Monday, August 13, 2007

The Timeline to Tyranny: Ten advances towards the end of freedom and privacy in the United States

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, August 7, 2007

The top ten advances towards tyranny in the United States during the tenure of the Bush administration, from the Patriot Act to the latest expansion of the illegal eavesdropping surveillance program.

1) The USA Patriot Act

The party line often heard from Neo-Cons in their attempts to defend the Patriot Act either circulate around the contention that the use of the Patriot Act has never been abused or that it isn't being used against American citizens. Here is an archive of articles that disproves both of these fallacies.

The Patriot Act was the boiler plate from which all subsequent attacks on the Constitution were formed.

2) Total Information Awareness

"Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database," infamously wrote New York Times writer William Safire, announcing the birth of Total Information Awareness, a kind of Echelon on steroids introduced a year after 9/11.

TIA was not canned, it was simply removed from the newspaper, renamed and continues to operate under a guise of different programs.

3) USA Patriot Act II

The second Patriot Act was a mirror image of powers that Julius Caesar and Adolf Hitler gave themselves. Whereas the First Patriot Act only gutted the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and seriously damaged the Seventh and the Tenth, the Second Patriot Act reorganized the entire Federal government as well as many areas of state government under the dictatorial control of the Justice Department, the Office of Homeland Security and the FEMA NORTHCOM military command.

The Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003, also known as the Second Patriot Act is by its very structure the definition of dictatorship.

4) Military Commissions Act

Slamming the final nail in the coffin of everything America used to stand for, the boot-licking U.S. Senate gave President Bush the legal authority to abduct and sexually mutilate American citizens and American children in the name of the war on terror in passing the Military Commissions Act and officially ending Habeas Corpus.

There is nothing in the "detainee" legislation that protects American citizens from being kidnapped by their own government and tortured.

The New York Times stated that the legislation introduced, "A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted."

Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times, "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

Similarly, law Professor Marty Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."

5) John Warner Defense Authorization Act

The Bush Junta quietly "tooled up" to utilize the U.S. military in engaging American dissidents after the next big crisis, with a frightening and overlooked piece of legislation that was passed alongside the Military Commissions Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which greased the skids for armed confrontation and abolishes posse comitatus.

6) Illegal Domestic Wiretapping Program

"Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials," reported the New York Times on December 16, 2005

The secret warrantless spying program was a complete violation of both the 4th Amendment and FISA.

7) Expansion of Illegal Domestic Wiretapping Program

Not content with now being lawfully allowed to force ISP's and cell phone companies to turn over data about customers without a warrant, the Bush administration is pushing for even more authority to spy on American citizens, and has already been handed a 6 month window within which to impose any surveillance policy it likes, and for that program to remain legal in perpetuity.

The administration has a 6 month window in which to impose any surveillance program it chooses and that program will go unchallenged and remain legally binding in perpetuity - it cannot be revoked. Under the definitions of the legislation, Bush has been granted absolute dictator status for a minimum of 6 months.

If he so chooses, and so long as it's implemented within the next half year, Bush could build a database of every website visited by every American - and the policy would be immune from Congressional challenge even after the "surveillance gap" legislation reaches its sunset

8) Martial Law Presidential Decision Directive 51

New legislation signed on May 9, 2007, declares that in the event of a "catastrophic event", the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, which also places the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic "security", was signed earlier this month without the approval or oversight of Congress and seemingly supercedes the National Emergency Act which allows the president to declare a national emergency but also requires that Congress have the authority to "modify, rescind, or render dormant" such emergency authority if it believes the president has acted inappropriately.

9) Destruction of the Dollar

Former World Bank Vice President, Chief Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz has predicted a global economic crash within 24 months - unless the current downturn is successfully managed. Asked if the situation was being properly handled Stiglitz emphatically responded "no,".

Stiglitz caused controversy in October 2001 when he exposed rampant corruption within the IMF and blew the whistle on their nefarious methods of inducing countries to fall under their debt before stripping them of sovereignty and hollowing out their economies. Stiglitz agreed that the process of hijacking and looting key infrastructure on the part of the IMF and World Bank, as an offshoot of predatory globalization, had now moved from the third world to Europe, the United States and Canada.

10) Amnesty & The North American Union

The open plan to merge the US with Mexico and Canada and create a Pan American Union has long been a Globalist brainchild but its very real and prescient implementation on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations has finally been reported on by mainstream news outlets.

The framework on which the American Union is being pegged is the NAFTA Super Highway, a four football-fields-wide leviathan that stretches from southern Mexico through the US up to Montreal Canada .Coupled with Bush's blanket amnesty program, the Pan American Union is the final jigsaw piece for the total dismantling of America as we know it.


Uncle Sam, Your Banker Will See You Now

By Paul Craig Roberts

08/08/07 "
ICH" --- - Early this morning China let the idiots in Washington, and on Wall Street, know that it has them by the short hairs. Two senior spokesmen for the Chinese government observed that China’s considerable holdings of US dollars and Treasury bonds “contributes a great deal to maintaining the position of the dollar as a reserve currency.”

Should the US proceed with sanctions intended to cause the Chinese currency to appreciate, “the Chinese central bank will be forced to sell dollars, which might lead to a mass depreciation of the dollar.”

If Western financial markets are sufficiently intelligent to comprehend the message, US interest rates will rise regardless of any further action by China. At this point, China does not need to sell a single bond. In an instant, China has made it clear that US interest rates depend on China, not on the Federal Reserve.

The precarious position of the US dollar as reserve currency has been thoroughly ignored and denied. The delusion that the US is “the world’s sole superpower,” whose currency is desirable regardless of its excess supply, reflects American hubris, not reality. This hubris is so extreme that only 6 weeks ago McKinsey Global Institute published a study that concluded that even a doubling of the US current account deficit to $1.6 trillion would pose no problem.

Strategic thinkers, if any remain who have not been purged by neocons, will quickly conclude that China’s power over the value of the dollar and US interest rates also gives China power over US foreign policy. The US was able to attack Afghanistan and Iraq only because China provided the largest part of the financing for Bush’s wars.

If China ceased to buy US Treasuries, Bush’s wars would end. The savings rate of US consumers is essentially zero, and several million are afflicted with mortgages that they cannot afford. With Bush’s budget in deficit and with no room in the US consumer’s budget for a tax increase, Bush’s wars can only be financed by foreigners.

No country on earth, except for Israel, supports the Bush regimes’ desire to attack Iran. It is China’s decision whether it calls in the US ambassador, and delivers the message that there will be no attack on Iran or further war unless the US is prepared to buy back $900 billion in US Treasury bonds and other dollar assets.

The US, of course, has no foreign reserves with which to make the purchase. The impact of such a large sale on US interest rates would wreck the US economy and effectively end Bush’s war-making capability. Moreover, other governments would likely follow the Chinese lead, as the main support for the US dollar has been China’s willingness to accumulate them. If the largest holder dumped the dollar, other countries would dump dollars, too.

The value and purchasing power of the US dollar would fall. When hard-pressed Americans went to Wal-Mart to make their purchases, the new prices would make them think they had wandered into Nieman Marcus. Americans would not be able to maintain their current living standard.

Simultaneously, Americans would be hit either with tax increases in order to close a budget deficit that foreigners will no longer finance or with large cuts in income security programs. The only other source of budgetary finance would be for the government to print money to pay its bills. In this event, Americans would experience inflation in addition to higher prices from dollar devaluation.

This is a grim outlook. We got in this position because our leaders are ignorant fools. So are our economists, many of whom are paid shills for some interest group. So are our corporate leaders whose greed gave China power over the US by offshoring the US production of goods and services to China. It was the corporate fat cats who turned US Gross Domestic Product into Chinese imports, and it was the “free trade, free market economists” who egged it on.

How did a people as stupid as Americans get so full of hubris?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

Wednesday, August 8, 2007



By: Prof. Fred S. Cabuang

PUBLICATION: The Manila Times

Page No.: A-5, Opinion

Date Published: August 4, 2007

August is the month of the year when we focus our attention on national language as well as regional languages in the Philippines. Our country is not only rich in natural and human resource, the Philippines is rich in languages. Ethnology 2002 listed around 163 languages including the endangered “negrito” languages. Latest count by some foreign linguists is now somewhere between 170 and 180. The count includes the “endangered languages” and the “threatened languages.” The endangered and threatened languages are increasing due to the close personal interactions of different ethnic communities and the opportunity for these communities to adopt the stronger language and replace the weaker language between and among the interacting communities.

Another reason why some languages begin to deteriorate is because some community members become simply “lazy” to speak their own language once they discover that there is another language that is more conveniently acceptable to many and that their language can be replaced with great ease and carries a high social acceptability. The strength of the language is measured by the number of people using a language for communication specially in education, commerce and day-to-day social activities.

There are many of us who still do not give importance to the value of language specially the “lingua franca” or “mother tongue.” The "lingua franca" or “mother tongue” is the language spoken at home by family members and the language being used by the members of the same community. The survival of the “mother tongue” is as important as saving “nature” and “humankind.” The protection of endangered species such as “plants and animals” and “people” who are classified as minority, such as women, children, disabled and senior citizens includes the protection of their “culture and language” under many international agreements.

In the 1800s, Ornolfor Thorsson, an adviser of the President of Iceland stated,
said, "Without our language , we have no culture, we have no identity, we are nothing."

Ornolfor Thorsson said this when the Icelandic language was in danger of
disappearing after years of Norwegian colonialism. Had this happened,
the Icelanders as an ethnolinguistic people would have disappeared from the face of the earth.

Some countries belonging to the new order have signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights where in Article 27, the rights of persons belonging to ethnic, religious and LINGUISTIC MINORITIES are well protected.

The United Nation (Resolution 47/135) adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December 1992 specifically stated;


1- States (member countries) shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and LINGUISTIC IDENTITY OF MINORITIES within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity.

2- STATES SHALL TAKE APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION and other measures to achieve those ends.


1- Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and LINGUISTIC MINORITIES (hereinafter referred to as persons belonging to minorities) have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion and TO USE THEIR OWN LANGUAGE, IN PRIVATE AND IN PUBLIC, FREELY AND WITHOUT INTERFERENCE OR ANY FORM OF DISCRIMINATION.


1- STATES SHALL TAKE MEASURES where required to ensure that persons belonging to minorities may exercise fully and effectively all their human rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination and in full EQUALITY before the law.

2- STATES SHALL TAKE MEASURES to create favourable conditions to enable persons belonging to minorities to express thier characteristics AND TO DEVELOP THEIR CULTURE, LANGUAGE, religion, traditions and customs, ...


4- STATES SHOULD, WHERE APPROPRIATE, TAKE MEASURES IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION, in order to encourage knowledge of the history, traditions, LANGUAGE AND CULTURE of the minorities existing within their territory.

You see, the advocacy to save the Philippine languages is not just a matter of protecting our “languages” but also protecting our Philippine “culture.” Our culture and languages will define our true Filipino identity. To fight for the preservation and protection of all languages in the Philippines, is not just a fight, but also a question of "RIGHT."

Unfortunately, here in the Philippines, there is still a lot of work to be done. Beginning from the compliance of all the provisions stated in many covenants and U.N. resolutions that concern language issues, our country does not have a working committee (regular, special, or otherwise) in Congress that will handle such concerns. The Philippines has been a signatory of all these covenants and resolutions, and initiating the so called “legislation and measures” as required by these international agreements is not possible if these matters on languages have no place in the Legislative Branch.

If we ignored the call to protect and save our languages today, where would the Filipinos be in five decades!!!

(Prof. Fred S. Cabuang is the Spokesperson and Vice-President for Congressional of SOLFED Foundation Inc. an NGO engaged in saving all languages in the Philippines. He is also the founder of the Institute for Linguistic Minority, an NGO to save the endangered languages of Indigenous Peoples of Mindanao. For comments, please send email to

Monday, August 6, 2007

US government fans homeland terrorism fear

Washington consensus plans for martial law, nuclear terror holocaust, behind closed doors

By Larry Chin Global Research, May 15, 2007

The US government and Washington elites are aggressively ramping up their “war on terrorism” rhetoric and propaganda, stoking fear and paranoia in order to bolster their war agenda, and reinvigorate the mass public perception of new and growing “homegrown terrorism” threats to the US homeland.

The next phase of America’s war abroad (under the management of a post-Bush neocon/neoliberal consensus), and the deepening militarization of the US homeland towards a full police state, are well underway.

Who or what was behind the Fort Dix Six?

On May 8, 2007, six foreign-born Muslims were arrested during an attempt to purchase assault weapons, and accused of plotting a terror attack on Fort Dix (New Jersey), as well as an assault on a Pennsylvania Navy installation.

While evidence regarding this case continues to unfold, what is clear is that the FBI and US intelligence had been infiltrated and monitored over an extensive period, as early as January 2006. An unnamed “shadowy informer”, likely an intelligence asset, is the key figure behind this operation and the arrest.

