The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Coincidence? I am afraid that rather not. Everything's following the "road map" - or better said "tailor's pattern". Thus nothing new here at all; unfortunately those plans and their consequences are given full consideration only far too seldom . Excerpt from below: " .... At a Feb. 4. 2003 forum at the Willard Hotel in Washington, Michael Ledeen, a leading chickenhawk mouthpiece and self-professed "universal fascist," candidly stated that if the United States launches a war against Iraq—which he fully endorses—it will, in reality, be a regional war, also targeting Iran, Syria, Lebanon and even Saudi Arabia. If the utopian schemers in the Bush Pentagon are not stopped, they may trigger more than a regional war. As Lyndon LaRouche has warned, repeatedly, this could be the trigger for World War III. And it could be a nuclear war. ..." LaRouche's cultish group-narcism aside, especially his Executive Intelligence Review often provides well-researched interesting insights into the personal networkings and "philosophical" foundations of the neocons. Best Andreas -------------------------- www.larouchepub.com/pr/2003/030224nukefirst.html This article appears in the March 7, 2003 issue Executive Intelligence Review. U.S. PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE PLAN It Keeps Getting Scarier and Scarier by Jeffrey Steinberg During the third week of February, a number of newspapers in the United States and Great Britain published segments of a Pentagon document, suggesting that the Bush Administration is moving ahead with plans to develop a new generation of "mini" nuclear weapons, to be used against "Third World despots" who collude with terrorists and possess weapons of mass destruction—ie. Saddam Hussein. The Jan. 10, 2003 memo from Dr. Dale Klein, outlined plans for an August 2003 conference at the Omaha, Nebraska headquarters of the U.S. Strategic Command, where scientists and military planners will gather to make decisions on the production and deployment of a new generation of "mini" nuclear bombs, "bunker busters" and other nuclear devices that will become part of the U.S. military's arsenal of offensive weapons. No longer is the first use of nuclear weapons a taboo. No longer will the United States refrain from the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations, unless the madness is stopped. Already, a number of prominent Democrats, including 2004 Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche, and Senators Edward Kennedy and Diane Feinstein, are making a big stink over this insane utopian shift in policy. LaRouche has identified the push for the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq as a scandal that must be exploited, to stop the war drive now. Senators Kennedy and Feinstein are reportedly circulating a draft resolution among Senate colleagues, to also take up the issue. And senior Democratic Party figures, in the circles of former President Bill Clinton, have confirmed that there is intense debate and worry behind the scenes, over the Bush Administration's war party being just insane enough to actually use such nuclear weapons in an attack on Iraq. The prospect of the U.S. using nuclear weapons against Iraq adds a new, even more horrifying dimension to the threat of war in the Persian Gulf. LaRouche has already called on President Bush to renounce this madness. The leak of the Jan. 10, 2003 document did not come in a vacuum. For the past year, the Bush Administration has been moving, step by step, to overturn a fifty year policy of keeping nuclear weapons on the shelf, as part of America's strategic deterrent. Here is a short chronology: In January 2002, the Bush Administration issued its Nuclear Posture Review, a Congressionally mandated report on the U.S. nuclear weapons program. For the first time, the 2002 report openly discussed the possible use of nuclear weapons, naming seven countries that could be targets of the American nuclear arsenal: Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria. On Feb. 22, 2002, John Bolton, a leading Administration chickenhawk, who runs the arms control and disarmament office at the State Department, gave an interview to the Washington Times, in which he boasted about the Bush Administration's intent to use nuclear weapons, under certain circumstances. He candidly told the Times that the world had changed so dramatically on Sept. 11, 2001, that it was no longer unthinkable to use nuclear arms against rogue states thought to possess weapons of mass destruction. Bolton told the Washington Times that to continue with the doctrine of no first use of nuclear weapons reflected "an unrealistic view of the international situation. The idea that fine theories of deterrence work against everybody, which is implicit in the negative security assurances, has just been disproven by September 11," he said, adding, paradoxically, "What we are attempting to do is create a situation where nobody uses weapons of mass destruction of any kind." It is no coincidence that Bolton's chief deputy at the State Department is David Wurmser, one of the authors, along with Richard Perle and Doug Feith, of the 1996 "Clean Break" report to then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, calling on Israel to abrogate the Oslo Accords, launch preemptive war on the Palestinian Authority, and drive America into an armed attack on Iraq. On Sept. 14, 2002, President Bush signed a secret document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, which stated, in part: "The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force—including potentially nuclear weapons—to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies." On Dec. 11, 2002, the Bush Administration released a declassified version of NSPD-17, under the title "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction." The reference to the use of nuclear weapons was not included in the declassified version, but instead said that the government would "resort to all of our options," an only slightly camouflaged version of the same idea. On Jan. 31, 2003, the Washington Times published a front-page story, revealing the existence of NSPD-17, which warned, "The disclosure of the classified text follows newspaper reports that the planning for a war with Iraq focuses on using nuclear arms not only to defend U.S. forces, but also to pre-empt deeply buried Iraqi facilities that could withstand conventional explosives." On Feb. 19, 2003, the London Guardian was the first newspaper to publish the Jan. 10, 2003 Pentagon minutes of the planning for the Omaha session in August. The Guardian and other major newspapers have received copies of the Dr. Klein memorandum from Greg Mello, who heads a group called the Los Alamos Study Group, which initially received the leak. A Decade-Old Policy The push for a new generation of nuclear weapons, to be used as part of America's offensive military arsenal, has been underway for a decade. It first surfaced in the immediate aftermath of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, just as the current Bush Administration's supposedly "new" national security doctrine of preventive war was first promoted by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Eric Edelson and Zalmay Khalilzad back in 1991, when they were all together at the Pentagon. In April 1991, shortly after Operation Desert Storm, then-Secretary of Defense Cheney commissioned a study of how the United States should respond to the new military strategic reality of the fall of the Soviet Union, leaving the U.S.A. as the world's unchallenged military superpower. Wolfowitz, then Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy, teamed up with his deputies, Libby, Edelman and Khalilzad, and presented Cheney with a plan for an American military empire, striking out against any nation or alliance of nations threatening American military hegemony. The use of a new generation of nuclear weapons was included in the proposed new arsenal. In 1992, when Cheney and his cohorts attempted to include the idea of preventive war, and the offensive use of mini-nukes in their draft Defense Planning Guidance, the proposal was vetoed by President George Bush Sr., at the urging of his top national security aides, General Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III. Nevertheless, in January 1993, after Bush had been defeated by Bill Clinton, Cheney did put the same utopian ideas into his final policy pronouncement, "Defense Strategy for the 1990s: The Regional Defense Strategy." The document read, in part, "In the decade ahead, we must adopt the right combination of deterrent forces, tactical and strategic ... to mitigate risk from weapons of mass destruction and their means of deliver, whatever the source. For now this requires retaining ready forces for a survivable nuclear deterrent, including tactical forces. In addition, we must complete needed force modernization and upgrades." While the language was vague to the average reader, it was crystal clear to the utopians among the defense planners and scientists. By October 1991, the Strategic Air Command of the U.S. Air Force had already commissioned a study on the future uses of mini-nuclear weapons, and two scientists from Los Alamos National Labs had published a declassified study, calling for the development and deployment of "mini," "micro," and "tiny" nuclear bombs. Of course, the architects of this madness, back in 1991-93 are now back in power again. Cheney is Vice President, his chief of staff and chief national security advisor is Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz is Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Eric Edelman is one of Libby's chief strategists at the VP Office. Zalmay Khalilzad is the Bush Administration's liason to the Iraqi opposition. At a Feb. 4. 2003 forum at the Willard Hotel in Washington, Michael Ledeen, a leading chickenhawk mouthpiece and self-professed "universal fascist," candidly stated that if the United States launches a war against Iraq—which he fully endorses—it will, in reality, be a regional war, also targeting Iran, Syria, Lebanon and even Saudi Arabia. If the utopian schemers in the Bush Pentagon are not stopped, they may trigger more than a regional war. As Lyndon LaRouche has warned, repeatedly, this could be the trigger for World War III. And it could be a nuclear war. ----- Original Message ----- From: "ppg" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "AS-ILAS" <AS-ILAS@gmx.de>; "casi" <email@example.com> Sent: Dienstag, 6. Mai 2003 20:30 Subject: Re: [casi] Ledeen's latest whopper > Coincidence? > > http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=163474&contrassID=2 > > Tuesday May 6, 2003 > Ha' aretz > > U.S.-Israel strategic talks focus on threats from Iran and Iraq > By Nathan Guttman > > > > WASHINGTON - Israel and the U.S. met for another round in their strategic > dialogue in Washington yesterday, focusing on regional threats to Israel, > primarily from Iran and Iraq. > > Minister Dan Meridor led the Israeli delegation team, which included > National Security Adviser Uzi Dayan, the prime minister's adviser Danny > Ayalon, and Foreign Ministry director-general Avi Gil. The American team > included deputy secretary of state Richard Lee Armitage and deputy secretary > of defense Dr. Paul Wolfowitz. > > In past discussions, Israel has brought up the threat posed by Iranian and > Iraqi attempts to procure missiles and non-conventional weapons, and > Israel's situation in any future attack by the U.S. against Saddam Hussein's > regime. > > Last Friday, the American committee that monitors the transfer of weapons > and know-how from the former Soviet Union to Iran also held talks. > > Strategic talks between the U.S. and Israel do not formulate policy > conclusions. Their purpose is to keep an open channel on matters of > long-term strategic importance. Details of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, > for example, are not discussed. > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "AS-ILAS" <AS-ILAS@gmx.de> > To: "casi" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 1:24 PM > Subject: [casi] Ledeen's latest whopper > > > > > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030506/COIR > > AN/TPComment/TopStories > > > > THE GLOBE AND MAIL, Tuesday, May 6, 2003 - Page A15 > > > > Tehran is our next target > > > > It's time for Washington to start planning its next regime change, says > > foreign policy analyst MICHAEL LEDEEN > > > > By MICHAEL LEDEEN > > > > Saddam has fallen but the war against terrorism continues. That was > > President George W. Bush's message to the world from the deck of the > warship > > USS Abraham Lincoln last week. And he is entirely right. We can forget > about > > the happy dream of being able to destroy the Baathist regime in Iraq, > > democratize the country and then calmly decide what to do next. > > > > Like Afghanistan, Iraq was just one battle in the war against the terror > > network and the countries that sustain it. And Saddam Hussein's Iraq was > > never even the most threatening of those countries. That dubious honour > > belongs to Iran, the creator of modern Islamic terror in the form of > > Hezbollah, arguably the world's most lethal terrorist organization. And > then > > there is Syria, which has worked hand in glove with Iran to support > > Hezbollah. > > > > It is impossible to win the war on terrorism so long as the regimes in > Syria > > and Iran remain in power. So now what? The short answer is regime change. > > > > No one I know wants to wage war on Iran and Syria, but I believe there is > > now a clear recognition that we must defend ourselves against them. Left > > undisturbed, they will wage war on us in Iraq and Afghanistan, and mount > new > > attacks on our homeland. Fortunately, a military campaign is unnecessary > to > > achieve a change in regime because the leaderships in Iran and Syria are > > vulnerable to political attack. In Iran, we have an irresistible card to > > play: Give the people opposed to that vicious "mullahcracy" that has > wrecked > > their country over the past 23 years support for a peaceful transition > from > > dictatorship to democracy. > > > > As I wrote in The War Against the Terror Masters, the Iranians and the > > Syrians long ago concluded that a successful U.S. campaign in Iraq would > > threaten them both. > > > > The Iranian regime was particularly alarmed because it faces a population > > that is openly hostile to its rule. Their own public opinion polls show > that > > upward of 70 per cent of their people oppose them, and their internal > > analyses predicted a domestic social explosion unless living conditions -- > > including greater freedom -- improved quickly and dramatically. This was > > decidedly not in the cards, and therefore the Iranians intensified > domestic > > repression in the months leading up to the war in Iraq. Scores of young > > Iranian dissidents were publicly hanged after summary trials, newspapers > and > > magazines were shut down, radio and television signals from overseas were > > jammed, and foreign thugs were brought into the country to put down > > demonstrations (the regime no longer trusted its own security forces for > > such purposes). > > > > The Syrian authorities obviously had similar concerns, for they > orchestrated > > a cabinet reshuffle in Lebanon, removing the slightest sign of > independence, > > and similarly shut down all voices of criticism. > > > > Having waited more than a year after our victory in Afghanistan before > > turning to Iraq, we gave these other terror masters time to prepare their > > strategy. Expecting a long, drawn-out military campaign in Iraq (they > > dreamed of a second Vietnam), they organized a battle plan appropriate to > > weak countries facing a more powerful opponent. They planned to combine > > terrorist attacks with popular uprisings, all the while mobilizing the > Iraqi > > Shiites against the U.S.-led coalition. As Syrian dictator Bashar Assad > > incautiously proclaimed in an interview shortly after the start of the > Iraqi > > campaign, their model was Lebanon, where the same sort of battle plan had > > driven out American marines in the 1980s, and the Israelis in the 1990s. > > > > By now, the Iranian/Syrian strategy should be clear to the world, even to > > those diplomats and policymakers who had considered Syria an ally in the > war > > against terrorism, and had dreamed of coming to some sort of working > > arrangement with the Iranians. In the war just ended, we saw thousands of > > terrorists pour into Iraq from Iran and Syria. The Shia demonstrations > were > > clearly organized from Tehran, and top Iraqi officials found havens in > both > > countries. Indeed, as Baghdad fell, busloads of Iraqi leaders raced into > > Iran, boarded a civilian aircraft, and flew off to Sudan, even as Saddam > > Hussein himself headed for Damascus. > > > > Secretary of State Colin Powell, a man of great patience and optimism, > flew > > to Damascus himself last weekend to try to explain the new facts of life > to > > President Assad, and to encourage him to change his behaviour and adapt to > > America's requirements. > > > > It isn't likely to work and, at the end of the day, we will have to face > the > > unpleasant fact that such regimes will never abandon terrorism. > > > > Happily, it doesn't seem necessary to wage war in order to accomplish > regime > > change in Tehran and Damascus. Political warfare is the order of the day, > > just as we brought down Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia, the Marcoses in > > the Philippines, and regimes in Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia in the > > latter days of the Cold War. I have no doubt that many Western countries > > will come to this conclusion, and collectively support the incipient > > democratic revolution that will start in Iran. > > > > > > Michael Ledeen, author of The War Against the Terror Masters, is a > resident > > scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and moderator of a conference > > on the future of Iran taking place today in Washington. > > > > email@example.com > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. > > To unsubscribe, visit > http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss > > To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org > > All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk > _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk