I’ve written extensively in the past about the SOA, now know as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. From its beginnings in Latin America to its relocation to the US, the notorious ‘Institute’ has produced monsters aplenty, as reiterated today by Marie Dennis…

“Human rights activists, religious leaders, and military veterans will descend on Fort Benning, Ga. this weekend to demand the closing of a notorious military training facility that has tutored some of Latin America’s most brutal soldiers and dictators.

The U.S. Army School of the Americas, renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in 2001, has a long and shameful history of teaching torture, extortion and execution to infamous graduates like Manuel Noriega, the former dictator of Panama. Nearly 60,000 alumni have returned to Bolivia, El Salvador, and Nicaragua to suppress human rights leaders, political dissidents and innocent civilians swept up in the region’s often violent struggles for social justice.

Two former instructors at the school, Col. Alvaro Quijano and Maj. Wilmer Mora, were arrested last August for supporting the leader of a Colombian drug cartel who is on the FBI’s most wanted list. Last year, Bolivia’s government joined Costa Rica, Argentina, Uruguay and Venezuela in announcing it would withdraw soldiers from the school. Bolivia has good reason to end its affiliation with this disgraced facility. Hugo Banzer Suarez, who ruled Bolivia in the 1970s under a brutal military dictatorship, attended the school in 1956 and was later inducted into its “Hall of Fame.” In 1989, six Jesuit priests, their co-worker and her teenage daughter were massacred in El Salvador. A U.S. congressional task force reported that those responsible were trained at the School of the Americas.

Interrogation manuals used by the facility and declassified by the National Security Archive shed light on a grim litany of “coercive techniques” similar to those used by U.S. military officers to abuse detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Several torture survivors from Latin America will be among the 15,000 nonviolent protestors at Ft. Benning gathering for prayerful vigils, rallies and workshops organized by School of the Americas Watch, founded by Fr. Roy Bourgeois, a Maryknoll Catholic priest. Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and Rep. John Lewis of Georgia have sponsored legislation to cut off funding to the facility. Last June, 203 members of Congress supported the McGovern-Lewis amendment, only six votes shy of the number needed to pass.”

As Congress votes on the proposed bailout plan, the Dow Jones has fallen 600 points today, with oil dropping below $100 dollars a barrel. But rather than opine on the domestic causes for the crisis, I want to direct some attention to an article recently written by Chalmers Johnson entitled We Have the Money - If Only We Didn’t Waste It on the Defense Budget that delves into a little discussed aspect of the current crisis…

“There has been much moaning, air-sucking, and outrage about the $700 billion that the U.S. government is thinking of throwing away on rich New York bankers who have been ripping us off for the past few years and then letting greed drive their businesses into a variety of ditches. In fact, we dole out similar amounts of money every year in the form of payoffs to the armed services, the military-industrial complex, and powerful senators and representatives allied with the Pentagon.

On Wednesday, September 24th, right in the middle of the fight over billions of taxpayer dollars slated to bail out Wall Street, the House of Representatives passed a $612 billion defense authorization bill for 2009 without a murmur of public protest or any meaningful press comment at all. (The New York Times gave the matter only three short paragraphs buried in a story about another appropriations measure.)

The defense bill includes $68.6 billion to pursue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is only a down-payment on the full yearly cost of these wars. (The rest will be raised through future supplementary bills.) It also included a 3.9% pay raise for military personnel, and $5 billion in pork-barrel projects not even requested by the administration or the secretary of defense. It also fully funds the Pentagon’s request for a radar site in the Czech Republic, a hare-brained scheme sure to infuriate the Russians just as much as a Russian missile base in Cuba once infuriated us. The whole bill passed by a vote of 392-39 and will fly through the Senate, where a similar bill has already been approved. And no one will even think to mention it in the same breath with the discussion of bailout funds for dying investment banks and the like.”

This is an aspect of the financial crisis that I am astonished has not been given any attention – that and the foreign debt of the United States. In the recent Presidential debate, John McCain claimed that the United States owes China half a trillion dollars. In truth, the United States owes China a trillion dollars. The US foreign debt is so incredibly severe that one third of it is equal to the entire debt of the Third World. Everyone’s got a credit card though, and everyone’s encouraged to spend rather than save. After 9/11 the best advice that the White House could give the country was to go shopping.

And then the nation went to war, and every year that it has been at war the annual defense budget has increased - and yet defense spending has had almost no impact on the domestic economic mindset. Despite the fact that the nation was spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year, the promotion of the good life remained a steadfast domestic reality.

Despite what is occurring on Wall Street, the military expenditures of the United States remain phenomenally enormous. The US defense budget is, if you can believe it, some $200 billion dollars more than that of the entire European Union, and almost $6 billion dollars more than China’s and Russia’s. By comparison, the Canadian defense budget couldn’t buy toilet paper for troops in Iraq.

