorist acts of a sectarian nature. They do not in any way address the broader issues of social inequality, civil rights and unemployment.

The majority of Syria’s population (including the opponents of the Al Assad government) do not support the “protest movement” which is characterised by an armed insurgency. In fact quite the opposite.

Ironically, despite its authoritarian nature, there is considerable popular support for the government of President Bashar Al Assad, which is confirmed by the large pro-government rallies.

Syria constitutes the only (remaining) independent secular state in the Arab world. Its populist, anti-Imperialist and secular base is inherited from the dominant Baath party, which integrates Muslims, Christians and Druze. It supports the struggle of the Palestinian people.

The objective of the US-NATO alliance is to ultimately displace and destroy the Syrian secular State, displace or co-opt the national economic elites and eventually replace the Syrian government of Bashar Al Assad with an Arab sheikdom, a pro-US Islamic republic or a compliant pro-US “democracy”.

Pro-government rally, Damascus, March 2011

The Insurgency: The Libya Model

The insurgency in Syria has similar features to that of Libya: it is integrated by paramilitary brigades affiliated to Al Qaeda, which are directly supported by NATO and Turkey.

Reports confirm that NATO and Turkey’s High Command are providing the rebels with weapons and training: “NATO strategists are thinking more in terms of pouring large quantities of anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars and heavy machine guns into the protest centers for beating back the government armored forces.” (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011)

Military sources also confirm that Syrian rebels “have been training in the use of the new weapons with Turkish military officers at makeshift installations in Turkish bases near the Syrian border.” (DEBKAfile, Ibid). Recent reports confirm that British and Qatari Special forces are on the ground in the city of Homs, involved in training rebel forces as well as organizing the supply of weapons in liaison with the Turkish military.

As in the case of Libya, financial support is being channelled to the Syrian rebel forces by Saudi Arabia: “Ankara and Riyadh will provide the anti-Assad movements with large quantities of weapons and funds to be smuggled in from outside Syria” (Ibid). The deployment of Saudi and GCC troops is also contemplated in Southern Syria in coordination with Turkey (Ibid).

NATO’s activities are not limited to training and the delivery of weapons systems, the recruitment of thousands of “freedom fighters”` is also envisaged, reminiscent of the enlistment of Mujahideen to wage the CIA’s jihad (holy war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:

This recruitment of Mujahideen was part of NATO`s strategy in Libya, where mercenary forces were dispatched to fight under the helm of “former” Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Commander Abdel Hakim Belhadj.

The Libyan model of rebel forces integrated by “Islamic brigades” together with NATO special forces has been applied to Syria, where “Islamist fighters” supported by Western and Israeli intelligence are deployed. In this regard, Abdel Hakim`s LIFG brigade has now been dispatched to Syria, where it is involved in terrorist acts under the supervision of NATO Special Forces.

The Central Role of US Ambassador Robert S. Ford

US Ambassador Robert S. Ford was dispatched to Damascus in late January 2011 at the height of the protest movement in Egypt. (The author was in Damascus on January 27, 2011 when Washington’s Envoy presented his credentials to the Al Assad government).

At the outset of my visit to Syria in January 2011, I reflected on the significance of this diplomatic appointment and the role it might play in a covert process of political destabilization. I did not, however, foresee that this destabilization agenda would be implemented within less than two months following the instatement of Robert S. Ford as US Ambassador to Syria.

The reinstatement of a US ambassador in Damascus, but more specifically the choice of Robert S. Ford as US ambassador, bears a direct relationship to the onset of the protest movement in mid-March against the government of Bashar al Assad.

Robert S. Ford was the man for the job. As “Number Two” at the US embassy in Baghdad (2004-2005) under the helm of Ambassador John D. Negroponte, he played a key role in implementing the Pentagon’s “Iraq Salvador Option”. The latter consisted in supporting Iraqi death squadrons and paramilitary forces modelled on the experience of Central America.

It is worth noting that Obama’s newly appointed CIA head, General David Petraeus played a key role the organization of covert support to rebel forces and “freedom fighters”, the infiltration of Syrian intelligence and armed forces, etc. Petraeus led the Multi-National Security Transition Command (MNSTC) “Counterinsurgency” program in Baghdad in 2004 in coordination with John Negroponte and Robert S Ford at the US Embassy in Baghdad.

