| Moving
Targets:
The Real Strategies Behind the War on Terrorism
Al
Hidell
"Now
we have the possibility of cooperation in Eurasia. You look
at the agreements among China, discussions with Japan, India,
Russia, other nations; you see there's now a thrust for cooperation
in large-scale projects, and trade projects, which will build
up Eurasia...Somebody wants to stop it. For various reasons,
August is a good month to start a war, in Eurasia. And we're
on the edge of a war. The war is being orchestrated by people
who say the only way to prevent China, Russia, India, and
so forth, from cooperating in Eurasian economic cooperation
is to do what? To start a war between Islam and the West."
Lyndon
LaRouche, July 24, 2001
They
were horrible acts that killed thousands of innocents, and
the perpetrators must be brought to justice. That much is
clear. Yet the tragic events of September 11, 2001 will have
a multitude of repercussions that have yet to emerge.
At
this stage, it is likely that America's War on Terrorism will
have many victims - both foreign and domestic - not the least
of which may be our freedom.(1) To better understand the reasons
and aims of this New War, we will need to look beyond the
bloodlust and comic book - level analyses offered by most
of our pundits and politicians.
Smaller
Rubble
"Basically, we're going to bomb their rubble into
smaller rubble." This is how an unnamed congressional
staffer described the start of America's War on Terrorism,
whose first military target is the impoverished and civil
war - torn country of Afghanistan. The official reason is
that the country's radical Islamic rulers, known as the Taliban,
have harbored and supported the presumed mastermind of the
September 11 attacks: Osama bin Laden.
The
apparent goals of the War on Terrorism are the death or extradition
of Osama bin Laden, and the neutralization of radical Islamic
regimes and networks worldwide. Yet the capture or assassination
of bin Laden - who has followed Carlos the Jackal and Abu
Nidal as the latest personification of World Terrorism - would
likely result in more terrorism, not less. Kill one Osama,
it is said, and you create 100 more. Furthermore, the military
attacks against Afghanistan increase the chances of radical
Islamic takeovers in countries that are supporting the US
strikes, and for Pakistan you can add nukes to the scenario.
Moreover,
the Taliban did not emerge in a vacuum. They were largely
created and financed by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United
Arab Emirates, countries that are now being sought by America
as allies in the War on Terrorism. In fact, the United States
gave Afghanistan $124 million in aid in 2001, making it "the
main sponsor of the Taliban," according to the May 22,
2001 Los Angeles Times. Indeed, the United States also
trained and financed bin Laden himself and other radical Islamics
when it served its interests.
This
latter point deserves elaboration. Media commentators are
now acknowledging that the United States made a "mistake"
in the 1980s by supporting bin Laden and his fellow radical
Islamics against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. This
obscures the fact that the CIA flat-out created today's violent
Islamic movement as a deliberate policy. Furthermore, this
policy amounted to much more than supplying the mujahedeen
with some Stinger missiles, which is the popular conception
of events. As reported in a laudatory 1992 Washington Post
article ("Anatomy of a Victory: The CIA's Covert Afghan
War"), the United States invested more than $2 billion
and several thousand tons of weaponry and supplies in the
project. The covert action involved everything from supplying
copies of the Koran to constructing training camps - which
we are now bombing - and teaching the future terrorists how
to make bombs. All in all, this "mistake" was the
single largest American covert action program since World
War II.
If
you think arming and supporting radical Muslims was just a
tragic mistake of the past, think again. Osama bin Laden and
an army of what the United States would otherwise label Islamic
terrorists have been and are actively involved on the US-backed
side in the fighting in Bosnia, Kosovo and - most recently
- Macedonia. In Issue 21 of PARANOIA
("Bankers and Generals: The Economic Interests Behind
the Yugoslavian Conflict," Fall, 1999), this writer quoted
Ben Works, director of the Strategic Research Institute:
"There's
no doubt that bin Laden's people have been in Kosovo helping
to arm, equip, and train the [Kosovo Liberation Army]... The
US Administration's policy in Kosovo is to help bin Laden.
It almost seems as if the Clinton Administration's policy
is to guarantee more terrorism."
