March 27, 2007

Zbigniew Brzezinski writes about the 'war on terror’.  I can’t emphasize enough how important it is for Americans to understand that the entire concept is Israeli, invented by Israeli strategists, and promulgated mainly by Benjamin Netanyahu (and his agents working within the highest levels of the American government), to provide a rationale for the peculiar against-interest continued American sponsorship of Israel after the fall of the Soviet Union (sponsorship needed for Israel to continue to build its empire after the loss of the concept of Israel as the bulwark in the Middle East against Soviet influence).  Brzezinski is aware of this, or course, but can’t say it, although you can get hints of what he is talking about by the Islamophobia examples that he gives.

There were terrorist attacks in the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s, but nobody thought about responding with a 'war on terror’.  The concept is absurd.  You fight wars against countries.  We’re told that a bunch of guys, mostly Saudis, directed by a fellow closely associated with the Saudi power elites, attacked the United States.  What is the response?  The United States attacked Afghanistan, the whole country, because the guy the FBI claims directed the attack was living in a cave somewhere there!  Before the concept of the 'war on terror’ was invented by the Israeli right this would have been regarded as sheer lunacy, but Americans swallowed the whole thing.  At the time, many people made the sane suggestion that, since the terrorist attacks were a criminal act, the appropriate response would be to send some FBI agents to Afghanistan to conduct an investigation, find the guilty parties, apprehend them, and bring them back for trial (had the United States asked nicely the Taliban would have consented to this).  Instead, the United States decided to fight a war – a war which it and its allies are losing rather badly – in order to clear the way to place some pipelines and prepare the intellectual climate in the United States for the war that was really the main neocon agenda item, the attack on Iraq.

The assassination of JFK contained big pointers leading you to think that either Cuba or the Soviet Union was behind the crime.  These pointers were all bogus, manufactured by whoever planned the murder.  The idea was to leave options open for a right-wing goal of attacking either the Soviet Union or Cuba.  The back-up plan, if something went terribly wrong (which it did, when Oswald wasn’t killed at the scene – note how the 9/11 planners avoided the problem by killing the perpetrators off in the act of committing the terrorism), was to leave the threat of a ruinous war out there to scare reasonable people in Washington to assist in covering up the crime.  The cover-up by the war-avoiding Washington establishment would also provide cover for the real forces behind the assassination (I’m following Peter Dale Scott on this, although I think that the 9/11 conspiracy is much different that the JFK assassination conspiracy, as conspirators learn from their mistakes, as well as by reading commentators on their mistakes like Peter Dale Scott!).

The big pointers from September 11 directed attention to places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, obviously not practical places for an American attack.  Yet it seemed that the American government had to do something, and the main pointer to Afghanistan, Osama himself (a guy who denies having had anything to do with the attack), together with the illogic of the 'war on terror’, led directly to the attack which had been pre-planned by the Bush Administration before September 11 (along with the attack on Iraq which was intended to be prepared by the introduction to the American people of the 'war on terror’ concept in Afghanistan).  I really have to wonder if the cover-up, with enthusiastic if somewhat incompetent assistance of the Washington elite, was motivated by threats to reveal manufactured evidence connecting the attacks to the Saudi royals (Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid al-Midhar look more and more like double agents, explaining how they moved through and into the United States unimpeded, ended up living in a house in San Diego owned by an FBI informant, and even attended the Malaysia meeting) leading to the threat of a war which the American Establishment would do anything to prevent (Senator Graham seems to a pointer, and I’d be looking for people connected to him very suspiciously).

The Israeli extreme right won the 'war on terror’.  Who lost?  Besides the obvious victims in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine, the losers are the people who are now subjected to the regime of fear caused by the 'war on terror’, in the United States and its allies.