Ambassador Ford in Hama in July 2011

The Insidious Role of the Western media

The role of the US-NATO-Israel military alliance in triggering an armed insurrection is not addressed by the Western media. Moreover, several “progressive voices” have accepted the “NATO consensus” at face value. The role of CIA-MI6 covert intelligence operations in support of armed groups is simply not mentioned. Salafist paramilitary groups involved in terrorist acts, are, according to reports, supported covertly by Israeli intelligence (Mossad). The Muslim Brotherhood has been supported by Turkey, as well as by MI6, Britain’s Secret Service (SIS) since the 1950s

More generally, the Western media has misled public opinion on the nature of the Arab protest movement by failing to address the support provided by the US State Department as well as US foundations (including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)) to selected pro-US opposition groups.

Known and documented, the U.S. State Department “has been been funding opponents of Syrian President Bashar Assad, since 2006. (U.S. admits funding Syrian opposition – World – CBC News April 18, 2011).

The protest movement in Syria was upheld by the media as part of the “Arab Spring”, presented to public opinion as a pro-democracy protest movement which spread spontaneously from Egypt and the Maghreb to the Mashriq. There is reason to believe, however, that events in Syria, however, were planned well in advance in coordination with the process of regime change in other Arab countries including Egypt and Tunisia.

The outbreak of the protest movement in the southern border city of Daraa was carefully timed to follow the events in Tunisia and Egypt.

In chorus they have described recent events in Syria as a “peaceful protest movement” directed against the government of Bashar Al Assad, when the evidence amply confirms that Islamic paramilitary groups are involved in terrorist acts. These same Islamic groups have infiltrated the protest rallies.

Western media distortions abound. Large “pro-government” rallies (including photographs) are casually presented as “evidence” of a mass anti-government protest movement. The reports on casualties are based on unconfirmed “eye-witness reports” or on Syrian opposition sources in exile. The London based Syria Observatory for Human Rights are profusely quoted by the Western media as a “reliable source” with the usual disclaimers. Israeli news sources, while avoiding the issue of an armed insurgency, tacitly acknowledge that Syrian forces are being confronted by an organized professional paramilitary.

The absence of verifiable data, has not prevented the Western media from putting forth “authoritative figures” on the number of casualties. What are the sources of this data? Who is responsible for the casualties?

Dangerous Crossroads: Towards a Broader Middle East Central Asian War

Escalation is an integral part of the military agenda. Destabilization of sovereign states through “regime change” is closely coordinated with military planning. There is a military roadmap characterised by a sequence of US-NATO war theaters.

War preparations to attack Syria and Iran have been in “an advanced state of readiness” for several years.

US, NATO and Israeli military planners have outlined the contours of a “humanitarian” military campaign, in which Turkey (the second largest military force inside NATO) would play a central role.

We are at dangerous crossroads. Were a US-NATO military operation to be launched against Syria, the broader Middle East Central Asian region extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with China would be engulfed in the turmoil of an extended regional war.

There are at present four distinct war theaters: Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine and Libya.

An attack on Syria would lead to the integration of these separate war theaters, eventually leading towards a broader Middle East-Central Asian war.

In Part I of the online interactive I-Book, an introductory essay is presented.

Part II examines the nature of the US-NATO-Israel sponsored insurgency, including the recruitment of terrorists and mercenaries. It also includes an examination of a 1957 Anglo-American covert intelligence plan to destabilize Syria and implement “regime change”. The 1957 plan envisaged the triggering of “internal disturbances as well as the mounting of “sabotage and coup de main (sic) incidents” by the CIA and MI6. What this essay suggests is continuity, i.e. today’s Intel. Ops, while more sophisticated than those of the Cold War era, belong to realm of DÉJÀ VU.

Part III examines the complicity of the “international community” focussing respectively on the role of non-governmental organizations, the dynamics within the United Nations Security Council and role of the Arab League, acting on behalf of Washington.

Part IV centers on the insidious role of the corporate media, which has carefully distorted the facts, providing systematically a biased understanding of the causes and consequences of the Syrian crisis.

Part V focusses on the broader military agenda and the process of military escalation in the Middle East.

The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO sponsored war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign (“regime change”) including covert intelligence operations in support of rebel forces directed against the Syrian government.

A war on Syria could evolve towards a US-NATO military campaign directed against Iran, in which Turkey and Israel would be directly involved. It would also contribute to the ongoing destabilization of Lebanon.