In
addition, there are nations that the US State Department has
officially designated as "supporting terrorism"
- Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Syria - that have no
known connection to Osama bin Laden. He does, however, maintain
a residence in the posh London suburb of Wembly. In fact,
on Nov. 20, 1999, the London Daily Telegraph admitted:
"Britain
is now an international center for Islamic militancy on a
huge scale... and the capital is the home to a bewildering
variety of radical Islamic fundamentalist movements, many
of which make no secret of their commitment to violence and
terrorism to achieve their goals. "(2)
This
is not meant to obscure the fact that the Taliban of Afghanistan
are currently and have recently been bin Laden's main supporters
and harborers; it is just to point out that the supposedly
worldwide War on Terrorism is at this point a highly selective
affair.
Nevertheless,
some argue that America has been forced to take action in
response to the events of September 11. As we will see, America
has other little-discussed reasons - that have nothing to
do with 9/11 - for wanting to control Afghanistan. Indeed,
a former Pakistani diplomat told the BBC on September 18 that
the US was planning military action against the Taliban well
before the hijack attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign
Secretary, says he was told by senior American officials in
mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would take
place by mid-October. The larger objective, according to Naik,
is to topple the Taliban regime and install a transitional
government of moderate (i.e. US-controlled) Afghans. The horrors
of September 11, then, may have served as a convenient excuse
to implement a preexisting Afghan war plan.
Under
the Rubble
So, why Afghanistan? Although not widely discussed, the
country has more than "rubble" to offer its controllers.
In 1999, Afghanistan produced 75% of the world's opium, from
which heroin is derived. It should be noted that in February
2001, the fundamentalist Taliban destroyed the country's entire
opium crop. While this unprecedented action was publicly applauded
by the United States, it undoubtedly put the Taliban at the
top of the enemies list of those elements within the United
States and abroad that profit from the global drug trade.
Despite
recent alarmist news stories about bin Laden and the Taliban
"flooding the US with heroin," pre-September 11
coverage of the Afghan opium situation provides a more objective
view. A February 16, 2001 Associated Press story was
headlined, "Taliban virtually wipes out opium production
in Afghanistan." It stated:
"A
12-member team from the U.N. Drug Control Program spent two
weeks searching most of the nation's largest opium - producing
areas and found so few poppies that they do not expect any
opium to come out of Afghanistan this year."
Of
course, Taliban-controlled territory could begin to produce
opium again. However, the earliest harvest date would be May,
2002. So British Prime Minister Tony Blair's recent vow to
"bomb their poppy fields" neglects the fact that
there are few if any poppy fields to bomb. (However, there
may well be stockpiles of last year's harvest.)
Regarding
the addictive substances known as fossil fuels, the United
States Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that Afghanistan
has natural gas reserves of 4-5 trillion square feet, oil
reserves of 95 million barrels, and significant coal reserves
as well. Today, however, these riches remain unproven and
untapped due to decades-long fighting and instability. The
DOE says Afghanistan also has significance from an energy
standpoint due to its geographical position as a potential
transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central
Asia.
This
potential would require multiple multi-billion-dollar oil
and gas export pipelines through Afghanistan. One of the largest
is a proposed 890-mile, $2-billion, 1.9-billion-cubic-feet-per-day
natural gas pipeline project led by the American energy firm
Unocal. However, in December 1998, Unocal announced that it
was withdrawing from the consortium, saying low oil prices
and turmoil in Afghanistan made the pipeline project uneconomical
and too risky. Today, there is growing pressure to begin a
trans-Afghanistan pipeline, in order to preempt plans for
a pipeline out of Turkmenistan via Iran.
Significantly,
Unocal has stated that their pipeline project will proceed
once an internationally recognized government is in place
in Afghanistan. John Maresca, vice president for international
relations of the Unocal Corporation, stated in an important
February 12, 1998 Congressional hearing, "U.S. Interests
In The Central Asian Republics,"(3): "From the outset,
we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we
have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized
government is in place that has the confidence of governments,
lenders, and our company."
At
the same hearing, Robert W. Gee, the Clinton Administration's
Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs,
Department of Energy, made no secret of the fact that "we
have an interest in maximizing commercial opportunities for
US firms." Or, as Vakhtang Kolbaia, deputy chairman of
the Georgian parliament, has observed regarding his own country,
"Western countries understandably require security for
their investments."
Afghanistan
also has geopolitical significance because it borders three
Central Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union: Uzbekistan,
Turkmenistan, and Tajikstan. Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are
thought to have oil reserves; Turkmenistan also has the world's
fourth-largest natural gas reserves; and Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan
border the region's most extensive oil reserves, in Kazakhstan.
So
the Taliban has become a major problem for both Big Energy
and Dope, Inc., in ways that have nothing to do with terrorism.
Beyond
the Pipelines
Unocal's position on Afghanistan reflects the global energy
cartel's broad desire to bring Western-dominated stability
to the Caspian Sea region, as well as the Balkans. This will
make it easier for the cartel to get down to the business
of exploiting the region's considerable natural resources,
which the US State Department has declared will be "crucial
to the world energy balance over the next 25 years."
In
addition to an interest in energy and drug pipelines, there
may be a broader US geopolitical strategy at work, one directed
at our old Cold War nemesis. The authors of "Why Washington
Wants Afghanistan" (4) argue that Russia remains a significant
threat and competitor to the United States. The authors consider
US/NATO military actions in the former Yugoslavia (the Balkans
region), and the current actions in Afghanistan, to be part
of a larger plan:
"Central
Asia is strategic not only for oil, as we are often told,
but more important for position. Were Washington to take control
of these republics, NATO would have military bases in the
following key areas: the Balkans, Turkey; and [the Central
Asian] Republics. This would constitute a noose around Russia's
neck. Add to that Washington's effective domination of the
former Soviet Republics of Azerbaijan and Georgia, in the
south, and the US would be positioned to launch externally
instigated 'rebellions' all over Russia."
"If
the US can break up Russia and the other former Soviet Republics
into weak territories," they surmise, "Washington
would have a free hand." The War on Terrorism, these
authors believe, is little more than a smokescreen. They believe
that Washington, in fact, ordered Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
to fund the Taliban "so the Taliban could do a job: consolidate
control over Afghanistan and from there move to destabilize
the former Soviet Central Asian Republics on its border."
They
conclude that the tragedies of September 11 are being used
by the Bush Administration "to create an international
hysteria in order to drag NATO into the strategic occupation
of Afghanistan and an intensified assault on the former Soviet
Union." This, they warn, will move us closer to an all-out
war with Russia.
For
now, though, we know that Russian officials have charged that
the Taliban aims to create "liberated zones" across
Central Asia and Russia, and that they have linked their problems
in Chechnya to the rise of Taliban fundamentalism (www.Indiareacts.com).These
facts, along with some very positive public diplomacy that
took place in mid-October, 2001, suggest that a common enemy
(the Taliban) has brought Russia and the United States closer
together. Some commentators have gone so far as to suggest
that we are witnessing a major strategic realignment. They
say relations between the two countries are the strongest
since World War II, when we fought another common enemy, Nazism.
Nevertheless,
Bradford University professor Paul Rogers in his book Losing
Control has warned of "a near-endemic Russian perception
that NATO expansion and US commercial interests in the Caspian
basin are part of a strategic encroachment into Russia's historic
sphere of influence." The key question, then, is what
will happen to US/Russian relations after the Taliban is defeated,
and the War on Terrorism moves beyond Afghanistan.
If
one holds a darker view of Russia and its intentions, today's
Afghanistan presents the 1980s with a twist. The country is
again a Cold War-style battleground, but this time the United
States wants the Afghan rebels (the anti-Taliban, Russian-
and Iranian-backed Northern Alliance) to lose. This would
seem to conflict with the stated aims of the War on Terrorism.
So, if there is a US/Russia proxy war going on in Afghanistan,
it will certainly be interesting to see what becomes of the
Northern Alliance.
Already,
soon after the start of military action, American officials
have begun to promote the idea of a "broad coalition
government" for Afghanistan, while downplaying the role
of the Northern Alliance. In fact, Secretary of State Colin
Powell recently in Pakistan offered a place in the new
Afghanistan government for "moderate" Taliban leaders.
Before we make too much of this, it should be noted that the
Northern Alliance is made up of Afghan ethnic minorities,
and the US may have genuine concerns that the country's ethnic
majority would never support a Northern Alliance-based government.
What
About China?
A major regional player not considered in the above analysis
is China, which has been using military force to keep order
in its Xinjiang province, where Muslim Uighur separatists
have been fighting for independence. At this point, the massive,
nuclear-armed Communist state is providing mixed signals,
with modest words of support for the War on Terrorism, and
also some little-reported warnings against US military action.
China has said it opposes any unilateral military action in
Afghanistan, and wants the United Nations to authorize any
attacks. Also, it may be significant that Afghanistan's U.N.-recognized
government-in-exile is located in Beijing, China (Reuters,
September 12, 2001).
On
October 4, 2001, the Washington Times reported that
China had placed its military forces in the western part of
the country on heightened alert and was moving troops to the
border region near Afghanistan in anticipation of the US military
strikes. The Frontier Post, an English-language newspaper
published in Peshawar, Pakistan, reported October 1 that Chinese
military forces had begun exercises near the Afghan border.
Clearly, the intent is to suggest that China will enter the
war on the side of the Taliban.
However,
China would seem to have little motivation to support the
Taliban. In fact, by coincidence two days after September
11, its 15-year struggle was rewarded when it was announced
that China would be admitted into the World Trade Organization
(WTO). China's recent successful campaign to host the Olympic
Games is further evidence that the country wants to become
part of the Western capitalist order, rather than destroy
it. There is no doubt that there is already great economic
interdependence between China and the United States, and that
many US businesses are committed to strong economic relations
with China.
On
the other hand, September 11 was also the day China signed
a memorandum of understanding with the Taliban for greater
economic and technical cooperation. (Washington Post,
September 13, 2001) Also, on October 18 the Associated Press
made an unconfirmed report that bin Laden Deputy Abu Baseer
al-Masri was killed by a bomb in eastern Afghanistan, and
that "two of his comrades, a Chinese Muslim and a Yemeni,
were injured." It is quite a leap, though, to go from
one Chinese Muslim to the "5,000 to 15,000" reported
by Israeli intelligence site www.debka.com.
However, if these numbers are ever confirmed, the Chinese
Muslims must have at least the tacit approval of Beijing.
If China believes that the strategic realignment between Russia
and the United States referred to above is taking place, it
may well feel threatened enough to take these kinds of actions.
Support
From the Outside
It is strange that there has been relatively little domestic
media attention given to the role of China in the War on Terrorism,
as well as that of Russia and India. These three countries,
after all, are by far the largest and most powerful states
in the Afghan region, and all are members of the Nuclear Club.
Iran, too, has been a major player in Afghanistan, and the
two nations share a long border.
So
why have these countries been missing in much of the mainstream
discourse about the War on Terrorism? Perhaps the US government
believes that these countries will become players in a larger
war. In that case, our leaders would likely prefer that the
American public stay in the dark about such complexities,
lest public support for the War on Terrorism erode. The more
limited and straightforward goal of punishing those responsible
for the September 11 attacks is a much easier sell.
Prior
to September 11, such complexities were readily acknowledged.
At the above referenced 1998 Congressional hearing ("U.S.
Interests In The Central Asian Republics"), Rep. Dana
Rohrabacher of California observed, "At this point, you
have got the Pakistanis and the Saudis on one side, and you
have got the Iranians on one side. Every little faction has
somebody who is supporting them from the outside." Likewise,
Committee Chairman Rep. Doug Bereuter of Nebraska noted that
"Japan, Turkey, Iran, Western Europe, and China are all
pursuing economic development opportunities and challenging
Russian dominance in the region. It is essential that U.S.
policymakers understand the stakes involved in Central Asia..."
Rep.
Howard L. Berman of California defined the United States'
major adversaries in the area as Iran and Russia, a sentiment
that seemed to be shared by most of the Committee: "American
interests in the region are simply to ensure its progressive
political and economic development and to prevent it from
being under the thumb of any outside power, be it Iran or
Russia."
This
concern was echoed by the Department of Energy's Robert W.
Gee:
"Rep. Berman.
[You have said] our support for this pipeline derives from
our belief that it is not in the commercial interests of
companies operating in the Caspian States nor in the strategic
interest of the host States to rely on a single major competitor
for transit rights. Who are you talking about?
Mr. Gee: "We
are talking specifically about Russia and Iran, which would
be potentially the two dominant players where most of the
transit routes [would be] situated."
If anyone missed
the point, Assistant Secretary Gee then stated, "The
US government's position is that we support multiple pipelines
with the exception of the southern pipeline that would transit
Iran." However, he was more conciliatory regarding Russia:
"Our Caspian
policy is not intended to bypass or to thwart Russia...We
support continued Russian participation in Caspian production
and transportation. We would also welcome their participation
in the Eurasian corridor. US companies are working in partnership
with Russian firms in the Caspian, and there will be future
opportunities to expand that commercial cooperation."
The United States
government clearly viewed Iran as the greatest threat in the
region. This, despite the testimony of hearing witness Frederick
Starr, Chairman of the Central Asia Institute at Johns Hopkins
University. Mr. Starr noted that early Iranian efforts to
"export" its radical Islamic revolution had completely
failed:
"In the
early years after the independence of the Central Asian
and Caspian States, Iran did indeed attempt quite vigorously
to export its revolution and its ideology to the region.
It pressed quite hard in some places, but without success.
In fact, the uniformly secular regimes of Central Asia and
the Caspian firmly told them, 'No. We're glad to trade with
you, but keep your ideology at home.'"
Furthermore, Mr.
Starr declared that "none of our friends in the region
agree" with the US position against economic engagement
with Iran. He noted that French, Malaysian, and Russian firms
were already investing in the construction of facilities in
Iran, and that a pipeline was already being constructed across
northern Iran from Turkmenistan. "The American [economic]
quarantine of 1995-1996," he advised, "is not holding."
Finally, Mr. Starr pointed out that Iran's historic election
of a moderate and at least somewhat pro-western leader, President
Khatami, was making the US policy of sanctions much harder
to defend.
Shifting
Alliances
Of course, this Congressional hearing was conducted during
the Clinton Administration, and we don't know how much things
have changed under the Bush Administration. There has, though,
been an obvious shift away from President Clinton's conciliatory
and cooperative attitude towards China, into a more adversarial
relationship. Similarly, the Clinton Administration's strong
tilt towards India at the expense of its bitter enemy Pakistan
has been reversed by the Bush Administration's embrace of
Pakistan as its leading ally in the War On Terrorism.
However, despite
continued conciliatory statements from Iranian President Khatami,
it appears that the US government's hard- line attitude towards
Iran has remained unchanged. This is suggested by an October
18, 2001 report (www.worldtribune.com)
that "the United States has rejected Iran's offer to
aid the US-led offensive against the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan."
The report says that US Secretary of State Colin Powell termed
the offer by Iran - which has condemned the September 11 attacks,
and which has long opposed the Taliban - as "not necessary."
This, from an administration that has gone out of its way
to court allies of all stripes and shades in its War On Terrorism.
Of course, public
rejections and a dearth of news stories may be masking behind-the-scenes
cooperation between Washington and Iran, as well as with Russia
and India. As early as June 26, 2001, an Indian public affairs
web site (www.Indiareacts.com)
was reporting that "India and Iran will 'facilitate'
the planned US-Russia hostilities against the Taliban."
(The American people, it seems, were the last to know about
America's New War.) The article reports that Secretary of
State Powell laid the groundwork for this cooperation in meetings
with his Russian and Indian counterparts. No mention is made
of any US-Iranian meetings, although Iran is said to have
participated in an unspecified "series of discussions"
with Russia and India.
All in all, it
seems that Russia, India, and Iran are supportive of the US
military action against the Taliban, while China - as
is often the case - is a question mark. All four countries
are dealing with Taliban-supported fundamentalist Muslim insurgencies
to one degree or another. If the War on Terrorism extends
beyond Afghanistan, however, their continued support is far
from certain.
The Strategic
Triangle
Capitalism is about economic competition, and trade wars
sometimes become shooting wars. Likewise, economic alliances
often become military alliances. With this in mind, it may
be instructive to consider recent developments involving China,
Russia, India, and Iran, and see if the seeds of a wider conflict
are present.
The New Federalist
newspaper (www.larouchepub.com)
is one of the few non-specialist publications to cover economic
developments in the region. On June 25, 2001, it reported
that Russia and China - along with Kazakhstan, Tajikistan,
and Uzbekistan - had formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO). Representing 1/4 of the world's population, the SCO
is said to be based on a commitment to collaboration and cooperation
in economic and security matters. Ironically, the SCO grew
out of a 1999 agreement in which the countries vowed to work
together to counter the threat of Islamic terrorism.
Regarding the
Russia-China partnership, the New Federalist stated
that relations between the two countries have been developing
over the last three years; and that "the outline of the
concept of the Strategic Triangle - Russia, China, India -
[proposed] by Russia's former Prime Minister Yevgeni Primakov
in 1998, has gradually been filled in, at least on the Russia-China
leg of the triangle."
Furthermore, in
July, 2001, Russia and China signed a "Good Neighborly
Friendship Cooperation Treaty," which promises extensive
military and economic cooperation. The countries have also
been united in their opposition to implementation of President
Bush's National Missile Defense system, which they think will
encourage the US to launch a nuclear first strike against
them during a time of conflict.
In addition, on
October 18, 2001 (www.worldtribune.com),
it was reported that relations between India and Iran were
advancing rapidly. Though not widely reported, for the first
time, Iran and India have held strategic cooperation talks:
"India's
Foreign Secretary Chokila Iyer and Iranian Deputy Foreign
Minister for Asia and Pacific Mohsen Aminzadeh discussed security
and defense issues. The two officials also discussed international
disarmament and security cooperation and the situation in
Afghanistan."
In addition, Middle
East Newsline (www.menewsline.com)
has related a Washington Times report that China is
currently building an air defense network along Iran's border
with Afghanistan, and that "China is said to have accelerated
strategic and military projects in Iran over the last year,"
including "help for Iran's intermediate- and long-range
missile systems."
As stated previously,
the Washington Times appears to be promoting
the idea of a major Chinese threat. Yet it is quite plausible
that China is helping Iran, especially in light of the ongoing
US Iranian sanctions. India and Russia, too, are partnering
with Iran on at least one major economic project, what Indiareacts
has characterized as "a broad plan to supply oil
and gas to south Asia and southeast Asian nations through
India."
Furthermore, the
London-based Arabic daily Al Hayat reported
on October 9, 2001 that Iran's Defense Secretary would be
visiting Russia within a week to sign a weapons deal that
will include "anti-aircraft defense systems and tanks."
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov was reported as stressing
that Russia is interested in developing the "military,
economic and scientific relations with its neighbor Iran."
This relationship, according to an editorial in the March
5, 2001 Guardian (UK), includes Russia providing Iran
with "nuclear know-how."
Flashpoint
So, is Iran the flashpoint that could bring the Russian
Strategic Triangle of Russia, China, and India together against
the United States? This frightening prospect is supported
by an October 18, 2001 item on Middle East Newsline:
"Russian
officials said Moscow would help Washington with the war
on terrorism. But they said President Vladimir Putin would
not allow the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein or
Iran to become a US target in such a war. Both Iran and
Iraq are on the US State Department list of terrorist sponsors,
[and] Moscow has indicated that this is where it would draw
the line. Russia has emerged as an ally of both Baghdad
and Teheran."
The article quotes
Col. Sergei Goncharov, a leading Russian military analyst,
as saying, "We can't allow the United States to wield
its club the way it wants." He continues, "We are
on good terms with Iran. We have tremendous economic investments
in and expectations of Iraq. We can't afford to sever all
these ties in one stroke. I foresee a major debate along these
lines."
A debate, or a
war? While Goncharov allowed for the possibility of limited
air strikes against Iraq if there is proof that they are harboring
terrorists, he made no such allowance regarding Iran. Regarding
either country, the Russian Colonel warned, "If they
want to start carpet bombings, like in Yugoslavia, and then
see what happens, it can't be allowed."
World
War III?
So, will the War on Terrorism become World War III? Al
Hayat reported on October 9, 2001 that US tactical
nuclear weapons are already in Afghanistan. Ranging in power
from 2 to 10 kilotons, they are said to be considered a "last
resort" by American military planners. So, there is certainly
the potential for a dangerous escalation of hostilities.
Fears of a geographically-larger
war were certainly not calmed by an October 21, 2001 Reuters
report that Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, considered Afghanistan to be "only
a 'small piece' of what he suggested might be the broadest
campaign since World War Two, possibly lasting more than a
lifetime." Myers, America's top military commander after
the President, added, "I think this is going to be a
long, hard-fought conflict, and it will be global in scale."
Similarly, on
October 3, www.newsmax.com
quoted General Jack Singlaub, former chief of staff for US
forces in South Korea: "I think the war is going to broaden.
I think that the president made it quite clear that this is
a pure case of good vs. evil and those who want to live in
peace must unite and eliminate those who want to kill one
another." He added ominously, "We just have to recognize
that it's going to develop into a larger war, and there [will
be] lots of people and nations involved."
Endnotes
(1) The September
17, 2001 USA Today warned, "Israelis and Europeans
are used to seeing machine gun-toting soldiers... stopping
them at checkpoints. Soon, Americans may become accustomed
to the sight also." Meanwhile, CNN has broadcast footage
of National Guardsmen training at a mockup of a guard station
with a road barrier and a sign that reads "Homeland Security
Internal Checkpoint."
(2) For a surprising
and detailed argument to "Put Britain on the List of
States Sponsoring Terrorism," see www.larouchepub.com.
(3) House Committee
Report, http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.HTM
(4) Jared Israel,
Rick Rozoff and Nico Varkevisser, "Why Washington Wants
Afghanistan," posted September 18, 2001 to www.emperors-clothes.com.
|