From Tom Engelhardt…

“Estimates of the true long-term costs of the President’s war of choice, including payments of health care and veterans benefits into the distant future, soar into the budgetary stratosphere. They range from the Congressional Budget Office’s $1-2 trillion to an estimate by economists Joseph Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes of up to $4-5 trillion. So we’re talking somewhere between one-and-a-half and seven bailouts-worth of taxpayer dollars flowing into the morass of disaster, corruption, and carnage in Iraq.”

Of course, none of this excuses the behaviour of those untouchable picaroons that played their role in engineering this current crisis. As the New York Times points out this morning, they’re already looking for ways to capitalize on the disastrous product of their own greed…

“Even as policy makers worked on details of a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, Wall Street began looking for ways to profit from it.

Financial firms were lobbying to have all manner of troubled investments covered, not just those related to mortgages.

At the same time, investment firms were jockeying to oversee all the assets that Treasury plans to take off the books of financial institutions, a role that could earn them hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees.

Nobody wants to be left out of Treasury’s proposal to buy up bad assets of financial institutions.”

There are those that believe that US military might acts as a shield against wanton global chaos. Without the US military’s global presence - the United States has in excess of 700 military bases around the world - many believe that democracy, global economic stability, and even civilization itself would be seriously threatened.

Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has been viewed as the world’s foremost power for ‘good’, though during the decades that would follow it would commit crimes and atrocities aplenty, most of which were passed off as necessity at the time - that is, if they were even publicly revealed. That is the position enjoyed by a global military super power – the ability to hypocritically become that which one claims to struggle against in an attempt to ensure that ‘good’ prevails.

History is replete with examples of ‘just ideologies’ that have been abused to ensure military dominance despite the fact that such abuses have been routinely passed off as preventative necessity. Of course, history is often overlooked in the present, which is the fundamental reason why the same mistakes are tolerated time and again. While we justify our actions and beliefs based on present circumstances, the reality remains that history provides example after example of how the abuse of power has been used to first safeguard the purity of ideologies and then warp them to ultimately produce that which was initially opposed. In almost ever instance, it is from within noble social concepts that their doom is written. Of course, that is the last place that anyone looks for danger, which is why such corruptions almost always occur.

We live in an era which is, in truth, no different than any other in most ways. The belief that weapons ensure the survival of what that which we deem just speaks to its weakness. Because, in bitterly plain language, if an idea is that good then it needn’t be promoted with weapons of war to ensure either its safety nor its progression. Only the advancement of power is achieved through the application of military significance, not the ideals that it claims to defend. And if the promotion of an idea requires force to ‘enlighten’ others to its ‘truth’, then it is not a truly sound one.

Who, then, gets to save the world? The precedent of the sword and rifle, the cannon and bomb have only ever produced the belief that through their possession ideological protectionism is assured. But what has little transpired in history is the organic growth of an idea that forgoes the need for force to be included as one of its essentials. The removal of threat introduces the possibility of progression, not the other way around.

To many that might seem naively idealistic and entirely unrealistic. To that I can only respond by saying – show me an example to the contrary that has not caused incalculable suffering and I will gladly concede the point.

As most of you are aware, I am an anti-war advocate. If there is one thing that I despise more than anything it is the abuse of power to support political agendas that seek the promotion of militarism for whatever purpose – and I could really care less who that reality applies to, be it a world super power or the corrupt government of a third world dictatorship.

We live in a world in which those that cast themselves as beacons of civility and conscience are, in fact, the planet’s foremost gunrunners and enablers of conflict. That is fact, not fiction, and no argument to the contrary can alter that reality.

For every action there is a reaction. There are those that labour under the misconception that 9/11 was an attack without foundation. But the truth remains that some of those involved in a covert capacity during the CIA’s support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan were not so daft as to overlook the fact that their self-serving actions might ultimately produce consequences in the future. The CIA refers to this phenomenon as blowback, which is the ‘unintended consequences of covert operations’. Due to the nature of such operations, when blowback occurs the general public cannot put it into context because the initial covert actions of their country were never revealed to them. Thus, a catastrophe such as 9/11 can occur and the American people are unable to put it into proper context. Instead, simplistic rationales are provided them, such as ‘they hate us for our freedoms’. This then snowballs into the production of an amplified xenophobic state that then allows those in power to capitalize on it and, in the case of the current administration, use that ‘political currency’ to enact extremely dangerous policies. Ironically, those very policies may very well result in further blowback, and, as was the case following 9/11, the public will only be exposed to one side of the equation.

The promotion of freedom is not something that the United States has ever been in the business of. Those with ideologically based misrepresentations can argue against that statement until they’re blue in the face, but historical precedents provide far too many examples to the contrary. In truth, the United States has acted as an enabler for more dictators and strongmen that have benefited US interests than supporting the true, uninfluenced growth of democratic principles. In fact, it is safe to say that the United States has not supported the implementation of truly uninfluenced democratic government in its entire history, even though many Americans labour under the misconception that that is not the case. Even the Mashall Plan and American influence in post war Japan came with considerable exploitative strings attached.

Economic exploitation has always been America’s foremost weapon. With it comes the ability to treat with wholly corrupted governments eager to benefit from US military assistance and political protection while allowing US economic interests to exploit natural resources and a laundry list of equally profitable sectors. It also allows the United States to employ questionable regimes as buffers against those that they deem a threat to their global interests. The Iran-Iraq war provides a perfect example of this, as does US support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 80’s, and the support for numerous governments in Latin America and South East Asia.

Hegemony is not a word that should be lost on the American people; nor Canadians for that matter. Hegemony, in terms of modern international relations, is the existence of ‘a power that can dictate the policies of all other powers in its vicinity, or that is able to defeat any other power or combination of powers that it might be at war with’. Noam Chomsky’s Hegemony Or Survival poses a very simple question – have US actions post 9/11 been undertaken for national security reasons or to help institute a global hegemonic reality in the wake of the Cold War? Given the tenets of the Bush Doctrine and the philosophy on which it was based, that being the Defense Planning Guidance initially written by Paul Wolfowitz in the early 90’s, it is hard to argue that the actions of the United States, especially with regards to Iraq, represent a purely national security based agenda. Further actions also lend credence to a modern American hegemonic reality, such as the illegal detention of globally apprehended prisoners held without any legal recourse, arms proliferation, and the use of covert influencing in various parts of the world to help institute friendly governments or damage those that threaten US interests.

I remember watching the twin towers crumble to the ground in 2001 and the first thought that crossed my mind was that the CIA was going to be gifted one of the biggest headaches that it had ever received. Since that day, the mandate of the CIA has been broadened, though no official recognition of that fact has ever been realistically addressed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. For the first time in their history the CIA became jailors and were utilized in areas completely foreign to their experience. While the halls at Langley were being filled with overzealous, politically driven individuals, many of whom were responsible for the promotion of tenuous information that the agency’s old guard would have balked at, the CIA found themselves in the business of taking Extraordinary Rendition to new heights, of instituting Black Sites at which off the books detainees were held and interrogated beyond every lawful measure, and swallowing wholly politicized nonsense that to many experienced Station Chiefs reeked of preconceived policy initiatives.

Of course, once it was learned that sculpted intelligence was used by the administration to justify the invasion of Iraq, the CIA was thrown to the wolves, and many of its longstanding and highly knowledgeable assets found that their parking passes had been revoked. Not surprisingly, some of these individuals represented an element within the agency that was highly dubious of the entire affair from the get go.

One of the most telling accounts of the Bush Administration’s disregard for the CIA was the repeated disregard of two Aardwolves sent by the CIA’s Baghdad Station Chief in 2003 warning the Administration of the true strength and threat posed by the insurgency. Due to the fact that the missives pulled no punches in their relation of information that the Administration simply did not want to hear, the Station Chief was removed in December of 2003. As James Risen put it in State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, the Station Chief had “committed the unpardonable sin of telling the truth”.

Though unknown to a lot of Americans. The CIA instituted an operation prior to the invasion of Iraq in which it utilized Iraqi-Americans with family members that had worked on Iraqi’s WMD program in the past. Those that agreed to return to Iraq under false pretenses to gather intelligence for the CIA regarding the state of Iraq’s program all returned with the same story – that the program had not merely been suspended, but had been non-existent for more than a decade. Those Iraqis that clued in to what their American relatives were up to, according to reports, displayed a panicked state of disbelief that the United States might invade the country based on the premise that Iraq possessed an active program or possessed WMD’s. Not surprisingly, the intelligence gather during the operation was ultimately disregarded.

What occurred on the morning of September 11th, 2001, shocked the world, and that includes many parts of the Muslim world was well. That said, the justification for the attacks that day have been wholly disregarded, and not because of the warped ideology promoted as the root cause, but because they were carried out against a nation whose covert actions in the Middle East over the decades prior could not be allowed to be entered into the equation.

Transgressions are a tricky thing. Terrorism is the use of violence to intimidate. When employed by fringe radicals it is labeled an unforgivable act. When it is employed on a much more complex scale by nations that have at their disposal the ability to covertly manipulate perception, it is not. In fact, such actions are viewed as ones of emancipation, security, and the promotion of all things judicious.

History provides transparency of culpability. No matter our transgressions, history has cast us in such a light that to even suggest the possibility of willful wrong doing renders those that would dare claim it fit for an insane asylum. Ironically, it is those that would suggest they be committed that are the individuals that perpetuate global lunacy.

It’s no secret that former President Jimmy Carter has his detractors. His more recent attempts to confront the problems plaguing Israeli - Palestinian relations have drawn scorn from many quarters, with many labeling him anti-Israeli. And now, during remarks made at the recent Hay-on-Wye festival, he has done what no American President has ever dared to do – openly state that Israel possesses nuclear weapons.

Despite the fact that within the international intelligence community it is widely known that Israel possesses a nuclear arsenal that ranges somewhere between 100 to 300 weapons, no major Western power has ever broke faith with Israel’s official policy of claiming that they do not possess one.

The Whistleblower

The existence of Israel’s nuclear program was made public in 1986 by The Sunday Times who ran an exclusive story based on information provided them by Mordechai Vanunu, once a nuclear technician at Israel’s Negev Nuclear Research Center. Numerous leading nuclear weapons experts, including former nuclear weapons designers Theodore Taylor (US) and Frank Barnaby (UK), substantiated the information provided by Vanunu to The Times prior to the piece being published.

Vanunu had left Israel in 1985, disenfranchised with his work and personally tormented by the realization of what it was producing. He traveled to South East Asia for a time before briefly relocating in Australia where he met journalist Peter Hounam of The Times. In the fall of 1986, Vanunu left Australia for the UK, where he relayed his story to Hounam and also provided personal photographs he had taken while working at the site.

In late September of 1986, the Israeli Mossad employed a female agent posing as an American tourist to lure Vanunu out of the UK rather than directly involving the British government in his detention. Vanunu traveled with Cheryl Bentov, who was known to Vanunu as Cindy, to Rome, where he was seized by Mossad agents, drugged, and smuggled out of Italy on a freighter. Once in Israel he was tried in secret for treason and then spent a decade in solitary confinement. In all, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Vanunu was not executed because, according to former Mossad director Shabtai Shavit , “Jews do not do that to other Jews.”

After Vanunu’s release he did what any man of conscience would do – he spoke out again, reiterating his position on Israel’s secret program. Despite the fact that Vanunu’s knowledge of the program was by that time technically inconsequential, he was placed under house arrest. Following that, his movements would be restricted and he was closely watched.

On the 15th of this month…

“The Norwegian Lawyer’s Petition called on the Norwegian government to urgently implement a three-point action plan within the framework of international and Norwegian law, to grant Vanunu asylum and permission to work and stay in Norway.”

Vanunu had applied for asylum in Norway in 2004 following his release. It was later learned that while approval for his initial application for asylum was sought by then Prime Minister Kåre Willoch, it was ultimately rejected to protect Norwegian – Israeli relations.

There are those that consider Vanunu a traitor, just as there are those that considered Daniel Ellsberg a traitor. I believe that what Vanunu did was vital for Israeli democracy in that he revealed something not just to the world, but to the people of Israel itself that had been kept from them by their elected officials. Because no matter the reasons, disclosure is one of the most crucial elements in any true democracy.

That said; it would seem that ‘true’ democracy isn’t something that any of us are all that familiar with.

Flat Out Hypocrisy

According to the government of Israel, the State of Israel does not possess nuclear weapons, nor has it ever possessed them. That is, no matter how you slice it, a flat out lie. Were the same scrutiny applied to Israel as is being applied to Iran, the IAEA would quickly discover that the government of Israel has been lying for decades. And even if the UN were allowed to inspect Israeli facilities and found evidence of a nuclear weapons program, the truth is that not a damn thing would be done about it.

Now, ask yourself a question. How is it that one nation can get away with lying about the possession of a significant nuclear weapons program for decades while others are attacked relentlessly before proof even exists that they have one? Why is it that the UN’s watchdog can be set upon, for example, Iran or Syria, and not be equally persuaded to scrutinize Israel? Where exactly does that sort of hypocritical power and protectionism come from?

Before even entering into the corrupt and wholly one sided protectionist stance that the Western world provides Israel, let’s state the obvious excuses used by those that ignore blatant contradictions.

First, because of a mistranslation that was then used to produce sensational headlines the world over, the government of Iran has claimed that it wants to ‘wipe Israel off the face of the map’. Of course, given their position on the existence of the Israeli state, the Iranians are easy targets. Mind you, that’s not to say that if some reasonable Israeli – Palestinian agreement could be reached that Iran wouldn’t ultimately back it, just that they’re viewed by most of the Western world as lacking what we refer to as ‘a sense of morality’. As far as we’re concerned they’re terrorist sympathizers and if they ever did get the bomb, would use it without hesitation or any consideration of the inevitable and utterly devastating consequences (I have written extensively about this subject, so use the search engine if you’d like to research past entries). Of course, throughout history, most of the world’s foremost powers have supported terrorist organizations, not to mention used militant groups and financial organizations to overthrow governments – such as the democratically elected government of Iran in the 50’s. But that’s of little consequence as it applies to the world post 9/11. The presentation of all things black and white to the public at large is a time honoured tradition, such as the removal of Mosaddeq in 1953 (Operation Ajax). He dared to attempt to nationalize the Iranian oil industry and for that he was painted a Communist by the West and removed from power. The Shah was then reinstated and British Petroleum’s stranglehold over Iran’s oil conveniently continued.

