http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/424-national-security/10156-dont-nor
thwoods-iran
 

 General Lyman Lemnitzer, center, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff concocted a
'top secret' plan to create a pretext for an invasion of Cuba in 1962.
(photo: National Archives)
<http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/article_imgs5k/5963-lemnitzer
-jcs-northwoods-111361.jpg> 
General Lyman Lemnitzer, center, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff concocted a
'top secret' plan to create a pretext for an invasion of Cuba in 1962.
(photo: National Archives)

 <http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2012-02-24.asp> go to original article


Don't Northwoods Iran


By Jacob G. Hornberger, The Future of Freedom Foundation

25 February 12 12

  <http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/rsn_editorcomment_01.jpg>
Visit the National Security Archive at The George Washington University for
more about Operation Northwoods
<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/> . The full text of the
so-called 'Northwoods Document,' presented to and then rejected by President
Kennedy, is preserved as a PDF file here
<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf> . -- JPS/RSN
<http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/rsn_editorcomment_02.jpg> 

  <http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-A.jpg> ll the
buzz over possible war with Iran brings us a déjà vu feeling, given that
U.S. officials prepared Americans with similar pre-war hype in the run up to
their war on Iraq. WMDs. Mushroom clouds over American cities. An insane
dictator. Threats to national security. Etcetera.

Keep in mind that Iran, like Iraq, has never attacked the United States. If
President Obama gives his military and his CIA orders to attack Iran, the
United States will once again be the aggressor nation, as it was in its war
on Iraq.

That's one reason, of course, aggressors like to maneuver targeted nations
into firing the first shot. In that way, the aggressor nation can tell its
citizens, "We've been attacked! We're innocent! We have been forced to go to
war to defend ourselves."

That's what President Franklin Roosevelt tried to do with the Germans prior
to U.S. entry into World War II. He knew that the American people were
steadfastly opposed to entering into another European war, given the large
number of American soldiers who had died for nothing in World War I.

But the Germans refused to take the bait. So, FDR went into the Pacific in
search of a "back door to war." By imposing sanctions and an oil embargo on
Japan in the middle of its war on China, FDR figured that he stood a good
chance of maneuvering the Japanese into retaliating with a military strike
on U.S. forces in the Pacific.

FDR proved to be right. While the debate continues over whether FDR had
actual knowledge of the upcoming attack on Hawaii, there is little doubt
that he was anticipating an attack somewhere in the Pacific. When the attack
came at Pearl Harbor, FDR had achieved his goal - U.S. entry into World War
II.

The brutal sanctions that the U.S. government imposed against Iraq during
the 1990s had much the same goal. The idea was that Saddam Hussein would not
sit idly by and watch tens of thousands of Iraqi children die yearly and
would instead retaliate with a military strike against U.S. forces in the
region. Or the idea was that public agony in Iraq over the continuing deaths
of Iraqi children would cause Saddam to be taken out by an internal military
coup that would install a pro-U.S. regime into power.

But it was not to be. The children continued to die as each year went by,
and Saddam remained in power. It was 9/11 and the fake WMD alerts on Iraq
that enabled President George W. Bush to invade Iraq and achieve the regime
change that the sanctions hadn't achieved.

As the sanctions against Iran produce ever-growing suffering among the
Iranian people, will the Iranian regime sit back and simply watch it or will
it retaliate with a military strike on U.S. forces in the region? It's
impossible to predict, but what's easy to predict is the U.S. response to an
Iranian military strike: "We've been attacked! We're innocent! We were just
minding our own business! We have been forced to defend ourselves by bombing
Iran."

Another option for avoiding the appearance of being the aggressor power is
the Operation Northwoods option. During the Kennedy administration, the
Pentagon and the CIA wanted to invade Cuba to effect regime change there.
But they didn't want to appear as the aggressor power.

So, the Joint Chiefs of Staff came up with a proposal that it unanimously
approved and presented to JFK. The plan called for U.S. personnel to
disguise themselves as agents of the Cuban government and to engage in
terrorist attacks on the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay. It also called for
terrorist attacks within the United States that would be conducted by
pro-U.S. forces disguising themselves as Cuban agents.

One of the most fascinating aspects of Operation Northwoods involved the
proposed hijacking of an American passenger plane. The JCS proposed that a
real plane containing American passengers would be hijacked by friendly
forces disguised as Cuban agents. The plane would drop down off the radar
screen and be replaced by a pilotless aircraft, which would crash,
purportedly killing all the passengers. Under the plan, the real passenger
plane would be secretly flown back to the United States.

Do you see the problem though? How could the real passengers be released
back to their families without revealing that they hadn't really crashed?

Once all this had taken place, the Pentagon expected President Kennedy to
look into the national television cameras and simply lie to the American
people and to the world by falsely claiming that the Cuban government had
attacked the United States.

Of course, the Pentagon and the CIA would be expected to lie as well. No
doubt all documents relating to all this terrorist activity would have been
classified and remained secret for the next century or at least as long as
they could all be destroyed.

To Kennedy's ever-lasting credit, he rejected Operation Northwoods. Such
might not have been the case if Richard Nixon or Lyndon Johnson had been
president. Don't forget that just a few years later, Nixon would lie about
the Watergate cover-up and Johnson would lie about the Gulf of Tonkin
attack.

In fact, the Gulf of Tonkin incident provides another way that war could
break out against Iran. In order to provoke the North Vietnamese into
attacking U.S. forces, the Pentagon ordered U.S. Naval vessels to patrol in
or near North Vietnamese waters. When that plan didn't work, the Pentagon
simply made up a fake attack, falsely claiming that the North Vietnamese had
attacked the U.S. vessels. Seizing upon the fake attack, Johnson secured the
infamous Gulf of Tonkin Resolution from Congress that empowered him to
launch his military invasion of Vietnam, an invasion that ended up costing
the lives of almost 60,000 American men, who died for nothing.

The U.S. government has no business engaging in another war of aggression.
It has already killed or maimed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq,
none of whom had anything to do with 9/11. It has done the same to hundreds
of thousands of Afghanis, most of whom had nothing to do with 9/11. It was
killed countless people in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and elsewhere, most of
whom had nothing to do with 9/11.

Enough is enough. But if President Obama (or his possible successor) does
decide to go to war with Iran, he should be required, on pain of
impeachment, to follow the law that we the people have imposed upon him with
our Constitution. He should be made to secure a declaration of war from
Congress before sending our nation into war. At least in that way, Congress
could ferret out whether the president, the Pentagon, and the CIA have
employed a Pearl Harbor, Operation Northwoods, or Gulf of Tonkin scheme to
justify their war.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of the Future of Freedom
Foundation.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:laamn-unsubscr...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:laamn-subscr...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:laamn-dig...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:laamn-ow...@egroups.com?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:la...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/laamn@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    laamn-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
    laamn-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    laamn-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to