An objective analysis of the Fort Dix incident leads to questions about US military-intelligence involvement, and the use of the incident as a pretext:

“There is no doubt that the actions of the US military around the world are provoking a level of disgust and anger that could well produce misguided terrorist attacks within the US itself. Nonetheless, the various terrorist ‘plots’ exposed by the Bush administration have virtually without exception been characterized by a similar lack of any real preparation for violence combined with the central role of a covert informant/agent provocateur.”

In each of these cases, the supposed conspiracy has been heavily publicized in a transparent bid to justify the ongoing military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and to create a climate of fear in order to suppress democratic rights in the US itself.

“The exposure of the latest alleged plot has coincided with an unprecedented political crisis for the administration. With the president’s standing in the polls falling to record lows and US military casualties in Iraq increasing as the quagmire in the occupied country deepens, the political motive for unveiling another supposed terrorist threat from within is abundantly clear.”

The Fort Dix suspects allegedly came to the attention of authorities after one of them was fingered by a Circuit City store manager while requesting to dub a terrorism training videotape from VHS to DVD. This bungling is reminiscent of the actions of the so-called 9/11 hijackers (all of them guided US intelligence assets), and suggests low-level and amateurish “patsies”, guided and set up by larger forces.

This foiled “spectacular” terror plot comes shortly after the bizarre Virginia Tech massacre (which, perhaps coincidentally, bears striking similarities to other “manchurian candidate” incidents such as the Robert F. Kennedy assassination and the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley) successfully sparked fear across the country, and ignited new calls from citizens to “make our children safe”.

The clear political beneficiary of both the Fort Dix and V Tech episodes are the same: Homeland Security.

The emerging “homegrown” threat When asked if the Fort Dix arrests had any connection to Al-Qaeda, the Bush administration immediately stated that there is “no direct evidence of a foreign terrorist tie”.

This telling break, from the administration’s known pattern (seizing every opportunity to attribute violence to “Al-Qaeda”, “Islamo-fascists”, etc.) suggests that the new and overriding “war on terrorism” imperative favored by the Washington neocon-neoliberal consensus involves the threat of “homegrown” terrorism.

According to FBI agent J.P. Weis, who announced the arrest of the Fort Dix suspects, “these homegrown terrorists can prove to be as dangerous as any known group, if not more so. They operate under the radar.”

This rhetoric coincides with a larger effort on the part of elite policy shapers to manufacture, and sell, a nightmare scenario to an American public that is beginning to distrust its government, at the very moment that the real possibility of a resource-depleted post-Peak Oil American dystopia, the decline of the American empire, is beginning to hit home in earnest.

The “Preventive Defense Project”: martial law and nuclear holocaust in the United States In a series of closed-door sessions in Washington, a panel of high level government and military officials, security “experts” are constructing a homeland security plan that would include martial law and the suspension of civil liberties.


Contigencies for nuclear terrorist attack: government working up plan to prevent chaos in wake of bombing of major city:

Financed and organized by a joint Stanford-Harvard program known as the “Preventative Defense Project”, and led by the hawkish former Clinton administration defense secretary William Perry, and Harvard’s Ashton Carter (another Clinton defense department official), this panel of 41 “security experts”, directors of US nuclear weapons labs, and Homeland Security officials operatives are constructing a “blueprint” for the scenario that “Al-Qaeda” or another terrorist group with nuclear weapons will strike the United States.

The panel has concluded that such a terror strike would cause catastrophic destruction and death, “cause a possible disintegration of government order”, halt economic activity and unravel social order itself. The overriding objective of this panel, therefore, revolves around ways to maintain “order” and control the civilian populace.

In a workshop called “The Day After”, panel declared that preventing such a terror strike (similar in size to a Hiroshima-style detonation) was no longer enough, and that the “collapse of government order was so great, that a contingency plan is needed.

In an example of breathless and hawkish speculation, Carter declared: “We have had glimpses of something like this with Hiroshima, and glimpses with 9/11 and Katrina. But those are only glimpses. If one bomb goes off, there are likely to be more to follow. This fact, that nuclear terrorism will appear as a syndrome rather than as a single episode, has major consequences”. (The chaos of all three historical incidents cited by Carter were the result of government-orchestrated criminal aggression, two of them mass murders of the domestic US population. Carter, of course, did not acknowledge this.)

Another panelist was Fred Ikle, former defense department official during the Reagan-Bush Iran/Contra era, and author of a 2006 book, “Annihilation from Within”. Ikle’s book, and his work on the panel, aggressively promotes the suspension of civil liberties and the imposition of martial law.

Steven Fetter, dean of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, and one of the panelists, believes that “cities would empty and people would completely lose confidence in the ability of the government to protect them. You’d have nothing that resembles our current social order. I’m not sure any preparation can be sufficient to deal with that.”

Like many others, Fetter pushes the unfounded assumption that the US government protects its citizens, ignoring the fact (exemplified by 9/11 and the “war on terrorism”) that the civilian populace is under ongoing attack from the government itself.

It is no surprise that these policies are being hatched behind closed doors, by elites, and military-intelligence operatives and other “architects of reality”, with no involvement from the citizenry. It is, however, yet another ominous sign of things to come.

Nothing has been done to undo the Patriot Act, or end such things as illegal domestic spying and surveillance of American citizens. Nothing will be.

The world’s elites, from the “Preventive Defense Project” to the Council on Foreign Relations and other intelligence “think tanks”, are actively engineering future policies for a nightmare scenario (both the orchestration of scenario itself, as with 9/11, as well as in response to “disorder” and civilian unrest. Real and fake terrorism: products of Washington It is a fact that “Islamic terrorism” has always been a “homegrown” product. “Al Qaeda” and “Militant Islam” are creations of, and guided assets still working at the behest of, Anglo-American intelligence (the CIA, Pakistan’s ISI, etc.). Anglo-American involvement behind “terrorism”, and the manufacture of the “war on terrorism”, exhaustively documented in Michel Chossudovsky’s America’s “War on Terrorism” , Michael C. Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon:The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil , and other investigations, continue to be the focus of ongoing official cover-up. (See: Who is Osama bin Laden?, Al-Qaeda:the database) As Michel Chossudovsky points out in “The Anglo-American War of Terror: An Overview”
“One of the main objectives of war propaganda is to ‘fabricate an enemy’. As anti-war sentiment grows and the political legitimacy the Bush Administration falters, doubts regarding the existence of this illusive ‘outside enemy’ must be dispelled.

“Propaganda purports not only to drown the truth but also to ‘kill the evidence’ on how this ‘outside enemy’, namely Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda was fabricated and transformed into ‘Enemy Number One’. The entire National Security doctrine centers on the existence of an ‘outside enemy’ which is threatening the Homeland.”

It has been clear for months that the scandal-ridden Bush administration, collapsing under the weight of its own criminality, and plummeting public confidence and political support, is desperate to manufacture the appearance of progress, even triumph, in its waning months. In order to portray themselves as the Homeland’s premier “anti-terrorist” saviors, Bush and his functionaries must now attempt to sell their ability to solve to bogus problem with “terror” arrests and foiled plots, which have recently included the capture and execution of certain key Al-Qaeda” figures. The official “Al-Qaeda” narrative itself is being given a makeover. “Al-Qaeda”, “on the move”, is being implanted into the Anglo-American empire’s new hot spots, the new targets of Western military-intelligence intervention, such as Iraq, Irbil (near Iran), Somalia and even Gaza.

In addition, with America’s Middle East war agenda derailing under Bush-Cheney management, new bipartisan political desperation to “restore order”, shared by neocons and neoliberals alike, is resulting in a push towards a new and even more dangerous phase of the “war on terrorism”, and an increased potential for new manufactured crises and “new 9/11s”.

It is no surprise that most if not all of the so-called Democratic congressional opposition to the Bush administration uniformly embraces the “war on terrorism”. In fact, evidenced by recent debates between Democratic presidential candidates (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, etc.), the Democrats advocate aggressive Homeland Security and renewed (”even better”) “security” policies and improved ways to “kill terrorists”, expand Bush’s world war, and militarily intervene in new areas of “national security” interest. Far from being genuine opponents of the Bush-Cheney agenda, the Democrats are fully complicit.

Gullible, paranoid and violent US citizenry Lurid news coverage of the Fort Dix plot, the Virginia Tech massacre, and “war on terrorism” and a steady diet of “anti-terror” entertainment such as the television series 24, continue to spark panic and constant fear of “terrorism threats” among US citizens.

Reaction to the Fort Dix incident among the acquiescent and complacent populace has been uniformly paranoid, marked by saber-rattling and war-mongering. Some portions of the United States have been reverted quickly to the immediate post-9/11 mindset. A fear-struck populace is easily led.

The real threat remains the same What the world must continue to take seriously is not a threatened strike by “terrorists”, but the violent desperation of a stumbling New World Order that 1) compounds its criminal despair by continuing to commit terrorism and “run” terror groups to achieve its political purposes (the foremost being energy and resource conquest), 2) engage in terroristic provocations (foment backlash, or “blowback”), 3) wittingly and unwittingly creates new insurgencies and opposition from victimized populaces and occupied nations. As it was on the morning of 9/11, all eyes must remain locked on the guilty parties in Washington—the political criminals who are “above the law”, armed with the power to manipulate, control and exterminate broad sections of humanity, within the US homeland and abroad.

Japan ran brothels for U.S. as Allied occupation began Documentation details the system that followed Japan's use of "comfort women"

Article published Apr 26, 2007


TOKYO — Japan’s practice of enslaving women to provide sex for its troops in World War II has a little-known sequel: After its surrender — with tacit approval from the U.S. occupation authorities — Japan set up a similar “comfort women” system for American GIs.

An Associated Press review of historical documents and records shows American authorities permitted the official brothel system to operate despite internal reports that women were being coerced into prostitution. The Americans also had full knowledge by then of Japan’s atrocious treatment of women in countries across Asia during the war.

Tens of thousands of women were employed to provide cheap sex to U.S. troops until the spring of 1946, when Gen. Douglas MacArthur shut the brothels down.

The documents show the brothels were rushed into operation as American forces poured into Japan beginning in August 1945.

“Sadly, we police had to set up sexual comfort stations for the occupation troops,” recounts the official history of the Ibaraki Prefectural Police Department, just northeast of Tokyo. “The strategy was, through the special work of experienced women, to create a breakwater to protect regular women and girls.”

The orders from the Ministry of the Interior came on Aug. 18, 1945, a day before a Japanese delegation flew to the Philippines to negotiate the terms of surrender and occupation.

The Ibaraki police immediately set to work. The only suitable facility was a dormitory for single police officers, which they quickly converted into a brothel. Bedding from the navy was brought in, along with 20 comfort women. The brothel opened Sept. 20.

“As expected, after it opened it was elbow to elbow,” the history says. “The comfort women … had some resistance to selling themselves to men who just yesterday were the enemy, and because of differences in language and race, there were a great deal of apprehensions at first. But they were paid highly, and they gradually came to accept their work peacefully.”

Police officials and Tokyo businessmen established a network of brothels under the auspices of the Recreation and Amusement Association, which operated with government funds. On Aug. 28, 1945, an advance wave of occupation troops arrived in Atsugi, just south of Tokyo. By nightfall, the troops found the RAA’s first brothel.

“I rushed there with two or three RAA executives, and was surprised to see 500 or 600 soldiers standing in line on the street,” Seiichi Kaburagi, the chief of public relations for the RAA, wrote in a 1972 memoir. He said American MPs were barely able to keep the troops under control.

Though arranged and supervised by the police and civilian government, the system mirrored the comfort stations established by the Japanese military abroad during the war.

Kaburagi wrote that occupation GIs paid upfront and were given tickets and condoms. The first RAA brothel, called Komachien — The Babe Garden — had 38 women, but due to high demand that was quickly increased to 100. Each woman serviced from 15 to 60 clients a day.

American historian John Dower, in his book “Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of WWII,” says the charge for a short session with a prostitute was 15 yen, or about a dollar.

Kaburagi said the sudden demand forced brothel operators to advertise for women who were not licensed prostitutes.

Natsue Takita, a 19-year-old Komachien worker whose relatives had been killed in the war, responded to an ad seeking an office worker. She was told the only positions available were for comfort women and was persuaded to accept the offer.

According to Kaburagi’s memoirs, Takita jumped in front of a train a few days after the brothel started operations.

“The worst victims … were the women who, with no previous experience, answered the ads calling for ‘Women of the New Japan,’” he wrote.

By the end of 1945, about 350,000 U.S. troops were occupying Japan. At its peak, Kaburagi wrote, the RAA employed 70,000 prostitutes to serve them. Although there are suspicions, there is not clear evidence non-Japanese comfort women were imported to Japan as part of the program.

Toshiyuki Tanaka, a history professor at the Hiroshima Peace Institute, cautioned that Kaburagi’s number is hard to document. But he added the RAA was also only part of the picture; the number of private brothels outside the official system was likely even higher.

The U.S. occupation leadership provided the Japanese government with penicillin for comfort women servicing occupation troops, established prophylactic stations near the RAA brothels and, initially, condoned the troops’ use of them, according to documents discovered by Tanaka.

A Dec. 6, 1945, memorandum from Lt. Col. Hugh McDonald, a senior officer with the Public Health and Welfare Division of the occupation’s General Headquarters, shows U.S. occupation forces were aware the Japanese comfort women were often coerced.

Amid complaints from military chaplains and concerns that disclosure of the brothels would embarrass the occupation forces back in the U.S., on March 25, 1946, MacArthur placed all brothels, comfort stations and other places of prostitution off limits. The RAA soon collapsed.

MacArthur’s primary concern was not only a moral one.

By that time, Tanaka says, more than a quarter of all American GIs in the occupation forces had a sexually transmitted disease.

“The nationwide off-limits policy suddenly put more than 150,000 Japanese women out of a job,” Tanaka wrote. Most continued to serve the troops illegally. Many had VD and were destitute, he wrote.

Under intense pressure, Japan’s government apologized in 1993 for its role in running brothels around Asia and coercing women into serving its troops. The issue remains controversial today.

In January, California Rep. Mike Honda offered a resolution in the House condemning Japan’s use of sex slaves, in part to renew pressure on Japan ahead of the closure of the Asian Women’s Fund, a private foundation created two years after the apology to compensate comfort women.

The fund compensated 285 women in the Philippines, South Korea and Taiwan, out of an estimated 50,000- 200,000 comfort women enslaved by Japan’s military during the war. Each received 2 million yen, about $17,800. A handful of Dutch and Indonesian women were also given assistance.

The fund closed, as scheduled, on March 31.

Haruki Wada, the fund’s executive director, said its creation marked an important change in attitude among Japan’s leadership and represented the will of Japan’s “silent majority” to see that justice is done.

Even so, he admitted it fell short of expectations. “The vast majority of the women did not come forward,” he said.

As a step toward acknowledging and resolving the exploitation of Japanese women, it was a complete failure. Though they were free to do so, no Japanese women sought compensation.

“Not one Japanese woman has come forward to seek compensation or an apology,” Wada said. “Unless they feel they can say they were completely forced against their will, they feel they cannot come forward.”


history repeats itself over and over through the ages. There are really, very FEW scenarios in the soap opera of human affairs.

Thus, we can note, the meeting of two different civilizations, has occurred time and time and time again in the past hundred thousand years.

The pattern is this: The EMOTIONALLY stronger civilization prevails, in every case.

LEt us think of the number of malayans who were here when magellan arrived. hundreds of thousands, with a well-defined civilization: their own alphabet, their own languages.

All of this collapsed in a (in historical terms) moment, when the spaniards showed up with an EXTREMELY TINY force.

The spaniards didn’t get overwhelmed by the local’s religion and adopt it…. just the opposite.

The spaniards didn’t start speaking tagalog or visaya or ilongo. Just the opposite. Today, maybe a third of spoken tagalog is outright spanish import words…. a third!

How could this be?!?

What we know from history is that the spaniards never once, prevailed against an emotionally strong civilization. The dutch kicked them out of netherlands quite easily…. have you ever read that chapter of history?

Lapu-lapu was not a freedom fighter for the “filipinos”. He was a warlord of his own tribe, who was quareeliing, killing, and slave-taking from his neighbor tribes, LONG BEFORE magellan arrived!

Filipinos are always at the bottom becausee they are emotionally weak. Assholes like you are part of the problemn, not a part of the solution.

The Foreign chambers of commerce, love your types. You are helping wrap the filipinos in self-imposed, invisible chains of pretense. That is a formula for filipinos to be eternal servants to an emotionally stronger race.

At this moment, the chinese are TAKING OVER control of agriculture INSIDE this country. Forget about vegetable imports, that is a drop in the bucket. The chinese are taking over control of the farm fields right here! The Phils DEpartment of Agriculture is begging them to do it, otherwise the Filipinos will starve. How is it that we will be dropping like flies within weeks, if the import of Vietnamese rice is stopped? This is the reason that malacanang has no choice but to do what the foreigners ask…. becase we are not feeding our own children! Or maybe we go abroad to do it!

How could this possibly happen? There are two reasons. The filipinos are emotionally intrinsically weak. It is impossible to get filipinos to cooperate in groups, they prefer to quarrel amongst themselves. Therefore, we have only “backyard production” of a majority of agri outputs” Look at Kansas or Australia, a whole county full of farmers will get together to buy a quarter-million dollar machine which allows crops to be saved for market. NOt here! we lose 20-30 % of the crop to post-harvest losses…. because of “i will do business within MY FAMILY”.

Second reason is: filipinos are exceptionally provincial. Given a choice between a high-vlaue crop for export, and a low-value crop that can be sold to their neighboring villages, they will chose the latter!

There is a third reason. Filipinos are like a color-blind to QUASLITY issues. Just two days ago, Philippine Daily Star had an article about a chicharon maker in manila…. she has to IMPORT pig carcasses to get ones of sufficient quality to produce her snack product!!!!

Speaking of manila - is it not the focal center of tagalog civilization? yet, what was it originally? A MUSLIM village. Only the spaniards had enough balls to k

kick the moros out of manila!

And speaking of moro’s…. islam, a foreign religion!!! got here only a tiny bit before xtianity. just a few hundred years.

Screw up our pasture, then run away to another race’s “greener pastures”. THat is your mentality!

One good episode of the Bird Flue, the malayans will be gone - a foot note of forgotten history. No one will cry for them, just like you don’t admit the historical rights of the melanesians (”negritos”) who were here first.

- Alan Mark


This is just to correct the column of Conrado de Quiros (13 signs, 4/11/07) that Magellan landed in the Philippines “looking for the Indies and spices.” In fact, Magellan came to forcibly grab the islands from their original owners, the natives (our forefathers), in the name of the King of Spain, King Charles I. In his contract with Magellan dated March 22, 1518, Charles authorized the navigator to “go in search of discoveries,” adding, “you shall receive as reward the twentieth part of the proceeds and gains from all lands and islands that you will have discovered, and shall besides receive the title of Viceroy of these lands and islands for your sons and heirs for all time.”

In his Last Will and Testament, dated August 24, 1519, Magellan bequeathed to his son, Rodrigo Magellan, and his heirs in perpetuity, all the proceeds and benefits that he may receive as a result of his “capitulation” with the King, including the title and authority of governor of all the lands and islands that he may discover. The contract in turn was based on the Papal Bulls issued in 1493 by the most infamous pope in history, Pope Alexander VI, biological father of Cesare Borgia and Lucrecia Borgia, granting to the King of Spain all the lands in the West, and to the King of Portugal all the lands in the East, and drawing a demarcation line, extending from the North Pole to the South Pole between the “territories” of Spain and Portugal. Pope Alexander VI invoked the name of God in the global land-grab but sadly he showed no power of attorney from God granting him this right. In short, Alexander’s Bulls were a lot of “bull-s”. What if the Prophet Mohammed did the same, would the Christians accept?

When Magellan came to the Philippines in 1521, he found no spices, but he exacted tribute from the natives and died trying to subdue Lapu Lapu who refused to accept foreign rule. Despite finding no spices in the Philippines, Spanish forces returned 50 years later, this time in an unabashed voyage of conquest. Did Magellan “discover” the Philippines? The Chinese had been peacefully trading with the native Filipinos hundreds of years before Magellan arrived. They never tried to conquer our forefathers and grab their lands, and were generally honest in dealing with the Filipinos. Besides the Malays were here first.

Spain sold the Philippine islands and the Filipinos to the US for $20 million in the Treaty of Paris of December 1898 after being defeated in a war by the Filipino-American forces. The Spanish crown’s title to the Philippines was null because it was imposed by force, “without the consent of the governed.” Stolen property cannot be legally sold by the thief. People cannot be owned and sold by other people. To deny this would be to sanction slavery and robbery, thus destroying the foundation of civilization itself.

The Treaty of Paris was also contrary to morals and the natural law of equality of every human being and the right of ownership by original occupancy. It was treacherous of the US to turn against its allies, the Filipinos, in the war against Spain and then buy them from Spain as if they were chattels, and then kill them if they demanded liberty. According to Agoncillo, the Philippine-American war lasted from 1899 to 1913, with hundreds of thousands of Filipinos killed.

Unless Filipinos learn their true history, they will always remain slaves and servitors of foreigners. Mr. Robert Pidal (US didn’t cheat us, PDI 4/12/07) blame Filipinos. In law, natural or human, it is the aggressor, the robber and the slaver that are blamed, not their victims. It is sadism to blame the victim, masochism is when the victim blames himself. Sado-masochism is a mental disease.



Movement for Truth in History (MOTH)


March 25, 2007

The Editor

Philippine Daily Inquirer

The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, has apologized for Britain’s role in instituting the slavery of Africans that lasted 300 years. Religious leaders have also called on Prime Minister Tony Blair to make a formal apology and not just express “regrets.” The occasion was the 200th anniversary of the abolition by Britain of the “slave trade” in 1807.

Last February, the legislature of the State of Vrginia, USA, also voted unanimously for a resolution apologizing for the government-sanctioned slavery of African-Americans. Slavery ended in the US less than 150 years ago but only after a bloody civil war. The Virginia measure also expressed regret for “the exploitation of Native Americans.”

Japan has also apologized for its role in the Second World War, including the occupation of the Philippines, and for the colonization of Korea. Germany likewise has apologized for the War and for the holocaust in which six million Jews were allegedly roasted in ovens.

But Filipinos have yet to receive an apology from the United States for its war against Filipinos from 1899 to 1909, counting the resistance in Mindanao, in which hundreds of thousands of Filipinos died. The Philippine-American war had lasted as long as the Vietnam war. Americans came to the Philippines to fight the Spaniards but after defeating the Spaniards, the US attacked the Filipinos, and conquered their country. It is as if after landing in France to attack the Germans in the Second World War, the US turned their guns on their French allies and colonized France.

The Americans claimed they came to “teach” us democracy although we already were able to adopt our own democratic constitution in Malolos. So what kind of “demo-crazy” are we now enjoying in our country? Isn’t it just as bad as that of Iraq? If the US should apologize to their former slaves, why not to their former colony, the Philippines? To show its sincerity, the US should also stop treating our country as a neo-colony.



The Arroyo administration is at a crossroads, all because its national interest, as determined by the President, is closely intertwined with China’s, to the possible detriment of its close relations with the United States and the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

A series of moves initiated by the Arroyo government, particularly in expanding trade and investment ties with China, has been watched with keen interest by the United States, which has hegemony on the Philippine military, which is completely dependent on US military assistance and intelligence in its pursuit of a pocket war against the Abu Sayaff.

Moreover, Washington has clearly been peeved by the seemingly mindless effrontery of senior Philippine officials who want Manila to cut military deals with China in spite of the existing military assistance pacts with the US.

Needless to say, the umbilical cord of the Philippine military is tied to the US, which has nurtured a patronizing attitude on the poorly equipped Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), which in itself has been swamped by a culture of corruption in sourcing munitions, war material and other requirements of a standing army.

The caveat by the Arroyo government that it wants to enter into multilateral arrangements with Australia, United Kingdom and other countries does not sit well with military and intelligence officials at the Pentagon and Washington.

US officials would never understand the meaning of an independent military policy in the Philippines, its client state, so long as Manila continues to be within the sphere of domination by Washington.

There’s lies the rub.

For the Arroyo government to show that it means what it says, and that it would pursue an independent foreign and military policy, it should veer away from US dictates, and the routine visits or pilgrimages undertaken by Arroyo, her lesser officials and even those from the opposition to White House and the State Department would only mean that the little brown sister and brothers are incapable of weaning themselves from a colonial master.

Not only Wall Street, but also Langley, Virginia, has been rattled by the latest investment pledges by China to pour into the country P240.1-billion for agribusiness projects at a time when the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is going nowhere.

The vow of second-generation Chinese and Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap to make available more than 1.2 million hectares of land for Chinese investors has jarred US policymakers who maintain that the rapid pace of industrialization in China would force it to transform vast agricultural lands into industrial zones and compel it to source its food in eight years from foreign countries.

This seeming closeness of Manila and Beijing is also sending chills down the spine of ASEAN member-countries that do not want anyone in the regional grouping to take sides in the inevitable clash of China and the US, supposed to be the world’s only superpower that is being shamed daily by the intransigence and perseverance of Iraqi patriots in Baghdad and elsewhere.

ASEAN member-countries see China as a huge market, its economy growing by 11 percent annually, and they see with unabashed contempt the continuing attempt by Manila to act as Beijing’s fugleman in the region.

Here is a case of a fellow ASEAN country playing a role that is akin to a tributary to the Beijing imperial court, and this smacks of a puppetry to a superpower in the making. This, in effect, would push the envelope, so to speak, with ASEAN members soon forced to engage in offering better trade and investment deals with China.

It must be stressed that the US would not sit idly by as the Philippines continues to play footsies with Beijing, with Washington noting the vulnerability of the Arroyo government, whose legitimacy is in tatters and whose popularity is practically sub-zero.

At this stage, the US might as well exercise its dominion on what is essentially its neocolonial subaltern and crack the whip, so to speak.

One option for the US is to immediately cut military assistance as its principal interest, the decimation of the Abu Sayaff, is achieved. Another is to implement its underhanded destabilization plan oust the regime from power.


(An open letter to all American residents in the Philippines)

Dear Americans:

Most of you are probably asking “why is anti-Americanism growing in the Philippines”? To fully understand why there is a growing anti-Yankee sentiment among Filipinos; let us take a brief journey back in time.

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt shunned the thought that the Russians would embark on

their doctrine of world domination via class struggle. In fact, he allowed the Soviet Union, via the Yalta Agreement, to acquire territories. This enabled the Soviet communists to gain a permanent stranglehold on the hapless Russians.

2. In the late 1940’s, the United States deliberately withdrew their support to

Chiang Kai-Shek’s government. In effect, this enabled Mao Tse-Tung and Chou En-Lai to rule over mainland China. To do this then, Secretary of State George C. Marshall, a retired US Army general, assured the American government that, “Mao and his friends were friendly reformers who were determined to liberate the Chinese people from the corrupt and oppressive government of Chiang Kai-Shek. As a result, Chiang had to flee Formosa and there, set up the free Republic of China. During this time, American aid was cut off and the US State Department announced that, “Formosa and Korea were outside of the US defense perimeter.

3. Right after that declaration, the North Koreans, backed by the Soviet Union

and China, invaded South Korea. The Korean War, where a great number of Filipino troops fought and died for this “American Debacle”, turned out to be one of the bloodiest wars of the 20th century. The administration of Harry Truman violated the most fundamental principle of warfare – that an army must win a war and bring it to as swift an end as possible. Many Filipinos recall that Gen. Douglas MacArthur was fired by the US political elite because he disobeyed the order of appeasement which was to “fight the war but don’t win it.”

4. In April 1957, the New York Times published and interview by Herbert L.

Matthews, with Cuban rebel Fidel Castro who he praised for his Castro’s ‘love’ for the Cuban people and his strong ‘anti-communist’ views. On the other hand, US Ambassador to Cuba Arthur Gardner described Castro as a communist terrorist. At the end, the State Department recalled Gardner. Instead of making Gardner explain his views, the State Department sent him to Matthews for a briefing. This was done, in spite of the warnings of another American envoy, Robert Hill, who was then assigned in Mexico.

5. In order to convince the Soviets to agree to the removal of their missile base

in Cuba, President John F. Kennedy pledged that the U.S. would not invade or support an invasion of Castro’s ‘republic’. Today, because of that decision, Nicaragua became an adherent of Marxism, with El Salvador. Honduras, Chile, Peru and Paraguay now endangered of falling into the hands of Christian Marxists who are popularly known as, Liberation Theologists – mostly friars.

6. American foreign policy supported the overthrow of democrat Moise

Tshombe’s government in the Belgian Congo, by supporting Patrice Lumumba, a communist.

7. In 1961, the United States supported Cheddi Jagan, who openly admitted being a communist, in his takeover of British Guiana.

8. The United States snubbed the democratic government of Rhodesia (now

Zimbabwe), which eventually fell into the hands of Marxist Robert Mugabe.

9. American foreign policy bungling is blamed for the fall of Shah Reza Pahlavi

government. The Carter administration encouraged the overthrow of right-wing dictators in the belief that the Soviet Union would also respect “human rights”.

10. The U.S. State Department, aided by its liberal operatives in the Central

Intelligence Agency (CIA) conspired in toppling its confirmed anti-communist and genuine ally in President Ferdinand E. Marcos. In fact, they installed the pro-socialist government of Corazon Aquino and her Liberation Theologists headed by Cardinal Sin and the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines. At that instance, the CBCP was quietly building a Marxist infrastructure in the countryside. The effort was aided by American ‘liberals’ through funding and abetting front organizations of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), thru the National Democratic Front.

MILLIONS of Filipinos have to fought and died for the United States because you taught us the democratic principles consistent with the American Revolution. But where did all these wasted efforts bring us? In World War II, we fought the Japanese Imperial Army. Filipinos stood by the U.S. as a faithful ally, but what did the U.S. do after that war? You helped the Japanese more than you ever helped the Philippines. You called us to fight the communists in South Korea and Vietnam. Yet, we ask: how did you show us your gratitude? By giving us hand-me-down military equipment, carrot and stick development funds under onerous terms?

AMERICANS wake up before it is too late. Some of your own kind in Washington D.C. and U.S. embassies abroad are gradually delivering the Judaeo-Christian world to the godless Marxists. To quote the words of famous American author Hal Lindsey.

“… The Trilateral Commission members have assumed the right to make changes

of global significance, changes which affect the freedoms of millions of people.

They have done so with no public consultation, no debates, no election. They

have brought about these changes in virtual secrecy.

They have set out to capture the highest political offices in the U.S., Japan

and the Common Market countries in order to make changes in national and

international policy. But they have never informed the people in these countries

of their plans. Along with a growing number of Americans, I find this

inexcusable, arrogant and dangerous. I believe the Trilateralist movement is

unwittingly setting the stage for the political-economic one-world system the

Bible predicts for the last days…what the Trilateralists are trying to establish will soon be controlled by the coming world leader – the antichrist himself!”

WE APPEAL to all genuine American Christians, for help to the Filipinos in our struggle against godless Marxism and religious deception in the form of Liberation Theology.

Help us restore true Democracy. Join us in toppling the globalist agenda.

God bless the Philippines!


The Philippine government should be wary in what’s happening in Iraq and the Palestinians. With the death of Saddam Hussein, a civil war could be inevitable. It was the likes of a dictator like Saddam who could unite the warring factions of the Sunnis, Shiites and the Kurds. It was also the late Yassir Arafat who at least resolved the infighting between the Fatah and Hamas among the Palestinians.

In Mindanao, the Ramos administration successfully made peace with the MNLF but the MILF-GRP negotiation is far from achieving peace despite the intervention of the Malaysian and the U.S. government. The MILF asking for the control of its so called “ancestral domain” is like asking for the moon.

Everyone from Mindanao knows that there are more Christians there than Muslims but they have co-existed for a long time due to their leaders’ spirit of understanding and magnanimity.

Conflict arose when the Jabidah massacre and the Sabah takeover were exposed. It emboldened the Marcos enemies to make a deal with the Malaysian government. The rest is history.

Methinks that we don’t need foreign observers there to meddle in our own internal affairs. Our political leaders both Christian and Muslims can handle the problem with the support of our thinkers in the AFP. If Malaysia and the U.S. are sincere in helping, promises of aid and support should pass our government agencies. We should not give the MILF a status of belligerency. If we’re not careful balkanization of Mindanao is in the offing due to betrayed commitments.


Is the threat of a Korean Peninsula War real? The U.S. justifies their reluctance to hit North Korea with a good excuse that it is waging several battles in different fronts which include Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. It could overstretch their U.S. military expenditures and manpower that could possibly lead to the fall of the New Roman Empire.

In the process, it gave Japan the opportunity to give the Japanese a wake up call to revise its constitution and rearm. A policy that was believed by pacifists as the real agenda of the new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe disguising itself as a protection of Japan for any possible nuclear attack by the North Korean. Prime Minister Abe could be right but the ASEAN neighbors learned from history that the Japanese are expansionists after all.


A fear of the unknown? Why is the U.N. World Health Organization perceived as the messenger of doom? In practical lingo, usually the virus or sickness is being tested first to get the correct medicine for such flu which reportedly mutates. Why is the W.H.O. dead sure that the so called avian flu will sweep the world’s human populace? Are the U.N. and the W.H.O. controlled by big business especially drug companies? There’s a rumor in New York that nation states member of the United Nation have been delayed in delivering their funds contribution committed to that world organization. Just like SARS, the avian flu could be a hoax. It could be evil geniuses are preparing for a biological warfare which is less lethal than nuke warfare wherein in the earth will be damaged fully and M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction) will be inevitable. God forbid!


Thanks God, the American people has shown that right is might by voting more democrats and lesser good republicans in this Tuesday’s midterm elections.
The American populace which included the righteous officers and men of the U.S. armed forces have been sick and tired of President George Bush, Jr’s. politics of fear mongering, anger and terrorism hoax.
The democrats became the vehicle to avoid more humiliation and isolation to the world. Hopefully, it could prevent further escalation of conflict throughout not only in the Middle East but beyond.
America is still blessed with God fearing but righteous citizenry who will never just close their eyes for the wrong doing of a ruthless few.

The War on Terrorism

The war on terrorism which was believed to be cried wolf by U.S. President George Bush, Jr. & his chicken hawks backfired and alienated the U.S. to the rest of the world. Even the U.S. citizenry are up in arms against the Bush administration. The U.S. military has awakened to the truth that a hysteria that Bush whacked several scenarios of nightmare could replicate a defeat like what happened in Vietnam.

According to the Businessmirror, terror failed to dent global growth (11/2/06). It also failed to create the intended global economic havoc. It was reported by the Mastercard’s Worldwide 2nd Global Report – “Global Economic Resilience: Five Years after 9/11”, which showcased the resilience of the global economy.

Despite the rhetorics and hyperbole language of righteousness delivered by President George Bush, Jr. the people of America learned from history and used their conscience in trying to correct the wrong doings of their politicians and their financiers. The recent midterm elections did it. The American people voted for more democrats than the republicans.

The U.S. citizenry always adhere to the principle of the declaration of independence which says – “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.” Their national anthem the star spangled banner has been their ideology reminding them that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. It’s full of patriotism and virtues. Just like the Americans, we Filipinos should learn from history and should never repeat the past.

Cold War Shivers: War Preparations in the Middle East and Central Asia

The March to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Editor’s note:
We bring to the attention of our readers, this carefully documented review of the ongoing naval build-up and deployment of coalition forces in the Middle East.

The article examines the geopolitics behind this military deployment and its relationship to “the Battle for Oil”.

The structure of military alliances is crucial to an understanding of these war preparations.
The naval deployment is taking place in two distinct theaters: the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.

Both Israel and NATO are slated to play a major role in the US-led war.

The militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean is broadly under the jurisdiction of NATO in liaison with Israel. Directed against Syria, it is conducted under the façade of a UN peace-keeping mission pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1701. In this context, the war on Lebanon must be viewed as a stage of a the broader US sponsored military road-map.

The naval armada in the Persian Gulf is largely under US command, with the participation of Canada.

The naval buildup is coordinated with the planned air attacks. The planning of the aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued. While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.

These war plans must be taken very seriously.

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity.

In the weeks ahead, it is essential that citizens’ movements around the world act consistently to confront their respective governments and reverse and dismantle this military agenda.

What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called “Homeland Security agenda” which has already defined the contours of a police State.

It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 1 October 2006

The probability of another war in the Middle East is high. Only time will tell if the horrors of further warfare is to fully materialize. Even then, the shape of a war is still undecided in terms of its outcome.

If war is to be waged or not against Iran and Syria, there is still the undeniable build-up and development of measures that confirm a process of military deployment and preparation for war.
The diplomatic forum also seems to be pointing to the possibility of war. The decisions being made, the preparations being taken, and the military maneuvers that are unfolding on the geo-strategic chessboard are projecting a prognosis and forecast towards the direction of mobilization for some form of conflict in the Middle East.

In this context, people do not always realize that a war is never planned, executed or even anticipated in a matter of weeks. Military operations take months and even years to prepare. A classical example is Operation Overlord (popularly identified as “D-Day”), which resulted in the Battle of Normandy and the invasion of France. Operation Overlord took place on June 6, 1944, but the preparations for the military operation took eighteen months, “officially,” to set the stage for the invasion of the French coast. It was during a meeting in Casablanca, Morocco in January, 1943 that the U.S. President, F.D. Roosevelt, and the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, outlined a strategy to invade Normandy.1

With regard to Iraq, the “Downing Street memo2” confirms that the decision to go to war in 2003 was decided in 2002 by the United States and Britain, and thus the preparations for war with Iraq were in reality started in 2002, a year before the invasion. The preparations for the invasion of Iraq took place at least a entire year to arrange.

The period from 1991 to 2003 has seen continuous military operations against Iraq by the Anglo-American alliance. This period that has lasted for over a decade saw stages of heavy bombardment and major air strikes on a crippled Iraqi republic and its citizens. In reality the conditions for the groundwork and preparations of the invasion and eventual occupation of Iraq took over ten years to materialize. Iraq was weakened and its strength diluted within these ten years.

Even prior to this decade of Anglo-American bombardment and U.N. sanctions, Iraq was caught in an eight-year war with Iran in the 1980s. The war between Iran and Iraq was also fuelled and organized by the United States to weaken both. In retrospect the manipulation of a war between Iran and Iraq to weaken both states seems to be strategic planning in preparation for future military operations against them. In this time preparations were also being made by securing the Balkans for future Anglo-American operations. The Balkans is adjacent to the Middle East and is also a geographic extension of the region. Preparations were made by expanding NATO, shifting military bases eastward, and securing energy routes. Dismantling the state of Yugoslavia was also a part of this objective. Yugoslavia was the regional power of the Balkans and Southeast Europe. This was done through close coordination between the Anglo-American alliance and NATO. Now all eyes are on Iran and Syria. Will there be another Anglo-American initiated war in the Middle East?

Overview of Naval Confrontation against Iran

The Pentagon has already drawn up plans for U.S. sponsored attacks on Iran and Syria.3 Despite the public posturing of diplomacy by the United States and Britain, just like the Iraq Invasion, Iran and Syria sense another Anglo-American war in the horizon. Both countries have been strengthening their defenses for the eventuality of war with the Anglo-American alliance.

A conflict against Iran and Syria, if it were to materialize, would be unlike previous Anglo-American sponsored conflicts. It would be wider in scope, deadlier, and have active aerial and water (naval) fronts.

Sea power would be of greater significance than in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon. The United States would covet a quick victory. The chances of this happening are unknown. If there were to be a conflict with Iran, the United States and it partners would want to keep the Straits of Hormuz open for the flow of international oil. The Straits of Hormuz are the “energy lifeline of the world.”

The United States would without doubt quickly aim for the collapse of the Iranian and Syrian commands and military structures.

It must be noted that the Iranian Armed Forces are characterized by well structured military organization, with advanced military capabilities, when compared to Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon. Moreover, Iran has been preparing for a scenario of war with the Anglo-American alliance for almost a decade. These preparations were stepped up following the NATO-U.S. led attack on Yugoslavia (1999).

The types of military units and weapons systems being deployed in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea by the United States are considered to be best suited for combat against Iran, also with a view to keeping the Straits of Hormuz open for oil tankers. This also includes forces that would be able to secure bridgeheads on the Iranian coastline. These U.S. forces consist of early warning units, recognizance, amphibious elements, maritime search and rescue units, minesweepers, and rapid deployment units.

U.S. Strike Groups: Cargo intended for War?

The U.S.S. Enterprise a U.S. Navy flagship is under deployment to the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. This includes all the warships and vessels that compose Carrier Strike Group 12 (CSG 12) Destroyer Squadron 2 (DESRON 2), and Carrier Air Wing 1 (CVW 1). The stated objective for the deployment of the U.S.S. Enterprise, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, and other U.S. Navy vessels is to conduct naval security operations and aerial missions in the region. The deployment does not mention Iran, it is said to be part of the U.S.-led “War on Terror” under “Operation Enduring Freedom.”

Originally the name for Operation Enduring Freedom was “Operation Infinite Justice,” which highlights the unlimited scope and intentions of the War on Terror. “Operation Iraqi Freedom” which envelops the Anglo-American invasion and the continued occupation of Iraq is also a component of these operations. A large number of U.S. warships are deployed in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and the Arabian Sea.

While this deployment is said to be related to ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the warships are carrying with them equipment which is not intended for these two war theaters. Minesweepers and mine-hunters have absolutely no use in landlocked Afghanistan and are not needed in Iraq which has a maritime corridor and ports totally controlled by the Anglo-American alliance.

Other warships in the Enterprise Strike Group include the destroyer U.S.S. McFaul, the war frigate U.S.S. Nicholas, the battle cruiser U.S.S. Leyte Gulf, the attack submarine U.S.S. Alexandria, and the “fast combat support ship” U.S.N.S. Supply. The U.S.N.S. Supply will be a useful vessel in confronting the Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf in close-quarter combat. Speed will be an important factor in responding to potentially lethal Iranian missile and anti-ship missile attacks.

The U.S.S. Enterprise carries with it a host of infiltration, aerial attack, and rapid deployment units. This includes Marine Strike Fighter Squadron 251, Electronic Attack Squadron 137, and Airborne Early Warning Squadron 123. Squadron 123 will be vital in the event of a war with Iran in detecting Iranian missiles and sending warnings of danger to the U.S. fleet. Special mention should be made of the helicopter squadron specialized for combating submarines traveling with the strike group. “Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron 11” will be on board the U.S.S. Enterprise. The Persian Gulf is known to be the home of the Iranian submarine fleet, the only indigenous submarine fleet in the region.

The Eisenhower Strike Group, based in Norfolk, Virginia, has also received orders to deploy to the Middle East. The strike group is led by the U.S.S. Eisenhower, another nuclear battleship. It includes a cruiser, a destroyer, a war frigate, a submarine escort, and U.S. Navy supply ships. One of these two naval strike groups will position itself in the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea while the other naval strike group will position itself in the Persian Gulf, both off the Iranian coast.

Another Strike Group Performs Anti-submarine Drills and sets sail for the Persian Gulf
Another assault or strike group of U.S. warships, “Expeditionary Strike Group 5,” are setting off to sea too. This strike group is setting sail from Naval Station San Diego with the Persian Gulf in the Middle East as their final destination. Over 6,000 U.S. Marines and Navy personnel will be deployed to the Persian Gulf and Anglo-American occupied Iraq from San Diego.4 Approximately 4,000 U.S. sailors and 2,200 U.S. Marines from the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit at Camp Pendleton will make the bulk of the force. The warships and the servicemen they carry will reportedly have a tour of duty in the Persian Gulf and “possibly” Anglo-American occupied Iraq for half a year. They will also be joined by other ships including a Coast Guard vessel. A Marine air wing of 38 helicopters also is on board and travelling to the Persian Gulf.

The Marine contingent of the force is not destined for deployment in Iraq. It must be noted that the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit is, however, able to “rapidly deploy” on “order” using large landing craft stowed aboard the strike group’s warships. If ordered this rapid deployment unit has the strong potential of being used as part of an invasion force against Iran from the Persian Gulf. The Marine unit would be ideal in being part of an operation with the objective(s) of securing Iranian ports to create beachheads for an invasion.

Expeditionary Strike Group 5 (ESG 5) is being led by the assault ship the U.S.S. Boxer as the flagship. Expeditionary Strike Group 5 (ESG 5) will also consist of the U.S.S. Dubuque, a “dock landing vessel,” the naval transport ship the U.S.S. Comstock, the battle cruiser the U.S.S. Bunker Hill, the guided-missile hauling destroyer the U.S.S. Benfold, and the guided-missile hauling destroyer the U.S.S. Howard. Once again, these vessels will all be deployed in the Persian Gulf, in nearby proximity to the Iranian coast.

It is noteworthy to mention that the command and control structure of the group will be separated from the vessels for maximum flexibility. Also before the U.S. Naval strike group reaches the Persian Gulf it will be performing “anti-submarine drills and operations.” The anti-submarine exercises will take place off the coast of Hawaii, in the Pacific Ocean. This can be training and preparation intended for combating the Iranian submarine fleet in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. The warships will also be joined in Hawaii by Seattle-based U.S. Coast Guard and by a Canadian navy frigate, the H.M.C.S. Ottawa.

Canada contributes to the American-led naval build-up in the Persian Gulf
The Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is actively collaborating in this military endeavor.

Canadian foreign policy has been steadily and successively militarized by two successive governments.

The government of Prime Minister Paul Martin (Liberal) implemented the “three-dimensional policy” of the “3-Ds” (“Diplomacy”, “Development,” and “Defense”), adding a military component to Canadian foreign aid and development assistance.

The 3-Ds brought Canada into performing as more active role in U.S.-led operations in NATO garrisoned Afghanistan. Despite the public protest, Canada has become an integral member of the Anglo-American military alliance.

Canada’s involvement is not limited to Afghanistan as suggested by the press reports and official statements.

The H.M.C.S. Ottawa has been dispatched to the Persian Gulf, leaving in September, from British Columbia. Officially the H.M.C.S. Ottawa is being deployed as part of Canada’s contribution to fighting the “War on Terrorism.” The Canadian vessel is the first publicly known ship to be deployed to the waters of the Middle East in about a year.5 The Canadian vessel is slated to be fully integrated into “Expeditionary Strike Group 5 (ESG 5), which will be seafaring in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, off the Iranian coast.

HMCS Ottawa

The Canadian Pacific Fleet vessel, the H.M.C.S. Ottawa, will be the twentieth official Canadian naval deployment in support of the United States and Britain in the War on Terrorism. About 225 personnel will be on board the Canadian Navy ship, including a Sea King helicopter detachment.6
While the H.M.C.S. Ottawa is supporting the American-led war on terrorism, it is also to participate in anti-submarine exercises off the coast of Hawaii.

For what purpose are these exercises being conducted? How many countries in the Middle East or Persian Gulf have submarines? Iran is the only country in the Persian Gulf, which is not an ally of the U.S., which possesses an indigenous submarine fleet.

U.S. Coast Guard implicated in the Conflict with Iran

The U.S. Coast Guard is the fifth and smallest branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. The other four branches of the U.S. military are the U.S. Marines, Navy, Air Force, and the Army. The U.S. Coast Guard is unique in that it is a force that is one-third military, one-third law enforcement, and one-third a maritime search and rescue entity. In peacetime the U.S. Coast Guard falls under the jurisdiction and mandate of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, but at the Defense Department’s request, the Coast Guard can operate under military missions at sea. In a time of war when the need is urgent, the U.S. Coast Guard falls under the direct jurisdiction of the Pentagon as a military force.

The U.S. Coast Guard is beginning to see more use and deployment with the U.S. Navy. Coast Guards are being prepared for operations in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. Although this is not an unusual event by itself, it can be significant in relationship to other events and military movements unfolding and taking place. The U.S. Coast Guard will be of great value in the event of a conflict with Iran. U.S. Coast Guard can “enter ports that other warships can not.”7 This would be useful in securing bridgeheads of entry for an invasion force into Iran. The U.S. Coast Guard is also specialized in maritime search and rescue operations, unlike the U.S. Navy or the Marines. This is significant since it is predicted by military analysts that there will definitely be U.S. vessels that will be destroyed and heavily damaged in the Persian Gulf by the Iranian Armed Forces in the event of a conflict between the United States and Iran. U.S. Coast Guard will be crucial in rescue operations, besides speedy operations, protecting U.S. Navy ships, and the entry of ports or shores which other warships can not enter.

“What we bring to the strike group is the ability to conduct intercepts and maritime security operations,” and, “The tools used to fight crime and save lives at home [in the United States] are valuable in the war zone [the Persian Gulf],” elucidates Lee Alexander the commander of the U.S.S. Midgett8

Media Reports of Planned Attacks on Iran and Syria

There have been several reports in the international media, which have provided details regarding the military plans to attack Iran and Syria. These include reports from Israeli sources on attacks intended for Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. Some of these media reports even quote Members of the Israeli Knesset (MKs).9 The German and European media have published various articles on possible NATO and Turkish involvement in the planned U.S.air strikes on Iran. The Times (U.K.) reported in March, 2006 that:

“When Major-General Axel Tüttelmann, the head of NATO’s Airborne Early Warning and Control Force, showed off an AWACs early warning surveillance plane in Israel a fortnight ago, he caused a flurry of concern back at [NATO] headquarters in Brussels. It was not his demonstration that raised eyebrows, but what he said about NATO’s possible involvement in any future [Anglo-American] military strike against Iran. ‘We would be the first to be called up if the NATO council decided we should be,’ he said. NATO would prefer the emphasis to remain on the ‘if’, but Tüttelmann’s comments revealed that the military alliance [NATO] could play a supporting role if America launches air strikes against Iranian nuclear targets [including military facilities, industrial locations, and infrastructure].”10

United Press International (UPI) on December, 2005 reported that:
The Bush administration is preparing its NATO allies for a possible military strike against suspected nuclear sites in Iran in the New Year [2006], according to German media reports, reinforcing similar earlier suggestions in the Turkish media.

The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel this week quoted “NATO intelligence sources” who claimed that the NATO allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime [Iranian government] into line, including military options. This “all options are open” line has been President George W. Bush’s publicly stated policy throughout the past 18 months.

But the respected German weekly Der Spiegel notes “What is new here is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year [2005].”
The German news agency DDP cited “Western security sources” to claim that CIA Director Porter Goss asked Turkey’s premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets. Goss, who visited Ankara and met Erdogan on Dec. 12 [2005], was also reported to have to have asked for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the operation.

DDP cited German security sources who added that the Turks had been assured of a warning in advance if and when the military strikes took place, and had also been given “a green light” to mount their own attacks on the bases in Iran of the PKK, (Kurdish Workers party), which Turkey sees as a separatist group responsible for terrorist attacks inside Turkey.11

The “green light” given by the United States for Turkish military incursions would in all likelihood also include Kurdistan, including at some point Iraqi Kurdistan and Kurdish inhabited areas in Syria.