The support of military proxies, whether large or small, is nothing new. Israel represents such a proxy with regards to Western interests in the region, its nuclear arsenal included. It is a nation whose transgressions are widely overlooked while the transgressions of others are not, a hypocrisy that continues unabated precisely because of foreign interests and the protections that they are able to provide.

On September 11th one of the most repeated questions was - “why do they hate us?” The answer to that question, while technically complex, can also be viewed in a rather simplistic light. What have we done in the Middle East in a spirit of equality that has ever provided counter balance? The reality is – nothing. We have exploited natural resources, supported despotic regimes when they have suited out purposes, such as that of Saddam Hussein, and watched from the sidelines while such support has led to the degradation and suffering of societies. We then have the gall to claim that we champion freedom and represent beacons of global liberty and conscience. To think that those watching on the other side of the fence aren’t aware of our hypocrisy is more than ignorant. And, if we’re to cut the shit and be honest with ourselves, the people of New York and Washington paid for it seven years ago. And since then, troops involved in the subsequent wars promoted and produced in the wake of 9/11, along with countless civilians, have been made to suffer the fruits of that ignorance as well.

Why do they hate us? It is, in truth, more a question of why we believe we have the right to play God with others? And that’s not merely limited to Western powers, but others as well. The answer to that question is as old as the ages – arrogance bolstered by economic power and military might. That is the foundation on which every major empire in human history has sat, and the very same that always, without exception, has cracked and ultimately crumbled under the weight of its own excesses and senses of invulnerability and superiority.

Jimmy

So President Carter did the unthinkable – he spoke the truth. In doing so he will be labeled numerous things I imagine. This is, of course, the same President who was in power during the 444 days of the Iranian hostage crisis, and who, despite that experience, is currently urging the US to start talking to the Iranians rather than continuing their current policy of isolationism.

I’ll not deny that I believe Carter to be one of the better Presidents in US history. Despite those things that plagued his one term in office, he remains a man of considerable worth to the cause of repairing the damage done by the Bush Administration with regards to global perceptions of the United States. I am also one of those ‘nut jobs’ that believes the claims of former Reagan White House staff member Barbara Honegger, not to mention those of former Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, that the October Surprise was not fantasy.

If the Israelis can still claim, with a straight face, that they don’t have a nuclear weapons program (and get away with it) then I see no reason to start discounting something as plausible as the October Surprise, despite the conclusions of investigations to the contrary.

If anyone were looking for an example of just how truly idiotic the man running this country is, look no further than this quote…

“If a country wants to be taken seriously in the world, it must have the capacity to act. It’s that simple. Otherwise, you forfeit your right to be a player. You’re the one chattering on the sideline that everyone smiles at, but no one listens to.”

Is that what being taken seriously in the world demands - military might? If so, then we forfeit our ability to condemn those that use violence as a means to an end. If to be ‘a player’ one must possess significant military capabilities, then who are we to condemn anyone that adheres to that line of thinking and the inevitable application of force?

To be a player, Mr. Harper, you must first examine what and whom you are playing with. And if your conclusion is that to be taken seriously on the world stage requires a military capability that is substantial enough to placate those that view such a requirement as a prerequisite for inclusion, then you must also accept the reality that those that are willing to use violence must be graced the same allowance for the exact same reason, no matter who they are.

Andrew Cockburn comments on a new US covert initiative that is truly frightening in its scope…

“Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, “unprecedented in its scope.”

Bush’s secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan – but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines – up to and including the assassination of targeted officials. This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department’s list of terrorist groups.

Similarly, covert funds can now flow without restriction to Jundullah, or “army of god,” the militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan – just across the Afghan border — whose leader was featured not long ago on Dan Rather Reports cutting his brother in law’s throat.

Other elements that will benefit from U.S. largesse and advice include Iranian Kurdish nationalists, as well the Ahwazi arabs of south west Iran. Further afield, operations against Iran’s Hezbollah allies in Lebanon will be stepped up, along with efforts to destabilize the Syrian regime.

All this costs money, which in turn must be authorized by Congress, or at least a by few witting members of the intelligence committees. That has not proved a problem. An initial outlay of $300 million to finance implementation of the finding has been swiftly approved with bipartisan support, apparently regardless of the unpopularity of the current war and the perilous condition of the U.S. economy.

Until recently, the administration faced a serious obstacle to action against Iran in the form of Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon, who made no secret of his contempt for official determination to take us to war. In a widely publicized incident last January, Iranian patrol boats approached a U.S. ship in what the Pentagon described as a “taunting” manner. According to Centcom staff officers, the American commander on the spot was about to open fire. At that point, the U.S. was close to war. He desisted only when Fallon personally and explicitly ordered him not to shoot. The White House, according to the staff officers, was “absolutely furious” with Fallon for defusing the incident.

Fallon has since departed. His abrupt resignation in early March followed the publication of his unvarnished views on our policy of confrontation with Iran, something that is unlikely to happen to his replacement, George Bush’s favorite general, David Petraeus.

Though Petraeus is not due to take formal command at Centcom until late summer, there are abundant signs that something may happen before then. A Marine amphibious force, originally due to leave San Diego for the Persian Gulf in mid June, has had its sailing date abruptly moved up to May 4. A scheduled meeting in Europe between French diplomats acting as intermediaries for the U.S. and Iranian representatives has been abruptly cancelled in the last two weeks. Petraeus is said to be at work on a master briefing for congress to demonstrate conclusively that the Iranians are the source of our current troubles in Iraq, thanks to their support for the Shia militia currently under attack by U.S. forces in Baghdad.

Interestingly, despite the bellicose complaints, Petraeus has made little effort to seal the Iran-Iraq border, and in any case two thirds of U.S. casualties still come from Sunni insurgents. “The Shia account for less than one third,” a recently returned member of the command staff in Baghdad familiar with the relevant intelligence told me, “but if you want a war you have to sell it.”

Even without the covert initiatives described above, the huge and growing armada currently on station in the Gulf is an impressive symbol of American power.”

Since the advent of the nuclear age, only two nuclear weapons have ever been employed, both in August of 1945 on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

While many will argue that their use was required to avoid directly invading the Japanese islands, an effort that the government and military at the time claimed would cost the lives of upwards of a million US soldiers, the reality was that most of Japan has been decimated by conventional fire bombing, that the government of Japan had been attempting to negotiate a surrender all that summer, and that the people of Japan, despite news reels shown in US movie houses, were not on the streets in force training to repel US forces. They were, in truth, in the grips of near total economic and civic collapse.

The bombs were, in all honesty, dropped for post-war geopolitical reasons. The Soviets, who had coveted most of Eastern Europe in their advance towards Berlin, were viewed as a threat to Western post-war interests. Thus, individuals such as Dean Acheson urged the use of the bombs to demonstrate US military might, a position that was completely abhorrent to the likes of then General Dwight Eisenhower and the majority of the scientists that had worked on the Manhattan Project. They were dropped nonetheless, ushering in a new age of permanent global nuclear proliferation.

From the second that Little Boy detonated above Hiroshima unleashing the equivalent of 16 kilotons of TNT, decimating everything in a 1.6 kilometer radius, evaporating every living thing within the bomb’s primary blast radius, and killing some 140,000 people (during, and by way of radioactive fallout), deterrence immediately became the primary purpose for possessing a nuclear capability. That reality has not changed in the 63 years since.

The Manhattan Project placed the United States at the forefront of the nuclear arms race, but their position as the planet’s lone nuclear power would end when the Soviet Union successfully tested First Lightning, referred to as Joe 1 by US intelligence, on August 29th, 1949. The rest, as they say, is history.

Reason And Emotion

That’s not to say that the world hasn’t flirted with the possibility since. Fortunately, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, cooler heads prevailed. Then again, it should be noted why they prevailed.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, both Washington and Moscow had their fair share of Hawks pressing for a confrontation. Thankfully, a handful of individuals on both sides possessed the emotional fortitude to examine the realities of what would become of the world in the aftermath of posturing that had but one outcome. The United States would ultimately view it as a victory, but the reality is that it was nothing more than a victory over political arrogance. Of course, little mention is ever given the role played by then Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, a veteran World War Two Commander who witnessed first hand the horrors of Stalingrad. Khrushchev was no stranger to the realities of war, and in his first transmission to President Kennedy during the crisis made that point very clear – that both he and Kennedy knew full well the ramifications, betraying an emotional state that was extremely uncommon for as Soviet leader.

Emotionality is something that many view as extremely dangerous when it comes to the nuclear equation, but it is perhaps the one thing that perseveres when it comes to facing the realities of mutually assured destruction. Reasonable men can find excuse enough to destroy the world on any given day. It is not until emotionality enters into the equation that the reality of nuclear war becomes abundantly apparent.

The Inescapable Outcome

There is no winning a nuclear contest – that is, not a contest between two or more nations that possess nuclear weapons. The reality is that the modern destructive power of a single nuclear weapon is such that the devastation wrought is not something that can be justified with regards to proportional or superior responses. The loss of hundreds of thousands of lives simply cannot be viewed as acceptable compared to the loss of a million or more lives in response. No citizen of any nation on earth would think that acceptable given the lasting affects of even a single nuclear weapon on a specific city or location.

In the case of Iran, were the Iranians to possess a weapon and use it, or even three, against Israel, they would be facing a nation with approximately one hundred times their nuclear capability. In short, while the Iranians would be able to, for example, strike Tel Aviv, killing multitudes, the Israelis could eradicate every major city in Iran, not to mention a list of other targets.

There is also the political question of approximation to consider. Were Iran to target Israel, the conventional response against groups in Palestine and Gaza would most likely be as immediate as possible, decisive, and unrelenting. Under the circumstances, collateral damage, including the death of civilians in large numbers, would most likely occur. Given the state of mind that the IDF would be in, were such a thing to occur, I do not think that that is at all a stretch.

All of that, of course, is without involving the United States and what their nuclear response would be were Iran to strike Israel. Compared to Israel, the United States possesses vastly more advanced delivery capabilities, the most lethal being the use of Ohio Class Submarines that have the ability to strike multiple targets within minutes if their proximity to those targets is within a certain radius. As it stands now, given that two US battle groups are in the Gulf, there are certainly nuclear boats with them, making their proximity to Iranian targets minimal. A single such boat carries a compliment that could completely wipe out the population of Tehran.

Given the magnitude of both Israeli and American capabilities, even the most crazed lunatic in Iran would be faced with the reality that their nation would be utterly devastated in response to any attack made against Israel. Their family, the families of their friends and counterparts, all would be killed. The government of Iran, along with its entire military, civic, and religious infrastructures would cease to exist. The majority of Persia, as we know it, would basically be gone.

It’s one thing to believe that a group can exist that believes self-sacrifice is required for some greater, albeit fanatical, purpose. It’s entirely another to believe that the government of a nation would sacrifice the majority of its population for the sake of ideological fanaticism and nothing more, with no endgame or stratagem involved. To believe the Iranian government stupid enough to employ nuclear weapons as a first strike option requires the inclusion of the belief that they have no goal other than to ensure their own destruction, that they not only have no regard for the lives of the Iranian people, but their own as well. Even were they to gift a weapon to a terrorist group, the ramifications would be the same, because they would be held responsible. In fact, were Israel attacked with a nuclear weapon, no matter where that attack originated from, Iran would still be the victim of nuclear reprisals, and it is rather unintelligent, in my opinion anyway, to think that the government of Iran isn’t aware of that fact.

In essence, the current position of the United States, Israel, and others, is that the Iranians are seeking to obtain an offensive nuclear capability. Such a position all but promotes the fundamental tenets of the Bush Doctrine, the cornerstone of which is the use of preemptive, unilateral force to deal with those deemed a threat to US national security, its interests, or allies. Mind you, the US is not alone when it comes to such policies. The Israelis also partake in such practices when it suits their purposes, such as violating Lebanese airspace and conducting over-flights over Beirut, which they recently did.

I have said it before, and will exhaustively say it again now – what constitutes a ‘safe’ nuclear power? One that discloses its nuclear practices? The Iranians have been repeatedly accused of hiding their program by nations that have never allowed the IAEA to inspect theirs. Israel, as I have pointed out in the past countless times, has an estimated 300 nuclear weapons, though denies to this day that it even has a weapons program at all and refuses to allow its facilities to be inspected by the United Nations.

So what exactly makes Israel a ‘safe’ nuclear power? They continue to diversify their delivery systems, such as through the acquisition of submarines, and have even been caught stealing nuclear secrets from the United States – something that has, to this very day, never really been addressed by the highest levels of the US government. And yet the world is supposed to believe that the Iranian government is bent on not only acquiring a nuclear capability, but also actually being ignorant enough to employ it knowing full well that the consequences of such actions would result in their destruction?

Why? Because the current Iranian regime refuses to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist? I’ll not disagree that that’s a ridiculous position, but it is by no means provides justification for initiating a nuclear exchange that would be tantamount to suicide.

Given the realities of modern nuclear age, are we to believe that the Iranian government, or even a radical faction within its military, is so consumed by madness that it would use nuclear weapons against those that possess the ability to retaliate in an overwhelming fashion? And if we are, then how are we to view the last 63 years since their first employment and the overwhelming proliferation that followed? As nothing more than a game played by sane men using the most insane weapon ever conceived to play an elaborate game of global chess? And if we are, then what exactly does that make us?

Pawns or Kings?

Given my last entry, and an email I received from an Israeli in which I was attacked for being purposely hateful, I thought that this development might be of interest…

“A former U.S. Army mechanical engineer was arrested Tuesday on charges he slipped classified documents about nuclear weapons to an employee of the Israeli Consulate who also received information from convicted Pentagon spy Jonathan Pollard, authorities announced.

Ben-ami Kadish faces four counts of conspiracy, including allegations that he conspired to disclose U.S. national defense documents to Israel and that he acted as an agent of the Israeli government, U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia and FBI officials said.

A criminal complaint said the activities occurred from 1979 through 1985 while Kadish worked at the Army’s Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center in Dover, N.J.

Kadish, a U.S. citizen, is accused of taking classified documents home several times and letting the Israeli government worker photograph them.

The documents included information about nuclear weapons, a modified version of an F-15 fighter jet, and the Patriot missile air defense system, the complaint said.

According to the complaint, the Israeli government worker on numerous occasions during 1979-1985 gave Kadish lists of U.S. national defense classified documents for Kadish to obtain.

The complaint said Kadish, born in Connecticut, was employed from October 1963 to January 1990 as a mechanical engineer at the Army’s Picatinny Arsenal in Dover, where the research center is based.

