Commentary
by Joel Skousen
World Affairs Brief, December 14, 2001 Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief (http://www.joelskousen.com).
Despite US enticements of aid and unilateral disarmament during this month’s summit with Russia president Putin, Russia has remained adamant that it would accept no modification of the 1972 ABM treaty which severely limits the US development and deployment of anti-ballistic missiles for defense. So Bush is left with no option but to give Russia the required six month notice that the US intends to withdraw. Conservatives applaud but they should be cautious of what the real motives might be.
The 1972 ABM treaty limits both Russia and the US in the deployment of anti-ballistic missiles, although it does make allowance for the 100 interceptors Russia has always had surrounding Moscow, giving Russia an advantage. Even so, Russia has never abided by the core restrictions of the treaty and has continued development of ABM technology, phased array radars and guidance systems--often with US assistance. So, not only did our government implant massive restrictions upon our own ABM development, but they have not even protested Russian violations. Instead, they have assisted the Russians with technology transfers to enhance Russia’s capabilities. This behavior has been going on, through both Republican and Democratic administrations, ever since the US provided Russia with plans for its first atomic weapon and the plutonium to build it--and the treachery continues today.
Russia’s vehement opposition to modifying the ABM treaty or allowing the US to build an ABM system is not feigned. It is very real. The Chinese are even more concerned and have threatened to increase their production of warheads and missiles to compensate (as if they weren’t doing that anyway). The Russian leadership has always counted on US compliance with the ABM treaty restrictions and has based its entire strategic military attack doctrine upon US vulnerability to a first strike with nuclear missiles. This vulnerability was increased by President Clinton in 1997 with the issuing of the top secret PDD-60 instructing our military forces to absorb a nuclear first strike. This dangerous and suicidal PDD has not been withdrawn or modified by President George W. Bush, despite his campaign promises to protect America.
America’s current ABM system is specifically designed to engage only a few limited targets from "rogue nations" at a time--which isn’t the real problem. Despite its high cost it has built-in design limitations to ensure that it will only be marginally effective under the best of conditions. It has no explosive warhead. It cannot engage multiple warheads or counter Russian electronic or physical deceptions. It cannot utilize satellite data for guidance, nor is it correctly positioned to engage missiles in their boost phase. In short, it is a purposeful diversion of funds into the defense establishment for ulterior purposes (other black projects--not intended to provide a true defense for America). The Russians know most of this, but are still deathly afraid of an ABM system. I think they suspect the US is cheating and will actually build more interceptors than they say, and/or equip interceptors with live warheads to make them more effective.
Bush says he needs to abrogate the ABM to precede with further testing. The administration has even broken ground on its ABM basing facility in Alaska which gives the public the impression that the US government is in a rush to deploy and defend. It think it is a carefully crafted ruse. The Bush administration has no intention of protecting the American people from the massive potential threat posed by Russian and even Chinese missiles. President Bush has made open declarations to this effect both publicly and privately to Russia and China. The real reason for these charades is to impress upon the Russians that they only have a few years left in America’s clear window of vulnerability--and that they had better strike when we are weakest.
Why would our own leaders want the Russians to decapitate our military might? Because they are secretly aligned with a globalist agenda that requires the demise of US military power. These globalists are colluding to undermine national sovereignty and install a New World Order, complete with international police powers. They need a war to accelerate that transition, and remove the US from its role as the "policeman of the world," forcing the other Western nations to rally behind a massive UN military force willing to take on the Russians. For a more in-depth exposition on this view, click on the "Strategic Threats" banner on my website (www.joelskousen.com).
Does Bush realize that these moves, as well as the phony "war on terrorism," are taking the country closer to a world war? Probably not, given his shallow background. There are plenty of superficial reasons his advisors can give him for these moves--in line with such lofty ideas as "world peace" and international disarmament (notions only fools really believe in). The ultimate game plan for world government is kept in a very close-knit circle--lest those who are mere predictable lackeys in the process develop pangs of conscience, or worse yet, spill the beans. Still, Bush is not totally blameless. He has made his pact of allegiance to those who govern the country behind the scenes, and for this he is fully responsible.
ISRAEL GIVES UP ON WORKING WITH ARAFAT
In the wake of a particularly egregious attack on a civilian bus, Israel announced that it has had it with Yasser Arafat and will have nothing more to do with him. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office issued a glaring public statement following a special meeting of the security cabinet, saying that Israel had decided to hold Arafat "directly responsible" for these attacks. Specifically, "Yasser Arafat is no longer relevant to the state of Israel and there will be no more contact with him." This position was warmly welcomed through most of Israel.
It wasn’t hard to pin this one on Arafat; one of his own Fatah factions took credit for the attack. The attack itself signaled a return to warfare-like conduct, as opposed to random terrorism. Not only was the bus bombed, but the attackers began racking the bus with automatic weapons fire and shooting other nearby vehicles as well. They even attacked rescue workers as they approached to aid the victims. Nothing enrages the sensibilities of Israelis like this kind of warfare. It was all clearly reminiscent of the types of ambushes carried out in previous wars--trapping Israeli trucks, buses and vehicles in the narrow canyons and draws leading to a city. After the incident, Arafat made token moves to clamp down on a few terrorists, but his actions impressed no one. Sharon, for his part, will have to temporarily cast aside his allegiance to the NWO crowd and start invading Palestinian strongholds and disarming the militants in earnest. But, watch for the inevitable sellout that will come with the next US brokered peace.
The decision to permanently cease negotiations with Arafat can only mean that the Israeli government has decided that Arafat wants a real war and no amount of accommodation will entice him back into the "peace process." I don’t think this round of fighting will escalate to the regional war I am predicting for the future. I’m still convinced that it is too early for the other Arab nations to join the PLO (their missiles aren’t ready yet), so Arafat and his terrorist brothers have to fight this alone. Surprisingly, the Palestinians have a fair amount of fire power stockpiled--not enough to win, but certainly enough to cause some real Israeli casualties. Watch for this mini-war to slowly increase in ferocity until the US demands another cease-fire. They always do prior to a total rout of the Palestinian positions. Both sides know from history that a war always paves the way for US intervention and pressure that will keep the Jews from consolidating full victory. Even the Jewish populace will be prepared to accept another flawed "peace" agreement after a lot more bloodshed.
Meanwhile, Egypt’s president Mubarak is gloating that the US promise to provide Egypt with $400 million worth of ship to ship/shore missiles will go through, despite Israel’s intense objections. In any future warfare scenario Israel intends to use its extensive naval forces to blockade the Gaza strip. All of these naval forces could be threatened by Egypt’s new stand-off capability. The US is excusing the shipment by reasoning that Egypt can better defend US forces and shipments transiting the Suez Canal. No one seems to remember well that it has been Egypt itself that has always blocked or attacked the canal in prior wars. Israel’s concerns are especially justified considering Mubarak’s hatred of Israel. Although Mubarak is always painted as a moderate by the US media, the reality is quite different. One of my sources in the Middle East monitors Arab language newspapers in the region. In contrast to the carefully worded and diplomatic statements printed for Western consumption, all of his speeches and statements to his Arab audience are filled with defiant statements against Israel.
TAKING LICENSE WITH THE BIN LADEN TAPES
After months of refusing to air any evidence directly linking bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration is finally showcasing "proof" in the form of a fairly murky sounding home video tape of bin Laden discussing the events with a group of associates. According to some Arab speakers, who say the voices are barely decipherable, the translation offered up by the government is very suspect. The translators make it appear as if bin Laden is speaking definitively, but these other Arab speakers say the language of the taped discussion is very hypothetical in tone, without clear reference to time or context. It’s hard for us non-Arabic speakers to tell who is right, but I find it less than convincing the way the government is refusing to divulge the provenance of the tape, or allow others to hear it without the English voice over. It’s a great piece of propaganda, to be sure.
One must ask another crucial question, however. Why would bin Laden allow himself to be video-taped discussing this subject openly when he has made no previous effort to claim responsibility? He has made several taped messages to his followers since the attack, including a specific denial of responsibility, so why would he allow a contradictory video to be made? I think bin Laden clearly is supportive of the attack, but I personally don’t know if he was directly responsible or not. Regardless, what is more important to us Americans is that there is a growing body of evidence that our own government had prior knowledge and allowed the attack to go forward, and then capitalized upon it to justify this war on Afghanistan.
Time will undoubtedly produce more evidence, as it always does when governments try to cover up for collusion in criminal acts, but unfortunately, after seeing today’s propaganda piece, few will be listening. VP Dick Cheney mentioned that he was especially gratified about the new evidence because it would quiet all of the growing conspiracy theories about government’s partial responsibility. Governments that play the game of feigning patriotic action while engaging in criminal behavior will always be looking over their shoulder at those (mostly within the internet news crowd) who are astute enough to see and remember the contradictions and anomalies in the official government story.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world is growing edgy as the US sends out spies and military reconnaissance aircraft to scope out its next target in the war on "terrorism." North Korea has turned belligerent after finding itself a target of increased scrutiny. The state news agencies stated bluntly that the Americans are "blowing us up [accusing us] for serving as a terrorist state with the purpose of making the Korean peninsula the second Afghanistan under the pretext of a war against terrorism." Iraq has 50% of its troops on full alert status round the clock. The Hezbollah in Lebanon are shoring up fortifications and stockpiling weapons and ammunition via Syria and Iran.
Lastly, even devastated Somalia has been the object of several US government reconnaissance missions. The US would like to teach this country a lesson after the pounding its rebels gave Clinton’s US peacekeepers in the 90’s. Somalia is also a prime target for takeover since the southern portion surrounding Mogadishu is in a form of political and economic anarchy--a type of free market vacuum that bureaucrats and socialists are loathe to allow. Warlords continue to battle for control in this region, but none are strong enough to dominate. In the interim vacuum of power a sort of wild unregulated business climate has grown up in Mogadishu and the city is beginning to see an inrush of communications and computer technology that is allowing more growth to occur than has been known there in decades. I’m sure the UN socialists will make sure this unregulated market doesn’t last for long.
NOBEL PRIZE FOR KOFI ANNAN AND THE UN
Consistent with its history of rewarding only those of the extreme Left on social and political issues, the Nobel committee awarded this year’s Peace Prize to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the United Nations itself. How can an organization responsible for so much war and intervention in foreign nations merit such a designation? In a year of high terrorism, the committee apparently doesn’t even feel any embarrassment for having awarded last year’s prize to one of the earth’s foremost terrorists, Yasser Arafat. Kofi Annan’s peace keepers are no better for having betrayed 3 Israeli soldiers in Lebanon, who were then captured and killed by Hezbollah guerrillas. Ask any of the Balkan states or African nations how they feel about their prospects for peace after having endured years of UN peacekeeping and intervention.
(Ed. Note: We thank Joel Skousen for allowing his insights to be reprinted in part at Web Today. For access to his complete weekly columns, available by subscription, we refer you to his homepage http://www.joelskousen.com)
WebToday columnists are available for talk show interviews.
Please contact Special Guests for availability
http://www.888webtoday.com
