IRAQI WAR: WHICH IS IT, "SHOCK AND AWE" OR "IRAQI FREEDOM"?
by Joel Skousen
www.joelskousen.com
WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF
March 21, 2003
Copyright Joel M. Skousen
Partial Quotations with attribution permitted.
Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief
(http://www.joelskousen.com).
[Excerpt]
The war has finally emerged into open attack, even though the US has been softening up and attacking Iraq by air for months. There was never any doubt in my mind that the US attack on Iraq was inevitable. The failed UN diplomacy gambit was only a show for the sake of achieving partial legitimacy before the American public, and to propagandize Americans about the noble globalist agenda that will live on and prosper even as the US and the UN pretend they are at odds over this war. Watch for the UN to jump right in once the war is over and turn the US victory into an opening for more UN intervention.
The original title chosen for the Iraqi war, Shock and Awe, is the real one. The euphemistic follow-on, Iraqi Freedom, like the deceptive title Enduring Freedom for Afghanistan, is being used to propagate the big lie that Iraq will be a free and democratic nation after the inevitable US victory. Afghanistan itself is hardly free today under the globalist puppet government of Hamid Karzai (who recently said that his government needs "foreign stabilization for as long as necessary"-which means occupation troops and foreign aid for a long, long time). I predict that in like manner, Iraq will never be free, except superficially. It will become another UN protectorate under a token Iraqi leadership whose primary function will be to keep buying off competing opposition groups with aid and lucrative local concessions. It is ironic that the US never allows a country to establish a government similar to its own constitutional Republic with strictly limited government powers. Instead, it always pushes for socialist democratic forms of government--ensuring constant future conflict between competing minority groups that hate each other. The US has solved nothing by its interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, except to replace indigenous tyranny with global control. Yes, the result is superficially more peaceful, but underlying resentment and hatred of their NWO occupiers is building.
President Bush has no intention of implementing the disinformation plan presented in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which supposedly justifies US intervention under the benevolent concept of using force to change the world for democracy. The President does intend to use US military power to overthrow unfavored regimes, but his objective is to supplant them with the UN-not a system of liberty. The president’s spokesman, Ari Fleischer, went out of his way to deflect the suggestion by a WND reporter that the US discard the UN as a failed institution. At Thursday’s press conference he asserted: "Looking ahead toward the future, there is indeed a very important role for the United Nations in the humanitarian efforts and the reconstruction efforts that lie ahead. That is, indeed, important. The United Nations has fulfilled that role in all corners around the world with ability in the past, and the president will look to them to do that again in the future." I beg to differ. The UN has failed miserably to establish peace, and has on many occasions looked the other way while Communist insurgents take over nation after nation in Africa. The fratricidal wars of genocide in Rwanda can be specifically blamed on the UN’s refusal to intervene in a timely manner.
Tony Blair, in his speech to the British nation, was even more specific. He let the cat out of the bag about UN control when he said, "Our commitment to the post-Saddam humanitarian effort will be total. We shall help Iraq move towards democracy and put the money from Iraqi oil in a UN trust fund so it benefits Iraq and no-one else." If Iraq is to be given liberty, why is it not given control of its oil revenues like any other Arab state? Apparently all the talk of Russia, the US and France negotiating with the Iraqi opposition for post war oil contracts was just so much disinformation to let the Iraqi opposition think they would have real power after the war.
Gordon Brown, Britain’s Chancellor of the exchequer reinforced the truth that US allies intend to put Iraq under UN financial control when he said, "I think the Government is of the view that the oil revenues should come under a United Nations trust fund. And therefore one of the arguments about this being a war for other countries to control Iraq's oil is simply not the case. There would be an international effort through the United Nations for reconstruction." Journalist Matt Peacock stated the ultimate truth: "Whatever happens at the UN in the next few days, it's not going to stop the war. More likely, it'll ensure its role after war."
In short, all of the somber faced piety of the President while addressing the nation about our supposed benevolent intentions was put on to deceive America’s religious conservatives into uncritical support for the war. But the president’s assurances about protecting America are but a mask to cover the ongoing global agenda to install the UN in protectorate status in as many trouble spots as possible. Indeed, it is my assessment that is the prime reason why George Bush, Sr., who used the term "New World Order" hundreds of times in speeches during his presidency, declined to remove Saddam Hussein at the conclusion of the Gulf War, shocking all his military leaders. The former president was setting the stage for round two of this conflict, a round that would finally harness Iraqi oil for NWO "nation building"-a euphemism for achievement of global control, one nation at a time. Iraq, under its new puppet regime, will probably never be in charge of its own oil or destiny again.
Let’s look at who the US is planning to work with in its "new and improved" Iraqi government. Ahmed Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC--the main opposition coalition in exile) has a less than sterling background. Chalabi fled Jordan after bilking investors out of millions in the failure of the Petra Bank-a bank he and others started up in Jordan to take advantage of the Shiite minority in Jordan, who complained that they had no bank sympathetic to their needs. Chalabi was found guilty by a Jordanian court and sentenced to 22 years in prison for his role in the disappearance of funds. Like all the other high level officials put in place by globalists, Chalabi fits the profile of being controllable due to the corruption hanging over his head. If Chalabi is allowed to lead in Iraq, you can be sure the US will twist Jordan’s arm to pardon Chalabi for his crimes.