The complaint said the Israeli worker, whose name was not given, is an Israeli citizen. It said that in the late 1970s, he was employed at Israeli Aircraft Industries in Israel, a defense manufacturing contractor for the Israeli government.

From July 1980 through November 1985, he was the consul for science affairs at the Israeli Consulate General in Manhattan, the complaint said.

The complaint noted that Pollard was charged in November 1985 with espionage-related offense after he provided classified information to the same Israeli worker, among other people.

The Israeli worker left the United States in November 1985 and has not returned, the complaint said.

Pollard, a former civilian intelligence analyst for the U.S. Navy, pleaded guilty while standing trial for transferring military secrets to Israel while working at the Pentagon. He is serving a life sentence.

There was no immediate comment from the Israeli government but a senior Israeli defense official told Reuters: “I find it hard to believe that, after the Pollard affair, we would recruit an American spy.”

Kadish was scheduled to appear Tuesday afternoon at a federal court in New York.”

Now, isn’t it ironic that a nation that has been caught red handed in the past stealing US military secrets remains one of the largest recipients of US military aid in the world? Not only that, but that current Presidential nominees defend them tooth and nail?

When was the last time, for example, someone was caught within the US military or intelligence community passing information to the Iranians? And if an individual were caught doing so, what do you honestly believe the repercussions would be?

After Pollard’s arrest, the Israeli’s denied that Pollard had spied for them, but would change their story in 1998, granting Pollard Israeli citizenship. The Israeli government has also paid for two of Pollard’s attorneys and has lobbied for his release, the most recent request supposedly being made in January of this year directly to President Bush by Prime Minister Olmert.

The US is also guilty of the practice, according to Israeli sources. The CIA supposedly turned Israeli intelligence officer Yosef Amit in the 1980’s, which led to Amit ultimately being sentenced to 12 years in prison. That was, of course, during an era in which Soviet made tanks, captured in Lebanon, were being transferred from the Israelis to the CIA, who then transferred them to the Pakistani ISI, who then transferred them to the Mujahideen fighting in Afghanistan.

It makes the head spin, I know – arms seized from one Arab force only to be transferred to another Arab force by way of three different countries. Unfortunately, that’s the game my friends, and it’s one that’s played by many. The Iranians support Hezbullah, the Americans support the Saudis who funnel support to Sunni militants in Iraq on the sly. The US also supports Colombian paramilitary groups and various African military proxies. The Russians support radical factions in breakaway States, and on and on and on.

But, ultimately, the point remains – how exactly does Israel get a free ride after being caught infiltrating the US intelligence community? Unless, that is, the US intelligence community knew about it, or willfully ignored it as long as they were able to before it being exposed to Congress or the media.

Put into bizarre perspective, not long ago a variety of Arab States were awarded $20 billion dollars in US military aid. To counterbalance that agreement, Israel was awarded $30 billion. Given that, and the fact that the US has been a steadfast supporter of Israel for decades, one has to seriously wonder why the Israeli government felt the need to infiltrate the US intelligence community and why the United States didn’t hold them, as a nation, more accountable?

The answer is very simple. Israel is, and always has been, a US Middle Eastern proxy. And as long as the money continues to flow, the Likud’s that control the Israeli government will continue to operate under the assumption that they can handle the Americans to their continued advantage.

So what’s a few spies between ‘friends’?

A reader, Kevin Mejlholm, recommended the following lecture (*See update below) by David Ray Griffin regarding 9/11. I am posting this not to promote the ideas presented by Griffin, but rather to simply present information that I think should be presented. Therefore, if you want to spend the time watching this lecture, which is one hour and thirty-eight minutes in length, I would be interested to hear your views in the comments as an exercise in open public debate.

The video is too large to post directly on this page, meaning that its frame width is large, so please visit the YouTube page directly.

In the past I have not truly delved into my own personal beliefs regarding the events of September 11th as they relate to the need for such a catastrophic event to occur to support the birth of an American hegemonic era. The roots of the Bush Doctrine, when objectively examined, provide insight into a much deeper American global agenda. That, in itself, could be taken as a ridiculous notion, but the reality remains that a post Cold War preemptive and unilateralist foreign policy platform was first outlined in 1992 by then members of the United States government, individuals that would, during the Clinton era, cultivate and refine their beliefs. After 9/11, some of the same individuals involved in the initial creation and subsequent refinement of that policy were, and are, members of government, among them Paul Wolfowitz, who, at the time, held the position of Deputy Secretary Of Defense. It was Wolfowitz’s Defense Planning Guidance, written at the instruction of then Secretary Of Defense Dick Cheney that initially outlined the initiatives required to exploit US global military and economic dominance in the post Cold War world.

By saying this I am not going to take the position that 9/11 was orchestrated, but I do firmly believe that it was used as a catalyst with which to indoctrinate the Western public and therefore allow for the implementation of a hegemonic reality that, since 9/11, has been proven by US operations and initiatives abroad.