It is crucial to spread the word and break the channels of media disinformation.

A critical and unbiased understanding of what is happening in Syria is of crucial importance in reversing the tide of military escalation towards a broader regional war Source

NATO's future

THIS discussion was overshadowed by two events: the continuing peace talks in Kosovo; and the European Union’s announcement that it wanted to set up a defence body of its own. The panellists tended to view both these developments as broadly positive for both NATO and the western alliance. But there were still plenty of doubts raised — particularly about Europe’s relative lack of technological clout and political unity.

The European Union has always had a defensive component. The notion of politics and security was there at the beginning of the European enterprise; and there have been questions ever since about things like nuclear deterrence. As the European Union enlarges and becomes more integrated, its membership will become ever more similar to that of NATO, and the relationship between the two bodies will change.

The underlying issue is whether the aspirations correspond with the reality. The aspirations of the European Union are not clear. Indeed, the very fact that the European Union seems to be in the process of trying to define its identity shows that it does not have one. There are also neutral countries within the European Union. When the Berlin Wall came down, the first aspiration of many of the Eastern countries was to join the European Union; instead NATO expanded first.

There are two realities that matter. The first is that the European Union, as it becomes larger and more integrated, will become a military power, whether it wants that role or not. Indeed a common defence policy will correspond with the aims of the defence lobbies; budgets may only be justifiable if a country is contributing to a common EU force. The other reality is that

America has to be involved in the Continent’s defence. Once you accept those realities, you can look at issues such as what the new contract between NATO and the European Union ought to be. That debate should start now.

In an earlier discussion, another panellist suggested that Slobodan Milosevic might be the father of European integration. Kosovo has crystallised thinking about defence. This is a good process for the European Union to go through — even though it is not clear that it currently has the necessary political or technological ability.

Kosovo leaves us with various lessons: that American involvement is essential; that an integrated military structure is the only way to win a serious war; that, although NATO is a defensive organisation, it must still maintain an offensive threat. The question now is why we would want to change the roles of NATO and the European Union. One of the main answers is that we need to do so in order to keep America involved: we cannot expect America to police our backyard.

The new force is not an attempt to duplicate NATO, but to give Europe the capacity to act in a more limited way, and to put in place a decision making structure. This will strengthen the European Union, but only if it has the means to reach these ends. Most of Europe’s governments are weak. The convergence on the centre-left could help cohesion. But there still has to be more discipline. In terms of operating procedures, the new force should follow the same ones as NATO; it should intervene only after it has given peace a chance and when the military objectives are clear.

There has been a predictable series of delays at the border in Kosovo. But some kind of treaty looks likely. The next phase is bound to be difficult. The KLA is likely to pose problems; the Serbs will inevitably play games. There is the moral dilemma for the West of what to do with the war criminals, and the financial one of how to pay for reconstruction: the lion’s share of the reconstruction will come from

Europe. This will count as a big achievement for NATO. Only a few years ago many people would have considered an operation like Kosovo impossible — particularly with three new members.

NATO’s first 50 years were about ensuring stability in northern and central Europe, and bringing together Germany and France. The next 50 years may well be about southern central Europe. The cold war succeeded only in hiding the nationalist impulses in the region. It will take a long time for the wounds to be healed.

The Clinton Administration was wrong to set time limits in Bosnia. Now it should recognise that Yugoslavia and the Balkans is NATO’s new patch, and that the commitment there will be neither short-term nor cheap. And, needless to say, this environment will impact both the enlargement of NATO and how the organisation deals with the emerging EU defence force.

The Finnish president’s peace mission has been a great success. The prospect of a peace agreement gives a new perspective to the war in Kosovo. We are now returning to a multilateral European foreign policy, with, hopefully, the United Nations playing a prominent role and Russia not being excluded.

The immediate problem is the Kosovar refugees. But the only long-term guarantee of stability in the region will be when all the countries concerned become members of the European Union. In the meantime we have to concentrate on bringing these countries into a series of proper contractual relationships with each other. There also needs to be a stability pact for south-east Europe. This should be built around things like a basic respect for human rights, democracy and a functioning economy.