I’m also keeping a look out for the reappearance of Gen. Nizar al-Khazraji, Saddam’s former army chief of staff, who was in charge of Saddam’s military when the Kurdish revolt was crushed by the use of chemical weapons. Al-Kharzraji defected to the West via Jordan and Spain and finally received asylum in Denmark in 1999. He mysteriously disappeared this week from his home after telling a friend he was "going for a walk" to smoke a cigarette. It is not known if he was finally nabbed by Iraqi agents or whether he was spirited away to a safe house by the CIA to play a future role in Iraq.
The US Tactical Strategy in Iraq: The US military/political strategy for the attack on Iraq is clever and has several options, designed to maximize the shock effects of new weapons and to encourage defections for a quick victory. The Bush administration wants out quickly and with the least casualties possible, not due to any great benevolence and regard for life (otherwise they wouldn’t be pushing this unjust war in the first place), but so they can continue intervening in other regions of the world without a huge public backlash at home. The US military, meanwhile, does not share in this secret globalist agenda. They are just following orders, though gratefully they are sincere in wanting to avoid casualties, both military and civilian.
The US prepped the war by taking out most of Iraq’s Russian provided air defense radars and dropping millions of leaflets encouraging Iraqi troops and units to surrender to avoid destruction. In order to induce Iraqis to accept these offers, the US began the first stage of hostilities with a brief but massive show of force-aerial bombardment for the shock effect--targeting points that would not kill many soldiers or people. Iraqi armored units and troops were carefully instructed by the leaflets on how to signal US forces of their intentions to surrender, so as not to be fired upon. Now, the US has begun the ground invasion in closely guarded armored columns, looking for surrender signs or resistance. If resistance is met, they will initiate more heavy bombardment to encourage surrender. Failing that, they will engage the enemy with full force on both ground and in the air. US units found very little resistance the first day. They are thus continuing northward toward Basra in southern Iraq and Baghdad, carefully probing for the enemy.
The US public is being flooded with non-stop war coverage, even more dramatic than in the Gulf War. Every major network has a key journalist assigned to combat units who can be seen riding into battle with mobile satellite uplink equipment doing real time reporting. However, none of these reporters are allowed to report on the Shock and Awe bombardments going on in Iraqi cities where civilian casualties are surely mounting. This selectivity in reporting is intentional. The US public, being inundated with war reports, thinks they are in the know, while the US government is able to successfully shield them from news of Iraqi civilian casualties-euphemistically termed "collateral damage."
One thing is sure: if the war ends up being a "cake walk" for the military and they do not find massive (not just some) stockpiles of WMD, the US is going to lose a great deal of credibility for having overstated the case for "imminent threat" and war-especially in light of the blatant and real threats represented by North Korea, China and Russia.
LINKING SUPPORT FOR OUR TROOPS WITH SUPPORT FOR THE WAR
As I am interviewed on various talk radio stations around the nation, I frequently encounter opposition from unthinking conservatives who take umbrage at any criticism of the president in a time of war. I don't know where people get the notion that even if a president is wrong in going to war, or has ulterior motives in doing so, as I have charged, we all have to get in line and support war efforts once our troops go into action. How does the initiation of hostilities make right what was wrong before? Shielding our troops from critical thinking about the governments stated objectives merely promotes the type of unquestioning loyalty in our military that leads to abject yesmanship. Uncritical obedience to orders is what led to the holocausts of prior wars.
True, the military must be trained to follow orders, but those orders must be just, and not a violation of human rights. And beyond the validity of specific orders themselves, military personnel have just as much right to challenge and question the government’s justifications for going to war, just as any other citizen. Today’s officers and generals are all too willing to leave this judgment entirely to the politicians. Where are the MacArthurs of today who are willing to resign their commissions rather than submit to another UN dominated war, hostile to national sovereignty? I believe military leaders ought to have the courage to resign rather than attack nations that don’t pose the proper direct threat to our own liberty. Politicians would never be able to carry out their evil designs if our military leaders had more courage to resist and resign in protest. Our leaders ought to be willing to scrutinize more carefully the carefully crafted rationalizations presented by government. I know it is difficult. Patriotic military intelligence people who know that information is being withheld from the public and/or falsified are prohibited from speaking out by National Security standards improperly applied to cover for political treason. A few military personnel have had the courage to resign rather than violate their conscience in participating in an unjust war. Sadly, they are vilified and threatened with court-martials rather than given the respect they deserve. In contrast, unthinking supporters of the president are uniformly applauded by the media as heroes.
Somehow we are being led to believe that criticism of the evils in our government is unpatriotic. In reality, it is not public warnings about the globalist agenda, but the president’s actions in advancing that agenda, that are damaging to our country. His actions, guided and directed by his CFR advisors, will lead to more conflict, more war and more terror-real terrorism, not these rare, high profile, agent provocateur events we have witnessed thus far. What really is putting our troops in harm’s way is the US taking the path of aggression around the world, helping to create the conflicts and crises that supposedly justify this war, but which will inevitably lead to WWIII. What we critics on the constitutional right are saying is this:
· The Iraqi war is unconstitutional without a declaration of war by Congress.
· The War on Terror is being used to justify the evisceration of our Constitutional civil rights.
· The Bush policies of pre-emption are contradictory to past permissiveness with Communism (the real threat) and hypocritical when he prohibits others from using the same doctrine in their war against terror.
· Bush is concealing his real motives for going to war.
· Supporting the war is not supporting freedom for either Iraq or the US-but furthering a globalist agenda.
· The US has no intention of allowing real liberty to prevail in Iraq, but will turn it over to UN control.
These criticisms are essential for both our soldiers and their families to know about. Don’t respond by repeating the old adage, "You can’t criticize our soldiers because they are protecting your right of free speech." They are doing no such thing in Iraq; they are blindly following a president’s hidden agenda. The troops need to hear the criticisms so they can be prepared to resist enlistment for unjust causes and be willing to resign rather than be ordered to contribute to a potentially unjust use of power.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor of a vigorous defense of our nation. I am not an isolationist either. I’m not against the use of military power when the cause is fully justified, and I have served faithfully in the military myself. I also believe there are times when you must act pre-emptively to protect the nation from an imminent attack against our liberties. But this isn’t one of those times. The US has never acted pre-emptively when they should have against real enemies, like Cuba, Soviet Russia with its secret and growing arsenal of WMDs, or China with its growing military threat. On the contrary, all modern administrations, including the current one, have secretly funded these nations’ rise in power and have further assisted our enemies with technology transfers and aid.
Now suddenly a weak and contained enemy like Saddam Hussein is deemed so "imminent" a threat that full scale war (without a proper Congressional declaration of war) is justified. I’m not buying it, and my reasons are legion, as you know if you have read my prior briefs. Contrary to what President Bush had said in his speeches of rationalization to the public, I firmly believe the US does meddle improperly in other governments affairs and does create the hatred of America that Bush incorrectly ascribes to others’ "hatred of our liberties." The world does not hate our liberties-it hates our government and its arrogant interventions and underhanded secret dealings via the CIA that the American public never sees.
WE LEARN ONLY LATER WHAT REALLY HAPPENS IN WAR
Governments never admit mistakes when they can cover them up instead. Here’s an example of the difference between what the British media and government sources reported during the Gulf War and what really happened. The following is an brief excerpt from the commentary of Felicity Arbuthnot, a freelance British journalist who has visited Iraq 26 times since the 1991 Gulf War.
"While we are on the subject of lying, when Baghdad was bombed in that four day blitz in 1998, Tony Blair stood up in the House of Commons and he talked about legitimate targets. He said that the Ministry of Defense had been bombed. I got in there two days later and found the Ministry of Defense had not been bombed. What they had bombed was a most beautiful Ottoman building on the banks of the Tigris, which had been the Ministry of Defense at the time of the Ottomans and hadn’t been used for that purpose for 60 years. In the same statement Blair said they had bombed Saddam’s sister’s palace. But no, they had bombed the Abbasid Palace, which was nearly 1,200 years old and has been used as a museum for about 70 years. It doesn’t even have electricity or heating."
BEWARE THE DRACONIAN RESTRICTIONS OF A RED ALERT
According to sources in New Jersey (the only state with the courage to openly tell its citizens of the restrictions Homeland Security is demanding), a Red Alert terror warning status will mean an almost total restriction of your freedom to move or carrying on normal business activities, except for health services. Everyone will be required to stay home. Highways will be blocked. We are talking marshal law here. Read the article in the South Jersey News at http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/march/m031603e.htm.
Obviously, someone hasn’t thought this out very well. If the government tried to pull this off nationwide for the kinds of non-specific and phony terrorist warnings the nation has had to endure so far, citizens will rebel. If you think the unnecessary two week shut down of the national airways was costly and unnecessary, think what a total shutdown of the whole economy would do, even for a few days. Israel never does this even while experiencing daily terror incidents.
No country can long survive with a stupid government that shuts everything down at the mere hint of a terrorist warning. Israel has learned to live with terror, and life there actually goes on quite normally. Either our government is full of a bunch of bureaucratic idiots, or there is an alternate dark agenda going on, to get people used to taking orders-take your pick. With all that said, governments have long since learned the prime rule of staying in power-don’t inconvenience or rile the whole population at once, for very long (unless you want to stampede them into war). Rather, pick on small unpopular groups that can’t protect themselves. So, if the government decides to launch a Red Alert without just cause, I don’t think it will last for long. Be prepared, however, to be self-sufficient in your own home without the need to go to the store for at least a week, just in case.
<A HREF="">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
