US to Build New Military Base for Israel
By Joel Skousen
Janeís Defense Weekly reported this week that the US has put out a call for bids to construct a new military base for Israel in the central part of the country. One might well ask, why isnít Israel building its own military base? I suspect that we are witnessing the preliminary implementation of a coming peace deal between the PLO and Israel. Continuing the tradition of expecting Israel to trade "land for peace," the current peace proposal requires Israel not only to cede the majority of the West Bank occupied territories, including much of the critical water supply so essential to Israeli agriculture, but also to abandon several strategic military bases and some settlements as well. The US has offered in the past to step in and build new bases to replace those that must be given up. This current move to begin building one such base may well be related to US knowledge that an eventual deal is inevitable and the content predetermined.
These globalist manipulators of Middle Eastern affairs are obviously intent on making up for lost time because of Arafatís unexpected refusal to go through with the former "peace process," which had been an almost total sellout of the Israeli position by Ehud Barak, the previous Israeli Prime Minister. The only thing that keeps Barakís successor, Ariel Sharon from consummating what his NWO handlers have already brokered is Sharonís need to maintain the illusion that he is a "right-wing hardliner." He will continue his limited, but ineffective, use of military force against the Palestinian Authority until the international Powers That Be (PTB) can either bring Arafat around to an agreement or replace him. The Israeli and Arab peoplesí resistance to the peace process also needs to be undermined through continued bloodshed and economic suffering.
Both Arab and Israeli economies are suffering from disrupted labor supplies, diminished tourism and the high cost of military action. The US Congress has voted to supplement Israelís aid package to compensate for the current military drain on the budget, and one or two Arab nations are continuing to bail out Arafat, while keeping him on a short leash financially. For a look at some well done maps that detail the situation on the ground in Israel, vis-ŗ-vis water, settlements, and strategic position go to the following URL: http://www.d-n-i.net/a_aqsa_intifada/index.htm. The commentary isnít very good, but the maps are great.
In other news, it is noteworthy that Egypt, which receives an annual $1.5 billion aid package equal to Israelís (the US version of "even-handedness"), has begun to switch to Russia for a large part of its future military procurement. After the Camp David accords, the US began to supply Egypt with equipment comparable to Israel, claiming to balance the military potential for both sides of the conflict. This was also done to wean Egypt from the Soviet Bloc which had been Egyptís primary source of supply. The equipment sold to both countries was always less than top-of-the-line US technology. Israel has compensated for this by making numerous technical upgrades--some with US permission and some without. Egypt, on the other hand, has not had the technological expertise to do the same level of upgrades. Egyptís sudden shift back to the Russian supply line is, in my opinion, another harbinger of a broad Middle East war scheduled for 3 or 4 years in the future. Egypt knows that after the war begins, it will be cut off from parts and resupply by the US, so it is switching back to Russian armament in order to ensure a supply of spare parts during the coming war. The planned future Arab attack on Israel will be precipitated by a large scale missile attack on Israel, followed by a conventional invasion. One of the objectives for the ongoing "peace" negotiations is to get the Israeli military to abandon its strategic bases on the high ground and reposition to more vulnerable positions on the coastal plain.
GRAVE DOUBTS ABOUT THE BUSH ABM PROPOSALS
After a long, drawn out description of the tension and distrust between the US and Russia during the Cold War, President Bush, in a major policy speech this week to the National Defense University, then launched into a Pollyanna view of the current strategic situation vis-ŗ-vis Russia: [my comments in brackets].
"Today the sun comes up on a vastly different world. The wall is gone, and so is the Soviet Union. [Except for three countries in Eastern Europe, the old Soviet Union is still very much intact and ruled by Russia. It is euphemistically called the Confederation of Independent States.] Today's Russia is not yesterday's Soviet Union [only in superficial appearances--all the controls and powers of oppression are still in place]. Its government is no longer Communist [absolutely false]. Its president is elected [but the system is completely rigged to produce a predictable outcome]. Today's Russia is not our enemy [Then why are they building new missiles aimed at the US and why does the Russian military begin each military exercise with a simulated nuclear "first strike" on America?], but a country in transition, with an opportunity to emerge as a great [predatory] nation, democratic, at peace with itself and its neighbors [tell that to Chechnya]. The Iron Curtain no longer exists. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are free nations [but controlled by governments with secret ties to Moscow], and they are now our allies in NATO, together with a reunited Germany."
When we have a president this naive or this disingenuous, one cannot have any confidence in his stated intentions to defend this nation, let alone to build a viable National Missile Defense (NMD) system. Of course, Bushís proposal, if sincere, is a huge improvement over the token 100 interceptor system proposed by Bill Clinton (begrudgingly to a Republican Congress). Bush is correctly focusing on a system that will be mobile and deployable outside the US where ABMs can intercept ICBMs in their upward trajectory, or boost phase, prior to warhead separation. Sadly, he is still going to throw a few billion at the unworkable fixed-base interceptors that will attempt to hit incoming warheads with too few interceptors equipped with no explosive warheads. The Pentagon is proposing modifying the potent Aegis shipboard missile system to act as a worldwide ABM platform. This latter proposal scares the hell out of the Russians and the Chinese because it directly impinges upon their ability and intention to begin the next war with a pre-emptive nuclear first strike against the American military. The Bush administration continues to assure these two evil empires that the NMD is not intended to threaten Russia or China--but neither nation can believe that the US is this stupid or this naive. They assume the US must be cheating, just like they are.
But it is the second part of Bushís proposal that is most ominous: a continuation of the suicidal disarmament begun under Bill Clinton. While Bush refused to give any numbers in his speech, knowledgeable sources in the Pentagon say the administration is telling the Russians the US is willing to unilaterally reduce its nuclear warhead stockpile to 2,500. Thatís a deeper cut than Clinton could ever have pushed through Congress--and now a Republican president will push it through with scant opposition.
Let me put all of this in the context of timing and things look even worse. All of Bushís disarmament proposals take place unilaterally (without any corresponding compliance by Russia or China) before 2004. None of the proposed NMD or deployment of significant new weapons systems comes into play until after 2005. This leaves a huge window of opportunity for the Russia/Chinese axis to strike during the one or two year time period when our offensive capabilities are lowest and our defenses are not yet ready.
As if to justify this unilateral gesture of radical disarmament, Bush claimed that "to maintain peace, to protect our own citizens and our own allies and friends, we must seek security based on more than the grim premise that we can destroy those who seek to destroy us." Now, letís see if I understand this increased security Bush is talking about. First, we propose building a limited ABM system that canít possibly be deployed before 2005. Meanwhile, before this system of limited protection is in place, we dismantle our remaining heavy ICBMs (the MX "Peacekeeper") in 2003 so that we have no nuclear missile capable of deep penetration of hardened targets. In addition, we strip all our existing cruise missiles of their nuclear warheads, and we downsize our stockpile of nuclear warheads to 2,500. Second, we continue to rely upon the forces of a small quantity of high tech bombers and naval vessels rather than rebuild a true 2-ocean navy with corresponding army and air forces. Lastly, Bush keeps in place the suicidal Presidential Decision Directive (PDD-60), implemented by Bill Clinton, that instructs our military to absorb a nuclear first strike and NOT launch on warning. Iím a former Marine officer and trained in military strategy. I donít see any increased deterrence with this scheme. In fact, I donít even see comparable deterrence.
For those of you who have read my "Strategic Analysis of the Coming Decade" (front page blue banner on my website: http://www.joelskousen.com) you will remember that I have predicted that the Russians will strike prior to the deployment of a viable ABM system. They cannot take the chance that their prime nuclear advantage over the US will be nullified or degraded by a missile defense. Given my assumption that the globalists are intending to use war to accelerate and finalize the implementation of the New World Order, I am suspicious that this ABM system proposal (if it ever is intended for deployment) is meant primarily to force Russia into a more predictable timetable for the initiation of hostilities. There is some doubt about whether our government is serious about defending America. Anonymous sources within the defense industry, working on the current ABM system, complain that they never see the billions of dollars that are supposedly being spent on this system. Perhaps the discrepancy can be explained by the common practice of siphoning off excess profits into other secret "black budget" weaponry which the PTB donít want Congress to know about. Sam Cohen, the father of the neutron bomb, also believes that the US government has no intention of deploying a viable ABM system.
Across the board, there seems to be a sense of urgency and movement among the globalists. The EU is pushing harder for integration and is running into increased opposition, judging by the negative reaction to Germanyís recent restructuring proposals. The globalist leaders in America are pushing hard for a fast track agenda for the implementation of our own version of the EU in this hemisphere--the so-called Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) as detailed in last weekís brief. Despite the appearance of unity, there has been and will be much resistance to a full merger into global or even regional government. Sovereignty issues are dear to most Americans who understand the Constitution. It is my belief that those driving this global merger donít have an unlimited time to accomplish their goals. War is becoming the option of choice. Thus, despite the rhetoric about peace and security, I have an intense feeling that these NMD proposals are not intended to be in place in time to deter the next war.
WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF (excerpt) April 27, 2001 Copyright Joel Skousen. Quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousenís World Affairs Brief. Website: http://www.joelskousen.com
(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)
Return to WebToday