One conclusion is that two roads stretch in front of NATO. One leads to a new division of Europe, where the continent returns to its ethnocentric ways. Under this scenario, the UN is fairly powerless, Russia and China are excluded, and NATO is little more than an enforcer. The second road is a little closer to nineteenth century Europe, with all the great powers — not just America and the

European Union but Russia, China and Japan co-operating. The first road leads to Clausewitz; the second to Jean Monnet.

A persistent theme throughout the discussion was a sceptical desire to know more — both about the new European defence force and about the continuing repercussions of the war in Kosovo. The first speaker set the tone by asking how the new European force would fit into NATO’S command structure. Others followed with questions about where the force would operate and on what scale. One panellist insisted that the European Union and NATO should not be rival organisations. The current process was all about the European Union developing a force to deal with small, local crises in Europe before they became big ones. NATO had a much wider global parameter, in his view, and it concentrated on problems between countries, rather than ones inside them. But another panellist thought that NATO could never become a world-wide organisation. It was hard to imagine it intervening in Rwanda, even though the killing there had been on a much more savage scale.

Another set of questions were inspired by the apparent growing technological mismatch between the two continents. One speaker from the Netherlands explained that Europe’s total defence budget is around $290 billion against America’s $370 billion. But in terms of effectiveness, the gap is much larger. Europe’s true spending is probably a third of America’s. Like several other speakers, he argued that there must be more transatlantic integration both of defence forces and of defence companies. Some of the panellists though that much of the gap between America and Europe could be bridged by more effective spending.

One international participant argued that, on the evidence of Bosnia and Kosovo at least, the mismatch in hardware might be smaller than the software mismatch. America, he pointed out, wanted to use air power and also had the necessary offensive (as opposed to defensive) aircraft to do it. The Europeans seemed more comfortable with putting troops onto the ground. This mis-

match he argued might help even out the hardware disadvantage. But an American participant was much less confident. He did not think that NATO had begun to work out how it needed to be restructured for the current world. There was no longer a clear enemy. Refugees were likely to be one big challenge; another was nuclear proliferation. It was not just a question of changing weapons, but also changing bureaucracies.

A few speakers worried about how these changes within NATO were going to rebound within the UN system. One panellist argued that the UN needed to be restructured, but he also argued that it was a vital piece of international architecture. The UN was the only place where global power could be legitimised. Another panellist agreed, though he immediately pointed out that one of the lessons of Kosovo and Bosnia was that the UN could not close deals, but NATO could.

An American participant echoed many other speakers when he asked precisely what precedent had been set in Kosovo. One panellist argued that the precedent in general was a positive one. It would be easier to do again. He also thought it marked the beginning of a new role for NATO, encapsulated in Vaclav Havel’s claim that Kosovo was “the first human rights war”. That was an exaggeration; there were security issues involved. But human rights had plainly become an issue too.

Several speakers worried about what the events in Kosovo meant for NATO and European enlargement. One panellist argued that enlargement should go ahead. The best guarantee of peace in Europe was the idea that all the region’s countries could eventually become members of the European family. Another Frenchman argued that NATO’s health should be judged by how closely Europe and America stayed together. The show of unity during the war was good, but NATO could not always rely on people like Slobodan Milosevic to unify it so perfectly. One of the panellists preferred to end on a more optimistic note. The European Union and the United States were together: with NATO, it was question of how, not whether.


Autism & Oughtisms

Dealing with the endless "oughts" of parenting and autism.

Το περιπλανώμενο τουατάρα

Ιστολόγιο διαφόρων θεμάτων...

Well Balanced Blog

Take Control of Your Own Health!

Έγκλημα και Τιμωρία/Crime and Punishment/Crime et Châtiment/Delitto e castigo/Преступление и наказание


BanTheBBC Blog

A constant reminder that life would be so much better without the BBC's TV Licence Gestapo

Healthy At Any Age

Welcome to June Rousso's Blog !


Thoughts of a recovering leftist

Scottish Gaelic

Word a Day



Talk of the Tail

"Tails" from pets searching for their forever home.


A great WordPress.com site

Are You Finished Yet?

Alea Jacta Est

Watts Up With That?

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

Levi Quackenboss

Putting the boss in quack.

I shouldn't have left Wonderland

Ir's diary of deficient years

Unstrange Mind

Remapping My World


ΛΙΝΑ ΨΟΥΝΗ • psouni@gmail.com • www.psychinfo.gr

Wee Ginger Dug

Biting the hand of Project Fear

%d bloggers like this: