Terror attacks in France. Cui bono? U.S.-led coalition supports terrorism

Global Research, November 18, 2015
16 November 2015

In the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, there are three important questions to ask. 

1) Cui bono? 

2) What country could surpass and thwart the sophisticated French intelligence and surveillance system?

3) Why are outcry and public outpourings of support and grief so muted or entirely absent when other countries are invaded or attacked by our forces?

France is on alert since the Charlie Hebdo and market attacks, with heightened security due to President Hollande attending a public sporting event. Who has the resources to wage a coordinated, well-armed, utterly secret attack across Paris and escape notice despite surveillance?

The answer is not “magical evil people,” unless you’ve been watching too much TV or too many Western press conferences.

Look at what is happening in Syria. Look at the timing. There are no coincidences.

  • The U.S., allies, and ISIS are losing in Syria
  • The U.S. is losing support from European allies
  • The U.S. and allies support ISIS
  • The U.S. and allies want control of pipelines, resources, and the region

U.S., allies, and ISIS losing Syria

Russia, assisting the Syrian government, has destroyed almost 2000 terrorist targets in a few short weeks – ammunition depots, command posts, training camps, fortified positions.[1] The U.S.-led coalition, though claiming to fight terrorists for over a year, has had few if any results. Syrians are retaking their country with the help of Russia, Iran, and Iraq.

The U.S. has repeatedly refused to cooperate with Russia or Syria. The U.S. and its partners kill Syrians, destroy vital national Syrian infrastructure, and lie about Syria and Russia.

Discussions are underway for Syrian political solutions. In contrast, the U.S. funds and trains mercenary terrorist forces to overthrow the democratically-elected and popular President Bashar al-Assad. U.S. Special Envoy Daniel Rubenstein says Syrians may not even be part of the envisioned Western-created government.[2]

The Russian proposals and assistance are gaining popularity internationally.

U.S. losing European support

European leaders talk about working with Russia to fight ISIS and other terrorist groups. Members of the Bundestag (German Parliament) visited Moscow recently. Europeans are being hurt by sanctions. Many oppose U.S.-NATO actions against Russia. The refugee crisis is destabilizing Europe – a powerful impetus to work for peace in Syria.

U.S.-coalition support of terrorism

The U.S. and allies support ISIS and other terrorist groups with active, ongoing aid — supplies, weapons, logistics, medical aid, and protection. This is well documented. These aren’t just a few “mistaken” drops of weapons and supplies to ISIS forces. Turkey, Israel, the UK and France are all involved.[3]

John McCain has been repeatedly photographed with these groups and their leaders.[4] Instead of attacking ISIS, the U.S. and Israel have also attacked and murdered Syrian soldiers defending their country.

U.S.-European regional goals

The U.S. and allies want control of pipelines, oil and gas, and the region.[5] This has been their objective for decades. The U.S. began terrorizing Syria from the beginning, launching its first CIA coup against Syria’s newly formed government in 1949.[6] The U.S. hasn’t stopped since that time.[7] The British and French have been at this even longer.

The military mission by all coalition partners supports powerful economic and financial players. U.S. actions have nothing to do with “American values”, U.S. defense, or the American people. U.S. Marine Major General Smedley Butler said,

The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag… War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious…I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street… I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents…[8]

Information warfare is waged by U.S. and Western governments to hide what’s going on. The mainstream news media docilely reads whatever cover story it is handed.[9]

Destabilization and/or installation of puppet dictatorships are important to attain U.S./NATO goals.[10] Igniting ethnic feuds and rivalries and supplying weapons keep people divided, distracted, and killing each other, while the U.S. and coalition members loot the region of resources. The powerful American, UK, French, Turkish, Israeli, Saudi and coalition militaries are more than capable of guarding their own critical infrastructure in the midst of this created chaos. They have no qualms with ignoring national sovereignty and destroying people. General Wesley Clarke stated in 2007,

“We’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”[11] [12]

But the European public is pushing for peace, especially due to the refugee crisis. What a perfect time to re-galvanize support for U.S./NATO power and goals with a terror attack.

The third question is actually several questions and follows President Assad’s statement that this has been happening in Syria for five years.[13]

3) Why are outcry and public outpourings of support and grief so muted or entirely absent when other countries are invaded or attacked by our forces, and thousands of people killed by our bombs, missiles, bullets, drones, cluster munitions, white phosphorus, depleted uranium, and by sanctions? Libya immediately comes to mind as well as Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and eastern Ukraine. Over 500,000 children are dead in Iraq just due to U.S. sanctions in the 1990s. How many Westerners opposed that? How many mourned those hundreds of thousands of dead children due to Western terrorism?

Is it terrorism only when it’s done to “us”?

Do we ignore or even applaud our own countries’ terroristic and illegal actions, especially if the people in the countries we attack are a different ethnicity or race or religion? Europe and America have spawned many of the worst examples of terrorism in humanity’s history. How many millions of Syrian people are dead or are refugees because of French and Western terrorism?

How many Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans and others have been tortured, raped or murdered because of the terrorism created and funded by France and others?

Are racism and permissible genocide what really drive our community spirit as well as our foreign policies?

American terrorism has a long, long history across the globe; Syria is just one of the chapters.

The School of the Americas in Ft. Benning, Georgia, has trained death squads and torturers for many years. A protest in November will once again call for its closure.

NATO’s Operation Gladio and the “stay behind armies” have manufactured terror in Europe and elsewhere since the end of World War II. France has been in the crosshairs of the U.S. before, as have many other countries which weren’t firm enough vassal states. There were 31 assassination attempts against President De Gaulle which were traced to the United States and NATO.[14] When there is even a whiff of neutrality, Washington sends its hit men.[15]

Wikileaks just released evidence of John McCain’s involvement in a plot to shoot down an American plane over Syria and blame it on Russia.[16] In the 1960s, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff plotted similar false flag terrorist actions to blame on Cuba in Operation Northwoods.[17] We know that President George W. Bush proposed a similar action against Iraq because of the leaked “Downing Street” memo. Washington will do anything to keep its dominance and economic power.

Any school child can easily find a wealth of documentation on this, yet most Americans haven’t a clue. Why? Because they “believe” in Americanism and exceptionalism. They don’t read widely, they don’t ask questions, they don’t investigate, they don’t think, and they won’t protest. This is very, very dangerous. In Nazi Germany, Germans were afraid and many were inactive, but they weren’t blind. Many Americans are willfully blind, self-focused, and lazy. But what will happen when the mercenaries killing other people come knocking on their doors? They forget Martin Niemoller’s poem.[18]

Already, after the Paris attacks, the knives are out for Syria, the false evidence waved in front of the camera. We now know that France was tracking the purported culprits for years, and then stopped.[19] Coincidentally, the French had already brought their largest warship, the Charles De Gaulle, to the Syrian coast just in time for the attacks, and France has now bombed inside Syria, without Syrian permission.

Cui bono?

It is the responsibility of each person to think and see through the charades and the tragedies, to discern the real shapes hiding in the shadows. It is the obligation of each person to expose these crimes, past and present, and hold all the perpetrators responsible.

Silence is consent.

The time to act is very, very short.

Educate, expose, and demand justice now.

Notes:

[1] http://www.fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/11/current-results-of-russian-military.html

[2] Lecture: “The Challenges of Syria: Assad, ISIL, and the Opposition”, World Affairs Council, Monterey, California, March 2015

[3] http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931209001345

http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-finances-isis-us-and-israeli-military-advisors-arrested-in-iraq-for-aiding-isis-fighters/5436525

http://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-fires-american-made-missiles-at-syrian-army/5413381

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/alleged-spy-arrested-in-turkey-for-helping-girls-join-islamic-state-was-working-for-canadian-embassy-in-jordan-reports

http://www.globalresearch.ca/israeli-commanders-killed-within-al-nusra-ranks-inside-syria/5472791

http://www.globalresearch.ca/islamic-state-isis-supply-lines-influx-of-fighters-and-weapons-protected-by-turkey-in-liaison-with-nato/5416899

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akbfplUcjLU

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931223001274

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Israel-treating-al-Qaida-fighters-wounded-in-Syria-civil-war-393862

http://awdnews.com/top-news/turkish-president%E2%80%99s-daughter-heads-a-covert-medical-corps-to-help-isis-injured-members,-reveals-a-disgruntled-nurse

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940109000632

http://www.tasnimnews.com/english/Home/Single/678699

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931220000903

[4] http://www.voltairenet.org/article185085.html

[5]http://www.globalresearch.ca/turkey-is-looting-and-destroying-aleppo-syrian-industrialists-seek-international-justice/5470516

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-strike-on-syria-is-desperation-incarnate/5404047

[6] Wikipedia: “March 1949 Syrian coup d’état”

[6] “1949-1958, Syria: Early Experiments in Covert Action”, by Douglas Little, Professor of History, Clark University. May 2003

Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II, by William Blum. Common Courage Press, 2004.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-who-is-behind-the-protest-movement-fabricating-a-pretext-for-a-us-nato-humanitarian-intervention/24591

[7]http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882

[8] War is a Racket by Major General Smedley Butler and selected quotes

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/smedley_butler.html

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

This is a major cause for PTSD and suicide in veterans. Recruited into the military with flag-waving and promises of free college education, men and women discover the truth too late. Once inside the military, it is almost impossible to get out, and they are virtual slaves. Soldiers can be shot if they refuse to obey orders. True support for the troops means stopping the wars, stopping the war economy, bringing all soldiers home with apologies and healing services, and jailing the people at the top in Congress, the Pentagon, and on Wall Street.

[9] http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.php#axzz3Z9CBHG6K

http://www.markdice.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113:operation-mockingbird-government-control-of-mainstream-media&catid=66:articles-by-mark-dice&Itemid=89

http://theintelhub.com/2012/02/27/cia-controlled-media-cia-admits-using-news-to-manipulate-the-usa/

On the sarin gas attack:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/seymour-hersh-exposes-us-government-lies-on-syrian-sarin-attack/5361034

http://www.globalresearch.ca/turkish-whistleblowers-corroborate-story-on-false-flag-sarin-attack-in-syria/5483982

[10] http://www.globalresearch.ca/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list-of-u-s-regime-changes/5400829

http://www.michaelparenti.org/DefyingSanctions.htm

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/09/10/redrawing-map-russia-federation-partition-russia-after-world-war-iii.html

Killing Hope, by William Blum

Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism, by Greg Grandin. Henry Holt & Co. 2007

“The Secret Wars of the CIA”, by John Stockwell, former CIA Station Chief in Angola in 1976, working for then Director of the CIA, George Bush. Parts 1 & 2

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info//article4068.htm     Part 1

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info//article4069.htm     Part 2

http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-blueprint-for-global-domination-from-containment-to-pre-emptive-war-the-1948-truman-doctrine/5400067

[11] http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/02/1440234

General Wesley Clark — retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia

[12] http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/12/13/historic-speech-in-damascus-sends-shockwaves-around-the-world/

[13] http://www.fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/11/assad-on-paris-terror-attack-its.html

[14] http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lessons-of-history-in-1966-president-de-gaulle-said-no-to-us-nato/5386501

[15] Confessions of an Economic Hitman, by John Perkins. Berrett-Kohler Publishers. 2004

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/12/31/confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/15/self_described_economic_hit_man_john

[16] http://www.fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/10/ukrainian-wikileaks-mccain-and.html

[17] http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662

[18] One version of his famous quote:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) a prominent Protestant pastor who became an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent seven years in Nazi concentration camps.

[19] http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/11/confirmed-french-government-knew.html

Nina Beety is a community advocate, public speaker, and writer on topics including wireless radiation hazards, environmental issues, and American foreign policy. She is author of the report “Analysis: Smart Meter and Smart Grid Problems — Legislative Proposal, December 2012″, available on her website www.smartmeterharm.org

Advertisements

Book — Operation Gladio: The Untold Story of the Unholy Alliance Between the Vatican, the CIA, and the Mafia

Review of Paul L. Williams Book

Posted on Global Research, May 13, 2015
The Washington Book Review 26 February 2015

by Arif Jamal

After the Second World War ended, The Vatican, the CIA, the ex-Nazis, and the Sicilian/American Mafia forged an alliance to fight the Cold War against the former Soviet Union and the rising pro-Soviet governments in Europe and the rest of the world.

In a new book, Paul L. Williams offers new and disturbing evidence to expose what he calls the unholy alliance. Operation Gladio is likely to be a controversial book and may even be contested by several quarters. However, it would be difficult to reject the evidence author Paul L. Williams has provided.

The story started as early as 1942 with the formation of the Vatican Bank. The same year ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence) recruited Lucky Luciano, a pre-eminent drug lord. The Swiss director of the US Office of Strategic Services (OSS) Allen Dulles came to the conclusion, “We’re fighting the wrong enemy.” Schutzstaffel (SS) sent Dulles a message through the Vatican that the Nazi government wanted to establish a separate peace with the United States; they wanted to fight the Soviets. Dulles met Prince Max von Hohenlohe in Bern. Hohenlohe found Dulles in agreement with him. Later, Dulles also met other Nazi officials to forge the new alliance. Chief of Special Intelligence for the OSS in China Col. Paul E Helliwell thought of another unholy alliance between the US intelligence community and organized crime groups. Consequently, the US intelligence agencies got drug lord Lucky Luciano released from jail, allowed him to build his narcotic empire, and simply watched the flow of drugs into the largely black ghettos of New York and Washington. The unholy alliance of the American spies and criminals was replicated everywhere, from Laos and Burma to Marseilles and Panama.

After Richard Nixon became president in 1969, the strategy of tension gained more impetus.  National Adviser Henry Kissinger issued orders to Licio Gelli to carry out terror attacks and coup attempts. The United States and the Vatican channeled millions of dollars for these operations. Most of the money was raised in questionable ways. The first major attack in Europe took place on December 12, 1969 when a bomb went off in the lobby of Banca Nazionale Dell’ Agricoltura in Milan, Italy. Seventeen people died in the explosion. Within an hour, three bombs exploded in Rome. According to official figures, 14,591 acts of violence with a political motivation took place between January 1, 1969 and December 31, 1987. In these terror attacks, 491 people died and 1,181 were injured. A large number of terror attacks took place in other European countries from 1965 to 1981. After a series of assassination attempts to kill French President De Gaulle failed, he denounced “the secret warfare of the Pentagon” and expelled the European headquarters of NATO.

In the Latin America, the CIA and the Vatican launched Operation Condor as the Latin American version of the Operation Gladio. The label was applied very liberally by the US intelligence agencies that “any government risked being so labeled if it advocated nationalization of private industry (particularly foreign-owned corporations), radical land reform, autarkic trade policies, acceptance of soviet aid, or an anti-American foreign policy.” The CIA and the Vatican started Operation Condor in the early 1970s when Opus Dei elicited support from Chilean bishops for the overthrow of the government of President Allende. The Catholic group was closely working with the CIA-funded organizations such as the Fatherland and Liberty, which was later turned into the dreaded Chilean secret police. “In 1971, the CIA began shelling out millions to the Chilean Institute for General Studies (IGS), an Opus Dei think tank, for the planning of the revolution.” Many members of the IGS joined the government after the coup. Hernan Cubillos became the foreign minister. He was the founder of Que Pasa, an OPUS Dei magazine, and publisher of El Mercurio, the largest newspaper in Santiago which was subsidized by the CIA.

Williams shows that the Vatican was fully involved in Operation Condor. The Pope was fully behind the purging of the left wing clerics; leaders of the military junta were devout Catholics. The Vatican did not abandon General Pinochet even when he was arrested in Britain for the murder of thousands of Chileans. Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano wrote to the British government on behalf of the Pope to demand his release. Under Pinochet, hundreds of thousands Chileans had disappeared while more than four thousands had died. More than fifty thousand Chileans were tortured in the name of Catholic god. CIA’s dirty war was perpetuated in many Latin American countries with the help and blessing of the Vatican.

Williams quotes FBI whistle blower Sibel Edmonds who said,

“Between 1996 and 2002, we, the United States, planned, financed, and helped execute every major terrorist incident by Chechen rebels (and the Mujahideen) against Russia. Between 1996 and 20002, we, the United States, planned, financed, and helped execute every single uprising and terror related scheme in Xinjiang (aka East Turkistan and Uyhurstan). Between 1996 and 2002, we, the United States, planned and carried out at least two assassination schemes against pro-Russian officials in Azerbaijan.”

Operation Gladio is a highly well-researched book with some 1,100 endnotes and footnotes. This work is highly rich in details. It is an estimable scholarly and intellectual accomplishment which is unrivaled. His scholarly work fills a major lacuna in the study of the US foreign policy which was left by scholars such as Alfred McCoy, Peter Dale Scot, Martin A. Lee, Dale Yallop, and Sibel Edmonds.

Reviewed by Arif Jamal

Paul L. Williams is a journalist and author of The Vatican Exposed, Crescent Moon Rising, The Day of Islam, Osama’s revenge, and the Al-Qaeda Connection. He has written articles for The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Counter-Terrorist, NewsMax, and National Review. He is the winner of three first-place Keystone Press Awards for journalism. He has also served as a consultant for the FBI and as an adjunct professor of Humanities at the University of Scranton and Wilkes University.

Copyright Arif Jamal, The Washington Book Review, 2015

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-untold-story-of-unholy-alliance-between-the-vatican-the-cia-and-the-mafia/5449288

Reposted under Fair Use Rules.

NATO: the imperial pit-bull

Posted on Global Research
Original source: Z Magazine, February 2009  — 23 January 2009
By Edward S. Herman

One of the deceptive clichés of Western accounts of post World War II history is that NATO was constructed  as a defensive arrangement to block the threat of  a Soviet attack on Western Europe.  This is false. It is true that Western propaganda played up the Soviet menace, but many key U.S. and Western European statesmen recognized that a Soviet invasion was not a real threat.  The Soviet Union had been devastated, and while in possession of a large army it was exhausted and needed time for recuperation. The United States was riding high, the war had revitalized its economy, it suffered no war damage, and it had the atomic bomb in its arsenal, which it had displayed to  the Soviet Union by killing a quarter of  a million Japanese civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hitting the Soviet Union before it recovered or had atomic weapons was discussed in Washington, even if rejected in favor of “containment,”  economic warfare, and other forms of  destabilization. NSC 68, dated April 1950, while decrying the great Soviet menace, explicitly called for a program of destabilization aimed at regime change in that country, finally achieved in 1991.

Thus,  even hardliner John Foster Dulles stated back in 1949  that “ I do not know of any responsible high official, military or civilian…in this government or any other government, who believes that the Soviet now plans conquest by open military aggression.”   But note Dulles’ language—“open military aggression.”   The “threat” was more a matter of  possible Soviet support to left political groups and parties in Western Europe. Senator Arthur Vandenberg, a prime mover of NATO, openly stated that the function of  a NATO military buildup would be “chiefly for the practical purpose of assuring adequate defense against internal subversion.”  The much greater support of  rightwing forces by the United States was, of course, not  a help to internal subversion,  and a threat to democracy; only possible Soviet  help to the left fit that category. (Recall Adlai Stevenson’s claim in the late 1960s that the resistance within South Vietnam by indigenous forces hostile to the U.S.-imposed minority regime was “internal aggression.”)

The non-German Western European elites were more worried about German revival and a German threat, and, like U.S. officials, were more concerned about keeping down the power of the left in Europe than any Soviet military threat—and the United States was pressing the Europeans to build  up their armed forces, and buy arms from U.S. suppliers! Although knowingly inflated or even concocted, the Soviet military threat was still very useful in discrediting the left by tying it to Stalin and bolshevism and an alleged Soviet invasion and  mythical world conquest program.

In fact, the Warsaw Pact was far more  a “defensive” arrangement than NATO; its organization followed that of  NATO and was clearly a response, and it was a structure of the weaker party  and with less reliable members.  And in the end, it collapsed, whereas
NATO was important in the long-term process of  destabilizing and dismantling the Soviet regime. For one thing,  NATO’s armament and strength were part of the U.S. strategy of forcing the Soviets to spend resources on arms rather than provide for the welfare, happiness and loyalty of their population. It also encouraged repression by creating a genuine security threat, which, again, would damage popular loyalty and the reputation of the state abroad.  Throughout this early period the Soviet leaders tried hard to negotiate some kind of peace settlement with the West, including giving up East Germany, but the United States and hence its European allies-clients would have none of it.

As noted, in the U.S. official–hence mainstream media– view, only Soviet intervention in Western Europe after World War II was bad and threatened “internal subversion.” But in a non-Orwellian world it would be recognized that the United States far outdid the Soviet Union in supporting not only “internal subversion” but also real terrorism in the years after 1945. The left had gained strength during World War II by actually fighting against Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The United States fought against the left’s subsequent bids for political participation and  power by any means, including direct warfare in Greece and by massive funding of anti-left parties and politicians throughout Europe. In Greece it supported the far right, including many former collaborators with fascism, and succeeded in putting in place a nasty rightwing authoritarian regime.  It continued to support fascist Spain and accepted fascist Portugal as a founding member  of NATO, with NATO arms helping Portugal pursue its colonial wars. And the United States, the dominant NATO power,  supported rightwing politicians and former Nazis and fascists elsewhere, while of course claiming to be pro-democratic and fighting against totalitarianism.

Perhaps most interesting was the U.S. and NATO support of  paramilitary groups and  terrorism. In Italy they were aligned with state and rightwing political factions, secret societies (Propaganda Due [P-2]), and paramilitary groups that, with police cooperation,  pursued what was called a  “Strategy of Tension,” in which a series of terrorist actions were carried out that were blamed on the left. The most famous was the August 1980 bombing of the Bologna train station, killing 86. The training and integration into police-CIA-NATO operations of former fascists and fascist collaborators was extraordinary in Italy, but common elsewhere in Europe (for the Italian story, see Herman and Brodhead, “The Italian Context: The Fascist Tradition and the Postwar Rehabilitation of the Right,” in Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection [New York: Sheridan Square, 1986]. For Germany, see William Blum, on “Germany 1950s,” in Killing Hope [Common Courage: 1995]).

NATO was also linked to “Operation Gladio,” a program organized by the CIA, with collaboration from NATO governments and security establishments, that  in a number of European states set up secret cadres and stashed weapons, supposedly preparing for the threatened Soviet invasion, but actually ready for “internal subversion” and available to support rightwing coups. They were used on a number of occasions by rightwing paramilitary groups to carry out terrorist operations (including the Bologna bombing, and many terrorist incidents carried out in Belgium and Germany).

Gladio and NATO plans were also used to combat an “internal threat”  in Greece in 1967: namely, the democratic election of  a liberal government. In response, the Greek military put into effect a NATO “Plan Prometheus,”  replacing  a democratic order with a torture-prone military dictatorship. Neither NATO nor the Johnson administration objected. Other Gladio forces, from Italy and elsewhere, came to train in Greece during its fascist interlude, to learn how to deal with “internal subversion.”

In short, from its inception NATO showed itself to be offensively, not defensively, oriented, antagonistic to diplomacy and peace,  and intertwined with widespread terrorist operations and other forms of political intervention that were undemocratic and actual threats to democracy (and if traceable to the Soviets would have been denounced as brazen subversion). .

The Post-Soviet NATO

With the ending of the Soviet Union, and that menacing Warsaw Pact, NATO’s theoretical rationale disappeared.  But although that rationale was a fraud, for public consumption NATO still needed to redefine its reason for existence, and it also soon took on a larger and more aggressive role. With no need to support Yugoslavia after the Soviet demise, NATO soon collaborated with its U.S. and German members to war on and dismantle that former Western ally, in the process violating the UN Charter’s prohibition of  cross-border warfare (i.e., aggression).

Amusingly, in the midst of  the NATO bombing war against Yugoslavia, in April 1999, NATO held its 50th anniversary in Washington, D.C.,  celebrating its successes and with characteristic Orwellian rhetoric stated its devotion to international law while in the midst of its ongoing blatant violation of the UN Charter. In fact, the original  1949 NATO founding document had begun by reaffirming its members “faith in the UN Charter,” and in Article 1, undertaking, “as set forth in the UN Charter, to settle any international disputes  by peaceful means.”
The April 1999 session produced a   “Strategic Concept” document that laid out a supposedly new program for NATO now that its “mutual defensive” role in preventing a Soviet invasion had ceased to be plausible. (“The Alliance’s Strategic Concept,” Washington, D.C., April 23, 1999 (http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/p99-065e.htm )). The Alliance still stresses “security,” though it has “committed itself to essential new activities in the interest of a wider stability.” It welcomes new members and new “partnership” arrangements, though why these are necessary in a post-Cold War world with the United States and its closest allies so powerful is never made clear. It admits that “large-scale conventional aggression against the Alliance is highly unlikely,” but of course it never mentions the possibility of  “large-scale conventional aggression” BY members of the Alliance, and it  brags about the NATO role in the Balkans as illustrative of  its “commitment of a wider stability.”  But not only  was this Alliance effort a case of  legal aggression—“illegal but legitimate” in the Orwellian phrase of  key apologists–contrary to this paper, NATO played a major destabilization role in the Balkans, helping start the ethnic warfare and refusing to pursue a diplomatic option in Kosovo in order to be able to attack Yugoslavia in a bombing war that was in process while this document was being handed out. (For a discussion of the NATO role, see Herman and Peterson, “The Dismantling of Yugoslavia,” Monthly Review, Oct. 2007: http://monthlyreview.org/1007herman-peterson1.php )

“Strategic Concept” also claims to favor arms control,  but in fact from its very beginning NATO promoted more armaments, and all the new members like Poland and Bulgaria have been obligated to build up their “inter-operable” arms, meaning  getting more arms and buying them from U.S. and other Western suppliers. Since this document was produced in 1999, NATO’s leading member, the United States, has more than doubled its military budget and greatly increased arms sales abroad;  it has pushed further into space-based military operations; it has  withdrawn from the 1972 ABM treaty, refused to ratify the Comprehensive (Nuclear) Test Ban Treaty, and rejected both the Land Mine treaty and UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms. With NATO’s aid it has produced a new arms race, which  many  U.S. allies and clients, as well as rivals and targets, have joined.

The 1999 document also claims NATO’s support for  the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but at the same time it  stresses how important nuclear arms are for NATO’s power—it therefore rejects a central feature of the NNPT, which involved a promise by the nuclear powers to work to eliminate nuclear weapons. What this means is that NATO is keen only on non-proliferation by its targets, like Iran. Nuclear weapons “make a unique contribution in rendering the risks of aggression against the Alliance incalculable and unacceptable.”  But if Iran had such weapons it could make “Alliance”  “risks of aggression”—which Alliance member the United States and its partner Israel have threatened—unacceptable. Obviously that would not do.

In its Security segment, Strategic Concept says that  it struggles for a security environment “based on the growth of democratic institutions and commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes, in which no country would be able to intimidate or coerce any other through the threat or use of force.”  The hypocrisy here is mind-boggling. The very essence of NATO policy and practice is to threaten the use of force, and U.S. national security policy is now explicit that it plans to maintain a military superiority and prevent any rival power from challenging that superiority in order to hold sway globally—that is, it plans  to rule by intimidation.

NATO now claims to threaten nobody, and even talks in Strategic Concept  about possible joint “operations” with Russia. Again, the hypocrisy level is great.  As we know, there was a U.S. promise made to Gorbachev when he agreed to allow East Germany to join with the West, that NATO would not  move “one inch” further East. Clinton and NATO quickly violated this promise, absorbing into NATO all the former  Eastern European Soviet satellites as well as the Baltic states. Only self-deceiving fools and/or propagandists  would not recognize this as a security threat to Russia, the only power in the area that could even theoretically threaten the NATO members. But Strategic Concept plays dumb, and only threats to its members are recognized.

Although “oppression, ethnic conflict” and the “proliferation of weapons of mass destruction” are alleged great concerns of  the new NATO, its relations with Israel are close, and no impediment whatsoever has been (or will be) placed on Israeli oppression, ethnic cleansing, or its semi-acknowledged substantial nuclear arsenal, and of course neither its war on Lebanon in 2006 nor its current murderous attacks on Gaza have impeded warm relations, any more than the US-UK unprovoked attack on Iraq reduced NATO-member solidarity. If Israel is a highly favored U.S. client, it is then by definition free to violate all the high principles mentioned by Strategic Concept. In 2008 NATO and Israel have signed a military pact, so perhaps NATO will soon be helping Israel’s “security” operations in Gaza. (In fact, Obama’s choice as National Security Adviser, James Jones, has over the past year or so been clamoring for NATO troops to occupy the Gaza Strip and even the West Bank. He is not a lone voice in the U.S. establishment).

The new NATO is a U.S. and imperial pitbull. It is currently helping rearm the world, encouraging the military buildup of  the  former Baltic and Eastern European Soviet satellites–now U.S. and NATO satellites–working closely with Israel as that NATO partner ethnically cleanses and dispossesses its untermeschen–helping its master establish client states on the Russian southern borders, officially endorsing the U.S. placement of  anti-ballistic missiles in Poland, the Czech Republic, Israel, and threateningly elsewhere, at a great distance from the United States,  and urging the integration of  the U.S. plans with a broader NATO “shield.” This virtually forces Russia into more aggressive moves and  accelerated rearmament (just as NATO did in earlier years).

And of course NATO supports the U.S. occupation of  Iraq. NATO secretary-general Scheffer regularly boasts that all 26 NATO states are involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom, inside Iraq or Kuwait.  Every single  Balkan nation except for Serbia has had troops in Iraq, and now has them in Afghanistan. Half of  the former Soviet Commonwealth of  Independent States have also provided troops for Iraq, with some of these also in Afghanistan. These are training grounds for breaking in and “inter-operationalizing” the new “partners,” and developing a new mercenary base for the growing “out of area” operations of NATO, as NATO participates more actively in the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As noted, NATO brags about its role in the Balkans wars, and both this war and the wars in Iraq,  Afghanistan and Pakistan have violated the UN Charter. Lawlessness is built-in to the new “strategic concept.”  Superceding the earlier (fraudulent) “collective self defense,”  the ever-expanding NATO powers give themselves the authority to conduct military campaigns “out-of-area” or so-called “non-Article V” missions beyond NATO territory.  As the legal scholar Bruno Simma noted back in 1999, “the message which these voices carry in our context is clear: if it turns out that a Security Council mandate or authorization for future NATO ‘non-Article 5′ missions involving armed force cannot be obtained, NATO must still be able to go ahead with such enforcement. That the Alliance is capable of doing so is being demonstrated in the Kosovo crisis.” (“NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects,” European Journal of International Law, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1999, reproduced at http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol10/No1/ab1.html).

The new NATO is pleased to be helping its master project power across the globe. In addition to helping encircle and threaten Russia,  it pursues “partnership arrangements” and carries out joint military maneuvers with the so-called Mediterranean Dialogue countries (Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Mauritania and Algeria). And NATO has also established new partnerships with the Gulf Cooperation Council states (Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates), thereby expanding NATO’s military  ambit from the Atlantic coast of Africa to and throughout the Persian Gulf. In the same time frame there has been a unbroken series of NATO visits to and naval exercises with most of these new partners as well as (this past  year) the first formal NATO-Israeli bilateral military treaty.

The pitbull is well positioned to help Israel continue its massive law violations,  to help the United States and Israel threaten and perhaps attack Iran, and to enlarge its own cooperative program of  pacification of distant peoples in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and no doubt elsewhere—all in the alleged interest of peace and that “wider stability” mentioned in Strategic Concept.  NATO, like the UN itself, provides a  cover of seeming multilateralism for what is a lawless and virtually uncontrolled imperial expansionism.  In reality, NATO, as an aggressive global arm of  U.S. and other local affiliated imperialisms, poses a serious threat to global peace and security. It is about to celebrate its 60th anniversary, and while it should have been liquidated back in 1991, it has instead expanded,  taking on a new and threatening role traced out in  its 1999 Strategic Concept and enjoying  a frighteningly malignant growth.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-the-imperial-pitbull/11989