Time Magazine and the “Prepare to Deploy Order” of the Eisenhower Strike Group
The latest U.S. reports provide details of preparations to go to war with Iran and Syria. Time magazine confirms that orders have been given for deployment of a submarine, a battleship, two minesweepers, and two mine-hunters in the Persian Gulf by October 2006. There are very few places in the world where minesweepers would be needed or used besides the Persian Gulf.

There also very few places where anti-submarine drills are required , besides the Persian Gulf.
Anti-submarine drills are what Expeditionary Strike Group 5 (EST 5) is performing in the Pacific before it heads to the Persian Gulf, together with Canada’s H.M.C.S. Ottawa and units of the U.S. Coast Guard.

The Time Magazine article intimates that the operation could result in heavy American casualties.

“The first message was routine enough: a ‘Prepare to Deploy Order’ sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine-hunters. The orders didn’t actually command the ships out of port; they just said be ready to move by October 1 [2006]. A deployment of minesweepers to the east coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed, but until now largely theoretical, prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran.”12

Award-winning investigative reporter and journalist Dave Lindorff has written;
[Retired] Colonel Gardiner, who has taught military strategy at the National War College [of the United States], says that the [U.S. Navy] carrier deployment and a scheduled Persian Gulf arrival date of October 21 [2006] is “very important evidence” of war planning. He says, “I know that some naval forces have already received ‘prepare to deploy orders’ [PTDOs], which have set the date for being ready to go as October 1 [2006]. Given that it would take about from October 2 to October 21 to get those forces to the [Persian] Gulf region, that looks about like the date” of any possible military action against Iran. (A PTDO means that all crews should be at their stations, and ships and planes should be ready to go, by a certain date—in this case, reportedly, October 1.) Gardiner notes, “You cannot issue a PTDO and then stay ready for very long. It’s a very significant order, and it’s not done as a training exercise.” This point was also made in the Time article.

“I think the plan’s been picked: bomb the nuclear sites in Iran,” says [Colonel] Gardiner. “It’s a terrible idea, it’s against U.S. law and it’s against international law, but I think they’ve decided to do it.” Gardiner says that while the United States has the capability to hit those sites with its cruise missiles, “the Iranians have many more options than we [the United States] do.

Of course, Gardiner agrees, recent ship movements and other signs of military preparedness could be simply a bluff designed to show toughness in the bargaining with Iran over its nuclear program. But with the Iranian coast reportedly armed to the teeth with Chinese Silkworm anti-ship missiles, and possibly even more sophisticated Russian anti-ship weapons, against which the [U.S.] Navy has little reliable defenses, it seems unlikely the Navy would risk high-value assets like aircraft carriers or cruisers with such a tactic. Nor has bluffing been a Bush [Administration] MO [tactic] to date.13

The Pentagon responded to the Time magazine report by stating that the Chief of Naval Operations had merely asked the U.S. Navy to “put ‘fresh eyes’ on old U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the [Persian] Gulf.”14 This response in itself is questionable to analysts. Why would the United States want to stop the flow of oil from Iran, a major petroleum exporting nation, which would harm U.S. allies and the world economy?

Iranian Naval Force and Anti-ship Missiles

Iranian naval strength is divided into two main forces. One is the Navy within the Iranian Regular Armed Forces and the other is the naval branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Both forces have been updating and improving their equipment over the years. The aim of both naval forces is to act as a deterrent to the threat of invasion or attack from the United States.
Iran has a submarine fleet of Iranian and Russian manufactured submarines, a hovercraft fleet that was once the largest in the world, ROVs (remotely operated vehicles), various surface vessels of different sizes and operations, naval airborne units which include several helicopter squadrons, minesweepers, and a large arsenal of anti-ship missiles. The Iranian submarine fleet also includes mini-submarines manufactured domestically in Iran.15

Iran has been going through a naval build-up in the last decade. For example, in connection with the August 2006 Iranian war games and exercises, the Iranian military displayed its latest “Patrol Torpedo (PT) boats.” PT boats are small naval vessels that have been used effectively to attack larger warships. These types of ships could be a threat to the U.S. strike groups deploying in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. Naval Commander Kouchaki told Fars News Agency (FNA) that: “Joshan [a new Iranian PT boat] enjoys the world’s latest technology, specially with regard to its military, electrical and electronic systems, frame and chassis, and it has the capabilities required for launching powerful missiles.” “Similar to Iran’s first PT boat ‘Peykan’, ‘Joshan’ also has a speed of over 45 sea knots which makes it even faster than the same generation of PT boats manufactured by other countries. The vessel is capable of using various missiles and rockets with a range beyond 100 km [62.14 miles], high maneuverability power that helps it to escape torpedoes, and enjoys the most advanced sea shell of the world called ‘Fajr’.” The 76mm-caliber shell, which only Iran, the United States, and Italy can manufacture, of the new Iranian PT boat also enjoys a wide variety of military capabilities and can hit sea and air targets within the range of 19 km or 23 thousand feet in distance, respectively.16

Iran has also tested a series of “submarine-to-surface” anti-ship missiles during its August 2006 war games17. The latter seem to have raised some concern that Iran could disrupt the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf in the event of an Anglo-American assault.18

In its April 2006 war games, Iran tested an anti-ship missile, reported as “the world’s fastest,” with a top speed of approximately 362 kilometres per hour (km/h) or 225 miles per hour (m/h). The anti-ship missile is designed to destroy large submarines and is said to be “too fast for most vessels to escape” even if it is caught on their radar.19 Early warning systems will be essential for the U.S. in combating the Iranian military.

If storm clouds should gather above the Persian Gulf, the United States will have to keep the Straits of Hormuz open, international oil traffic running, and simultaneously face a large barrage of Iranian missiles from land, air, and sea. This includes deadly Iranian anti-ship missiles that Iran has developed with the help of Russia and China.

There have been warnings by analysts that the Persian Gulf could be closed off and turned into a shooting gallery by the Iranian Armed Forces. Iranian weaponry is also reported to be invisible to radar and can travel at high speeds. Amongst names mentioned in regards to Iranian anti-ship missiles are the modified Russian and Chinese “Silkworms” and “Sunburns,” which are based on earlier Soviet models.

The Iranian arsenal includes anti-ship missiles like the C-802 and Kowsar. The C-802 anti-ship missiles are missiles that originate from China. Kowsar anti-ship missiles are basically land-based anti-ship missiles (land-to-sea missiles) which can dodge electronic jamming systems.20
At this stage, it is impossible to say how the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard will perform against Iranian anti-ship missiles, in the context of a “real combat situation.”

Navy and Troop Movements in the Eastern Mediterranean

There is also considerable military movement and build-up of allied forces in the Eastern Mediterranean, formally under the disguise of a peace-keeping operation pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701.

Italy has redeployed Italian troops from Iraq, including commando units and armored reconnaissance units, to Lebanon. Two marine units, one belonging to the Italian Army and the other belonging to the Italian Navy, have been sent to Lebanon. Both are veteran units of separate tours of service in Anglo-American occupied Iraq. The Italian Army has sent the “Lagunari” of the Venice-based marine infantry unit the “Serenissima Regiment,” while the Italian Navy has sent the “San Marco Regiment.”

Spanish units and troops have been deployed near Tyre and the Israeli border in South Lebanon. Spain, with two warships off the coast of Lebanon is projected to have the third largest force from the E.U., after Italy and France.21 Large contingents of Spanish troops are additionally based away from the Mediterranean coast, around Jdeidet-Marjayoun (Marjayoun), near the Syrian border and both the Sheba Farms and Golan Heights occupied by Israel.

German warships will also join the vessels of other fellow NATO members in patrolling the coasts of the Eastern Mediterranean. German will eventually take over command of the naval forces from Italy. The German government has launched battle frigates and fast patrol boats to post-siege Lebanon.22

“The naval mission, the first German deployment to the Middle East since the end of the Second World War, was backed by 442 lawmakers, with 152 against and five abstentions. As many as 2,400 German [naval] personnel will now be deployed to the region, backed by a one- year mandate expiring August 31, 2007. The mission brings the number of German soldiers [meaning servicemen] serving overseas to above 10,000 for the first time in postwar [meaning post-World War II] history.”23

The coalition government of Denmark, formed by the Danish Conservative People’s Party and the Liberal Party of Denmark, has been a steadfast supporter of Anglo-American military objectives. The Danish government led by Prime Minister Anders Fogh Ramussen has sent Danish troops to both Anglo-American occupied Iraq and NATO garrisoned Afghanistan. Three Danish warships have also set sail for the Eastern Mediterranean to join the NATO armada of warships gathering off the Lebanese and Syrian coastlines. The Peter Tordenskiold, a naval corvette, and two Danish missile cruisers, the Raven and the Hawk, have been on stand-by for military operations in the Eastern Mediterranean since the end of the Anglo-American sponsored siege of Lebanon. The Danish naval attachment has been waiting in Wilhelmshaven, a German naval base, for a “go-ahead order” for nearly two weeks in early September, 2006.24 The Danish government is also talking about sending more troops to Afghanistan, which would join the 2,000 troops to be dispatched by Romania and Poland in early October, 2006.25

In Lebanon, France is involved in military operations on the ground, whereas Italian and German warships head the naval mission in the Eastern Mediterranean. Some 2,000 French troops are slated to be deployed in Lebanon. French tanks and armored units have helped comprise “the most powerful Armor ever deployed by a United Nations peacekeeping force” in history.26
Greek warships are also part of the naval armada in the Eastern Mediterranean. Ten Greek warships, which include diving units and navy helicopters, have added their strength to the NATO naval force off Lebanon with orders to “use force if needed.” The Greek naval commitment is coming at a reported cost of approximately 150,000 Euros for every week of operation to the Greek government. The Greek warships will dock in the southern port of Larnaca. Larnaca is on the southern side of the island of Cyprus and faces Lebanon. This is until the naval facilities of the Lebanese capital, Beirut, are deemed ready and safe by the commanders of the naval armada.27

The Netherlands is deploying alternating warships, with a reported 150 Dutch sailors. The Dutch warships will be comprised of one frigate and a supply ship offering logistics support to the naval fleet gathering in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Dutch deployment should start sometime in October 2006 and will continue sailing the Eastern Mediterranean until August, 2007. The Dutch Defense Minister has also said that the Dutch commitment could be extended by an additional extra 12 months.28

Belgium is also dispatching 400 troops to Southern Lebanon. The Belgian Defense Minister has been one of several defense officials visiting Lebanon to make preparations for military operations in Lebanon.29 Other defense officials in liaison with Lebanon have been dispatched by Italy and France.

Turkish troops have not yet positioned themselves in Lebanon and face strong domestic opposition. Turkey, an Israeli ally and NATO member, is to send troops to Lebanon by the end of October, 2006.30 This is happening despite of the mass public outcry and opposition in Turkey to the deployment of Turkish soldiers to Lebanon.

A former Turkish high ranking civilian representative of NATO in Afghanistan, Hikmet Cetin in a televised address attempted to reassure Turkish public opinion, emphasizing that Turkish troops would be going to Afghanistan, rather than to

“…the number of Turkish soldiers [in Afghanistan] has more than doubled from 300 to 700 over the last month [September, 2006]. Ankara can increase the number of soldiers in the upcoming period for the security of Kabul [Afghanistan], but it won’t send soldiers to clashes [in South Lebanon].”31

Bulgaria, another NATO member with troops in Afghanistan and (until 2005/2006) in Iraq, will be sending naval and ground forces to Lebanon.32

In turn, Britain will be dispatching a small contingent of troops to South Lebanon.33 The U.A.E., an Arab sheikdom, has been given a mandate to clear the Israeli landmines and booby-traps left south of the Litani River,34 an important source of water in the Levant that Israel has always had its eyes on. The U.A.E. has contracted its de-mining operations in South Lebanon to a British private security firm. The British security firm, “ArmorGroup International,” has received a 5.6 million U.S. dollar (2.9 million pound sterling) contract for a year of work in South Lebanon.35 ArmorGroup has also been providing security for the United States military in Iraq, the Persian Gulf, and Afghanistan, including protecting U.S. Navy facilities in Bahrain. The British security firm has additionally been providing security for oil and gas consortiums in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Nigeria, and the former Soviet Union, including Kazakhstan and the Republic of Azarbaijan.36 As in the cases of Afghanistan and Anglo-American occupied Iraq, private security firms are also starting to move into Lebanon, along with NATO.

NATO has “unofficially” moved in to fill the vacuum left by war in Lebanon as it “officially” did in the case of Afghanistan. NATO signed a military cooperation agreement with Israel in 2005. These NATO troops could become an occupation force, as is the case in Afghanistan..37
Israeli ground forces have not fully withdrawn from South Lebanon pursuant to the U.N. Security Council resolution and ceasefire.

Meanwhile Israeli vessels have turned over the responsibility for the enforcement of the illegal naval embargo on Lebanon to NATO naval vessels and warships.

This naval embargo recalls the internationally illegal “No-fly Zones” established over Iraq by the United States, Britain, and France, which contributed to weakening Iraq in the years prior to the 2003 Anglo-American invasion.

The crucial question is whether this naval embargo and militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean is part of the preparations for future military operation(s) directed against Syria. The illegal embargo has U.N. approval. It is upheld as part of the “monitoring” of the Lebanese coastline to enforce the entry of military supplies and weapons into Lebanon.

The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil: the Baku-Tbilisi -Cehyan Oil Terminal
There is undeniable international competition for energy resources in the world. The Baku-Tbilisi-Cehyan (BTC) Oil Terminal (also called the Caspian-Mediterranean Oil Terminal) has an outlet on the Turkish coast of the Eastern Mediterranean in close proximity to Syria and Lebanon. The opening of this pipeline is geo-strategically an important victory. This is a geo-strategic victory for the Anglo-American alliance, Israel, the large oil corporations, and their partners, but it is a geo-strategic set back for Russia, China, and Iran on the other hand. It seems that the sovereignty of Lebanon has been put into further danger with the opening of the strategic oil terminal.

The occupation of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) has been followed by the militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean, 44 The July 2006 Israeli siege of Lebanon is intimately related to the opening of the Baku-Tbilisi-Cehyan (BTC) Oil Terminal, the marshalling of naval vessels in the Persian Gulf-Arabian Sea, and an anticipated war against Iran and Syria.

Syria is also taking steps to strengthen its military. Russia is helping Syria build and upgrade its air defense systems. The Syrian military has additionally made numerous orders for Russian and Iranian manufactured warplanes and missiles. Belarus and China are also aiding the Syrian military.

Professor Michel Chossudovsky has given details on the Israeli war on Lebanon, the militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean, and the international rivalry for energy resources;
Is there a relationship between the bombing of Lebanon and the inauguration of the world’s largest strategic pipeline, which will channel more than a million barrels of oil a day to Western markets?

Virtually unnoticed, the inauguration of the Ceyhan-Tbilisi-Baku (BTC) oil pipeline, which links the Caspian Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean, took place on the 13th of July [2006], at the very outset of the Israeli sponsored bombings of Lebanon.

The bombing of Lebanon is part of a carefully planned and coordinated military road map. The extension of the war into Syria and Iran has already been contemplated by U.S. and Israeli military planners. This broader military agenda is intimately related to strategic oil and oil pipelines. It is supported by the Western oil giants, which control the pipeline corridors. In the context of the war on Lebanon, it seeks Israeli territorial control over the East Mediterranean coastline.

(The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, July 26, 2006)

Syria and Lebanon must be subjugated if the United States and its partners are to secure the Eastern Mediterranean coastline to expand the oil terminal from Ceyhan, Turkey to Israel, lock out Russia and China from securing international energy resources, and ultimately creating a monopoly over world energy resources.

The Eastern Mediterranean, a “Second Front” guarded by NATO?

There has been a significant build-up of military force, including naval power, in Lebanon and the waters of the Eastern Mediterranean. This force is composed of troops and naval vessels from several NATO countries including Italy, Spain, France, Turkey, Germany, and the Netherlands.
NATO’s “Operation Active Endeavor,” implemented in the wake of 9/11 is fully integrated into the U.S. sponsored “War on Terrorism”. The Operation is overseen by the Commander of “NATO Allied Naval Forces, Southern Europe” based in Naples.

In this context, a NATO naval task force of warships has been monitoring the Eastern Mediterranean since late 2001, years before the Israeli aerial siege of Lebanon (2006). This task force of NATO warships has been “trained and prepared for a prolonged operation in the Eastern Mediterranean since 2001.”45

According to one Israeli source, the NATO military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean is part of the war plans pertaining to Syria and Iran:

“This expectation [of a war launched against Iran and Syria] has brought together the greatest sea and air armada Europe [NATO] has ever assembled at any point on earth since World War II: two carriers with 75 fighter-bombers, spy planes and helicopters on their decks; 15 warships of various types – 7 French, 5 Italian, 2-3 Greek., 3-5 German, and 5 American; thousands of Marines – French, Italian and German, as well as 1,800 U.S. Marines. It is improbably billed as support for a mere [expected] 7,000 European soldiers who are deployed in Lebanon to prevent the dwindling Israeli force of 4-5,000 soldiers and some 15-16,000 Hezbollah militiamen from coming to blows as well as for humanitarian odd jobs. (…) So, if not for Lebanon, what is this fine array of naval power really there for? First, according to our military sources [in Israel], the European participants feel the need of a strong naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean to prevent a possible Iranian-U.S.-Israeli war igniting an Iranian long-range Shahab missile attack on [American-NATO bases used against Iran from eastern] Europe; second, as a deterrent to dissuade Syria and Hezbollah from opening a second front against America and Israel from their Eastern Mediterranean coasts.” 46

In the case of a war with Syria and Iran, NATO forces in the Eastern Mediterranean would no doubt play a decisive role. The Eastern Mediterranean would become one of several fronts, which could include Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf.

NATO “Enlargement” and the Caucasus

Just as it did in Afghanistan, NATO has moved into Lebanon. Under a formal peacekeeping mandate, NATO has become a de facto occupation force that is party to the Anglo-American agenda.

There are two other factors that fall into the NATO equation. The first is the militarization of Georgia and the Republic of Azerbaijan, two former republics of the Soviet Union which are firmly aligned with NATO. Georgia occupies a strategic position with regard to the control and protection of the oil pipeline corridors out of the Caspian Sea Basin. It also constitutes a wedge between Russia, Armenia, and Iran. Azerbaijan serves primarily as an oil source in the Caspian Sea basin at the outset of the Baku-Tbilisi- Ceyhan pipeline.

It is Georgia which is being propped up militarily to counter Russia, Iran, and their ally Armenia.
A strategic triangle is formed by Afghanistan in the east, the Caucasus in the north, and the Levant in the west, with Iraq and Iran somewhat in its center.

Georgia is essential to gaining control of this area from the north. The Caucasus region is also an interlinked front with the Middle East and Central Asia that will become more active as the Anglo-American military roadmap proceeds.

It seems that rising tensions between Russia and Georgia are part of this process. The civil unrest and conflicts in the Caucasus are intimately related to the struggle to secure Middle Eastern and Central Asian energy resources.

The Balkans, the heart of Central Asia, and Sudan are another strategic triangle of the Anglo-American military roadmap. The reconfiguration of Yugoslavia and the entrance of states such as Bulgaria, Albania, Montenegro, and Macedonia into the NATO sphere are also essential steps in the Anglo-American roadmap.

Russia has been outraged at the harboring of Chechen rebels in Georgia and the Georgian government’s collaboration with the United States in undermining Russian influence in the Caucasus. Russia has fought back and tried to counter Georgian and Anglo-American influence in the Caucasus by supporting the Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence movements. Additionally, border delimitation has become an issue between Georgia and Russia. This has resulted in an uneasy stalemate, but the situation seems to be changing. Russian troops have also been leaving their bases in Georgia47 and tensions have been rising between the Russians on the one hand and Georgia and NATO on the other.

September 2006 has seen relations on the brink of collapse. The Georgian government has charged the Russian military with spying in Georgia and the Russian Federation of trying to oust the Georgian government and install a pro-Russian, anti-NATO government in its place. In addition, South Ossetian forces have shot down a helicopter with the Georgian Defense Minister on board and, days later, Georgian authorities foiled what they claim was an attempt at a “coup d’etat” supported by Russia, which is something that the Russian government denies.48

There is also a striking parallel between “peacekeeping operations” in Georgia and Lebanon. Both are bogus operations with a hidden agenda. In Georgia it is Russian troops that are deployed as peacekeepers and in Lebanon peacekeeping is “unofficially” dominated by NATO. The Georgian Foreign Minister has said: “If we continue to drive the situation [in Georgia] … with existing actors and with the dominant power of Russia …we will end up in violence [war],” He has demanded that Russian troops stationed in Georgia withdraw and has accused Moscow of seeking to undermine the Georgian government.49

The second factor is the rapid expansionist policy of NATO.

NATO has been expanding eastward. It is now seeking entry for Georgia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and several other countries.50 The Russian Foreign Minister has told the Secretary-General of NATO that the “Reconfiguration of NATO military forces in Europe, as well as the desire of the United States to deploy certain elements of missile launching sites in Eastern Europe are the issues of concern for us [the Russian Federation].”51

In this regard, the Associated Press points to rising tensions between the Russian Federation and NATO, pertaining to Georgia’s membership in NATO

Moscow [the Russian government] denounced the move [to embrace Georgia further into NATO] as a Cold War throwback that hurt Russian interests and could further destabilize the Caucasus region. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov threatened to send two divisions of Russian troops to the border with Georgia to ensure that “Russia’s security won’t be hurt if Georgia enters NATO.”

The strained relations between Russia and Georgia worsened Thursday when Moscow recalled its ambassador, announced the recall of diplomats and complained to the United Nations about Georgia’s detention of five Russian officers on spying charges. Mr. Ivanov called Georgia a “bandit state.”

Georgia charged four of the officers on Friday with spying and was to put them on trial later in the day, said Shota Khizanishvili, spokesman for the Interior Minister. A fifth officer was released Friday (September, 2006).52

Formation of a Eurasian Military Alliance?

Since August 2006, Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyztan have been holding joint military exercises and anti-terrorism drills. These operations were conducted under the SCO and/or the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) (with the involvement of the Commonwealth of Independent States, CIS). These military exercises were conducted at a time when Iran was also involved in major war games.

-Russia and Belarus held joint military exercises in 2006 (June 17-25)53
-U.S. military operations and war games were held with Bulgaria and Romania, in the Balkans (July-August, 2006)54
-Iranian War Games started on August 19, 200655
-Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) Anti-terrorism exercises including Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan were held in late August 200656
-China and Kazakhstan held joint anti-terrorism drills also in late August (start August 23/24, 2006)57
-Russia, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan held joint anti-terrorism drills (September 19-23, 2006)58
-China and Tajikistan hold their first joint military exercise (September 22-23, 2006)59
-CIS and Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) Anti-Terrorism Drills in Armenia (September 26-28, 2006)60

The initiation of a “Eurasian Energy Club” was the practical outcome on September 15, 2006 for the SCO during a conference held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan.61 This is a goal that cannot be achieved unless Iran is a full member of the SCO.

IRNA quoted the Uzbek Deputy Prime Minister, Rustam Azimov, as saying that “the economic projects, on which [SCO] agreements were reached during the International Shanghai Conference [SCO], cannot be implemented without the cooperation of Iran, as a significant regional country.”62

Mongolia is also set to become a full member of the SCO. Mongolia, Iran, India, and Pakistan are all observer members of the SCO. Armenia, a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the CIS, and Serbia, a historical ally of Russia, are potential candidates for the SCO. Armenia has also made it clear that it has no intention of joining the E.U. or NATO.63 Belarus has also expressed interest in joining the SCO as a full member state.64
The expansion of the SCO and the complete inclusion of Iran as a full member has been challenged by the Helsinki Commission (the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe) during an inquiry (September 26, 2006) into the impact of the SCO on Anglo-American objectives and U.S. influence in Central Asia.

The expansion of the SCO was said to be unlikely because the “economic mission of the SCO seems ill-defined” and that the organization is not likely to add new members who may end up competing with Russia and China for control of Central Asia. It was also pointed out during the Helsinki Commission hearing that, “They [the members of the SCO] are bound together by a shared set of security interests and a shared set of perceived risk[s].”

“Security interests and perceived risks” being connotations for the growing threat of Anglo-American intrusion into the former Soviet republics of Central Asia

The war games held in the former Soviet Union and Central Asia65 were dominated by Russia and China. They were conducted under the disguise of fighting “terrorism, extremism, and separatism.” Terrorism, extremism, and separatism are critical arenas of cooperation for all member states.66 What is the hidden agenda? Are these war games related in any way to U.S. war preparations?

Terrorism, extremism, and separatism are nurtured by Anglo-American covert intelligence operations including sabotage and terrorist attacks by Special Forces. Inciting ethnic, ideological, and sectarian tension and separatist movements have been a traditional hallmark of Anglo-American strategy in the Middle East, the Balkans, India, Southeast Asia, the former Soviet Union and Africa.

As for the manipulation and creation of extremism, Afghanistan is testimony of this strategy. Afghanistan is where the Pakistani ISI and the United States helped create the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union. The United States, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia have also worked in supporting extremist movements in the former Soviet Union. This is one of the reasons that the Iranian government has remained silent in aiding or acknowledging religious based ideologues or separatist movements in the Caucasus and the former Soviet Union, including Chechnya.
Kurdistan: The Seeds of Balkanization and “Finlandization?”

Both the United States and Israel have been covertly training a number of Kurdish groups in Northern Iraq. Iran and Syria have accused Israel of establishing a military presence in Iraqi Kurdistan. Israel has also trained Anglo-American special forces in assassination missions and the formation of “hunter-killer teams”in Iraq.67

Magdi Abdelhadi, an Arab and Middle Eastern affairs analyst has written:
“Ever since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began over three years ago [in 2003], Arab journalists have been speaking of Israelis operating inside the autonomous region of Kurdistan [in Northern Iraq].

They said this was evidence that toppling that Saddam Hussein was only the first chapter in a wider American-Israeli conspiracy to eliminate threats to their strategic interests and re-draw the map of the Middle East [vis-à-vis a military roadmap].

Syria and Iran, which have common borders with Kurdish areas, are believed to be the primary targets.”68

There are deliberate attempts to manufacture or create civil strife and division within the countries of the Middle East. The underlying objectives are balkanization (division) and “finlandization” (pacification).69

Kurdistan is the geographic heart of the contemporary Middle East and the Gordian knot holding all its mosaic of states and people together. Kurdistan is also strategically the land-bridge connecting Syria and the Eastern Mediterranean with Iran. The Kurdish people have been continuously manipulated and deceived by the United States. The deliberate manipulation of the Kurdish people by the United States and Israel could deal a severe and chaotic blow to the stability of Kurdistan and the national unity of Syria, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and by extension the neighbors of these countries.

Moreover, the balkanization of Iraq could set in motion a domino-effect, which could have an impact in the entire Middle East and beyond. The United States has created the conditions for social division within Iraq. Dividing Iraqi society weakens the resistance movement to the Anglo-American military occupation. Creating sectarian and ethnic divisions in Iraqi society has a direct bearing on U.S. war plans pertaining to Iran and Syria. The premise is that Iraqis would be too busy fighting each other to offer significant support to Syria and Iran.

The balkanization of Iraq is also consistent with Anglo-American objectives for the “Eurasian Corridor” and the “Yinon Plan70” for the Greater Middle East.

Both objectives overlap and depend on a partnership between the United States, Britain, and Israel. These objectives rely on initial regime change(s) from within a targeted state through the triggering of ethnic and sectarian conflicts. This strategy is also being used against Russia, China, and Central Asia. The ultimate objective is the creation of a new set of Kuwait-like or Bahrain-like mini-states or Anglo-American protectorates in the Middle East and the former Soviet Union that can easily be controlled by the U.S., Britain, and Israel.

In an interview with Der Spiegel, the Syrian President said that the Middle East was teetering on the brink of chaos and conflict. When asked about the partition or balkanization of Anglo-American occupied Iraq, the Syrian President said:

“It would be harmful, not just for Iraq, but for the entire region, extending from Syria to the [Persian] Gulf and into Central Asia. Imagine snapping a necklace and all the pearls fall to the ground. Almost all these countries have natural dividing lines, and when ethnic and religious partition occurs in one country, it’ll soon happen elsewhere. It would be like the end of the Soviet Union—only far worse. Major wars, minor wars, no one will be capable of keeping the consequences under control.”71

The problem can further be compounded. A war with Syria could spill over and ignite further conflicts in Palestine, Jordan, and Lebanon, while also affecting Turkey, Cyprus, and the entire Arab World.

A war with Iran or any balkanization affecting Iran would also contribute to destabilizing the Caucasus, Turkey, and Central Asia which all have ethnic and cultural ties with Iran. This includes North Ossetia-Alania, Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, which are part of the South Federal District of the Russian Federation.

A war with Iran could spill over into the ethnically diverse Caucasus with serious and unpredictable ramifications for Russia.

The Caucasus is intimately interlinked with Iran. The conflicts between Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, the internal conflicts in Georgia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and the fighting in Chechnya and Dagestan could all light up again. These conflicts would not only threaten Russia’s national security, they would also affect the SCO, which is integrated with China, Russia and several former Soviet republics as well as the CSTO..
Connect-the-Dots: All the Pieces Coming Together?

There is an evident military build-up of conventional, ground, air, naval, and nuclear forces in and around the Middle East and Central Asia. It includes the mobilization of British troops on the Iranian border72, and the extension of military tours of service in Anglo-American occupied Iraq and NATO garrisoned Afghanistan.73 The 1st Brigade of 1st Armored Division, a 4,000 man unit which is operating in the Al-Anbar province of Iraq, bordering Syria, has had their tour of duty extended. They are not the first group of American or British soldiers to have their tours of duty extended in Iraq or Afghanistan. The brigade has about 4,000 soldiers in Iraq.74 They were scheduled to be in Iraq for a maximum of 12 months, but their tours have been extended repeatedly like other military units. The U.S. Army has also extended the tour of the Alaska-based 172nd Striker Brigade, an army unit with over 3,500 troops, several times.75
Many of the Arab dictatorships will also secretly support the Anglo-American alliance. They will watch as Syria and Iran are attacked and Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan are further devastated by conflict. The pro-U.S. governments of Saudi Arabia, the Arab sheikdoms, Egypt, and Jordan are supportive of the U.S. “military roadmap”, despite the fact that the people in these countries are firmly opposed to the U.S. led war. The hopes of a Palestinian state have also been abandoned by their leaders.

They have demonstrated this in their involvement against Iraq before and after the 2003 Anglo-American invasion. They have tacitly accepted the oppression of the Palestinian people, as well as the Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon (phrased in Lebanon as the “Arab conspiracy against Lebanon”). There have been media reports that Saudi Arabia and Israel have also been conducting secret talks in regards to Iran and the broader Middle East.76
Romania and Bulgaria are already important hubs for Anglo-American military operations in Eurasia extending from the Balkans to the Middle East and Central Asia. Both states are also important partners of the Anglo-American alliance. According to Lawrence Korb in a 2003 article in The New York Times:

The Pentagon is smitten with Romania. And Poland. And Bulgaria too. The Defense Department is considering closing many, if not all, of its bases in Western Europe—which are primarily in Germany—and to shift its troops to Spartan new sites in the former Soviet bloc. Already we [the public] are told that the First Armored Division, now on the ground in Iraq, will not return to the bases in Germany it left in April [2003]. And Gen. James Jones, the head of the European Command [of the United States], said this month that all 26 Army and Air Force installation in Germany, except for the Air Force base at Ramstein, might be closed. In effect this could mean transferring five army brigades, some 25, 000 troops, to the East [meaning Eastern Europe; Bulgaria and Romania].

(The Pentagon’s Eastern Obsession, NYT, July 30, 2003)

In retrospect the Pentagon’s decision to move eastward was strategically correct and based on the premise of the eastward shift of Anglo-American military operations. The situation in the former Yugoslavia and the Balkans was placated in the second half of the 1990s. With the start of 2001 the time had come to advance operations further eastward.

NATO has also been in liaison with Washington, London and Tel Aviv. Anglo-American and Israeli interests have been served by NATO. NATO either formally or informally has been sending troops to assist in the “occupational phase” of all Anglo-American operations after the “blitzkriegs” or “initial military phases.” NATO and member states have been acting as occupation forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and are also moving into Lebanon. The Secretary-General of NATO has promised that the NATO mission in Afghanistan will expand and intensify.77

NATO spokesmen in Afghanistan have reported that by February 2007 General McNeil of the U.S. Army will take over command of NATO forces in Afghanistan, called the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and American troops in Afghanistan. This means that American troops and NATO troops, which have been under separate command structures, will now be joined under one command structure in Afghanistan.78 The media has pointed to the fact that U.S. troops would be under NATO command. But what is really at stake is that a U.S. General is now overseeing NATO forces.

Roughly 12,000 mostly American troops in Afghanistan will begin to integrate with NATO in October 2006.79 The top NATO command post in Afghanistan is currently headed by Lieutenant -General David Richards of Britain. In the case of a conflict with Iran, NATO troops in Afghanistan would attack Iran. Similalry, NATO troops stationed in Lebanon would attack Syria.

The Pakistani Connection

There are also signs that NATO and the United States are expecting the collapse of General Musharraf and the Pakistani government because of the chaos that would be triggered in Pakistan from attacks on Iran and Syria.80 This could explain the request that India send troops into Afghanistan.81 NATO and Indian interests would converge in ensuring that Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal not fall into the hands of radicals or extremists that could threaten Anglo-American interests and the security of India.

The Affirmation of a “March to War” from the Leaders of Syria, Iran, and Venezuela
There is no arms ban on Syria for importing defensive systems, but a merchant ship coming from Asia and Egypt has been detained in Limassol, Cyprus carrying air defense systems headed for Syria. The ship is free to leave, but the fate of its cargo is still undecided.82 Syria’s president and government have also said they expect to be attacked by Israel in the context of a broader Middle East war.83

In an NBC interview with Brian Williams, the Iranian President said that the White House and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East are “moving the world toward war.” This is a significant assertion coming from a leader of a Middle Eastern state and such a statement must be taken very seriously. The Iranian President, made a similar statement in his September address to the U.N. General Assembly, pointing to the fact that the United States was dragging the world towards a major war.

Iranian leaders have announced that British and American diplomacy efforts are merely bravado for the general public. They point to the “illusion of trying to solve crisis through diplomacy.” In the cases of both Iraq and Afghanistan the United States and Britain decided to go to long before they informed the public of their intentions. In the case of Iraq there exist de-classified documentation that prove this to be true and in the case of Afghanistan there was no possible logistical way of preparing for an invasion without months of planning prior to the declaration of war, which took place on the 12th of September 2001

Iran is fully aware of the U.S. threat to bomb and invade. Its population is fully aware of the possibility of Anglo-American air raids. Iran has cautioned the United States and Britain. In August 2006, Iranian war games in coordination with Russian, Chinese, and CSTO war games took place throughout Iran, including all of Iran’s geo-strategically important border provinces with Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, Turkey, and Iraq. Clear signals were being sent to the Anglo-American alliance.

Venezuela, an Iranian ally, has warned the United States repeatedly that it will not watch Iran and Syria being invaded or attacked. The President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, has alluded to U.S. military preparations for the invasion of Iran in his speech to the 61st U.N. General Assembly:

“And now [the United States is] threatening Venezuela—new threats against Venezuela, against Iran [too]?”84

The Venezuelan President also stated: “Meantime, the incumbent U.S. administration is also dreaming [incorrectly planning] of invading Iran and Venezuela to take control of the oil resources of these two countries as well [as those of Iraq].”85

How Venezuela plans to aid Iran and Syria in a war against the United States is a topic of debate, but it is very likely that, in the case of war, Venezuelan diplomatic relations with the U.S. government and oil supplies to the United States will be cut off.

Link between the Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean?

There is as process of ongoing militarization in the Levant and the Eastern Mediterranean, essentially led by NATO forces, under the pretext of U.N. peacekeeping.

If the U.S. led war were to proceed, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal, as well as the pipeline route leading to Ceyhan, would be an obvious military target of Syrian-Iranian forces. Meanwhile, the Iranian Navy would attempt to block the Straits of Hormuz. This could deliver a halting grind to the flow of world oil supplies as Iran has repeatedly promised. Venezuela could also stop the flow of its oil as its government has repeatedly warned.

Ýncirlik Air Base is a major NATO base in Turkey, next to the Syrian border and coastline. It must be noted that American nuclear weapons have also been positioned in Turkey’s Ýncirlik Air Base. The latter was one of the main hubs for the United States and NATO during the 2001 Afghanistan military campaign. This Turkish base is still of vital importance to the United States, Britain, and NATO. Thousands of American and British airmen are stationed there. It is also adjacent to the Baku-Tbilisi-Cehyan (BTC) Oil Terminal.

The Baku-Tbilisi-Cehyan (BTC) Oil Terminal will become even more significant and important if Iran should successfully close off the Straits of Hormuz.

This is one of the reasons why the Ýncirlik Air Base is strategically important. The Ýncirlik Air Base would be used to protect the Port of Ceyhan, the outlet of the Baku-Tbilisi-Cehyan (BTC) Oil Terminal. The NATO armada in the eastern Mediterranean as well as Israel would also play an important role in protecting the Baku-Tbilisi-Cehyan (BTC) Oil Terminal if Syria or Iran attempted to disrupt the flow of energy to the Eastern Mediterranean.

There are two distinct naval armadas: in the Persian Gulf-Arabian Sea and in the Eastern Mediterranean off the coastlines of Syria and Lebanon.

These armadas are being built-up concurrently. The Eastern Mediterranean build-up is essentially characterized by Israeli and NATO naval and ground forces. In the Persian Gulf, the naval armada is largely American with the participation of the British, Australia, and Canada. In this extensive land mass between the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf, various military movements on the ground are occurring, including Northern Iraq and Georgia.

The broader war theater would extend far beyond, northwards to the Caspian Sea Basin and eastwards to Pakistan and China’s Western frontier. What we are dealing with is a chessboard for another Middle Eastern war, which could potentially engulf a much broader region.
Global Research Contributing Editor Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an independent writer and analyst of the Middle East, based in Ottawa.

Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to spreading the word and warning people of the dangers of a broader Middle East war. Please indicate the source and copyright note.