go to end

go to notes

Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower 
by William Blum

INTRODUCTION

     This book could be entitled: Serial chain-saw baby killers
and the women who love them.
     The women don't really believe that their beloved would do
such a thing, even if they're shown a severed limb or a headless
torso.  Or if they believe it, they know down to their bone
marrow that lover-boy really had the best of intentions; it must
have been some kind of very unfortunate accident, a well-meaning
blunder; in fact, even more likely, it was a humanitarian act.

For 70 years, the United States convinced much of the world that
there was an international conspiracy out there.  An
International Communist Conspiracy; seeking no less than control
over the entire planet, for purposes which had no socially
redeeming values.  And the world was made to believe that it
somehow needed the United States to save it from communist
darkness.  "Just buy our weapons," said Washington, "let our
military and our corporations roam freely across your land, and
give us veto power over who your leaders will be, and we'll
protect you."
     It was the cleverest protection racket since men convinced
women that they needed men to protect them -- If all the men
vanished overnight, how many women would be afraid to walk the
streets?
     And if the people of any foreign land were benighted enough
to not realize that they needed to be saved, if they failed to
appreciate the underlying nobility of American motives, they were
warned that they would burn in Communist Hell.  Or a CIA
facsimile thereof.  And they would be saved nonetheless.
     A decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, America is still
saving countries and peoples from one danger or another.  The
scorecard reads as follows: From 1945 to the end of the century,
the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign
governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist
movements struggling against intolerable regimes.  In the
process, the US caused the end of life for several million
people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and
despair. 
     As I write this in Washington, D.C., in April 1999, the
United States is busy saving Yugoslavia.  Bombing a modern,
sophisticated society back to a pre-industrial age.  And The
Great American Public, in its infinite wisdom, is convinced that
its government is motivated by "humanitarian" impulses.
     Washington is awash with foreign dignitaries here to
celebrate the 50th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization; three days of unprecedented pomp and circumstance. 
The prime-ministers, presidents and foreign ministers, despite
their rank, are delighted to be included amongst the schoolyard
bully's close friends.  Private corporations are funding the
opulent weekend; a dozen of them paying $250,000 apiece to have
one of their executives serve as a director on the NATO Summit's
host committee.  Many of the same firms lobbied hard to expand
NATO by adding the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, each of
which will be purchasing plentiful quantities of military
hardware from these companies.
     This marriage of NATO and the transnationals is the
foundation of the New World Order, the name George Bush gave to
the American Empire.  The credibility of the New World Order
depends upon the world believing that the new world will be a
better one for the multitude of humanity, not just for those for
whom too much is not enough; and believing that the leader of the
New World Order, the United States, means well.  
     Let's have a short look at some modern American history,
which may be instructive.  A congressional report of 1994
informed us that:

     Approximately 60,000 military personnel were used as
     human subjects in the 1940s to test two chemical
     agents, mustard gas and lewisite [blister gas].  Most
     of these subjects were not informed of the nature of
     the experiments and never received medical followup
     after their participation in the research.
     Additionally, some of these human subjects were
     threatened with imprisonment at Fort Leavenworth if
     they discussed these experiments with anyone,     
     including their wives, parents, and family doctors. 
     For decades, the Pentagon denied that the research had
     taken place, resulting in decades of suffering for many
     veterans who became ill after the secret testing.{1} 
     
     Now let's skip ahead to the 1990s.  Many thousands of
American soldiers came home from the Gulf War with unusual,
debilitating ailments.  Exposure to harmful chemical or
biological agents was suspected, but the Pentagon denied that
this had occurred.  Years went by while the GIs suffered
terribly: neurological problems, chronic fatigue, skin
problems, scarred lungs, memory loss, muscle and joint pain,
severe headaches, personality changes, passing out, and much
more.  Eventually, the Pentagon, inch by inch, was forced to
move away from its denials and admit that, yes, chemical
weapon depots had been bombed; then, yes, there probably were
releases of the deadly poisons; then, yes, American soldiers
were indeed in the vicinity of these poisonous releases, 400
soldiers; then, it might have been 5,000; then, "a very large
number", probably more than 15,000; then, finally, a precise
number -- 20,867; then, "The Pentagon announced that a
long-awaited computer model estimates that nearly 100,000 U.S.
soldiers could have been exposed to trace amounts of sarin
gas." ...{2}
     Soldiers were also forced to take vaccines against
anthrax and nerve gas not approved by the FDA as safe and
effective, and punished, sometimes treated like criminals, if
they refused.  (During World War II, US soldiers were forced
to take a yellow fever vaccine, with the result that some
330,000 of them were infected with the hepatitis B virus.){3}
Finally, in late 1999, almost nine years after the Gulf War's
end, the Defense Department announced that a drug given to
soldiers to protect them against a particular nerve gas,
"cannot be ruled out" as a cause of lingering illnesses in
some veterans.{4}
     The Pentagon brass, moreover, did not warn American
soldiers of the grave danger of being in close proximity to
expended depleted uranium weapons on the battlefield.
     If the Pentagon had been much more forthcoming from the
outset about what it knew all along about these various
substances and weapons, the soldiers might have had a proper
diagnosis early on and received appropriate care sooner.  The
cost in terms of human suffering was incalculable.  One gauge
of that cost may lie in the estimate that one-third of the
homeless in America are military veterans.
     And in the decades between the 1940s and 1990s, what do
we find?  A remarkable variety of government programs, either
formally, or in effect, using soldiers as guinea pigs --
marched to nuclear explosion sites, with pilots then sent
through the mushroom clouds; subjected to chemical and
biological weapons experiments; radiation experiments;
behavior modification experiments that washed their brains
with LSD; exposure to the dioxin of Agent Orange in Korea and
Vietnam ... the list goes on ... literally millions of
experimental subjects, seldom given a choice or adequate
information, often with disastrous effects to their physical
and/or mental health, rarely with proper medical care or even
monitoring.{5}
     The moral of this little slice of history is simple: If
the United States government does not care about the health
and welfare of its own soldiers, if our leaders are not moved
by the prolonged pain and suffering of the wretched warriors
enlisted to fight the empire's wars, how can it be argued,
how can it be believed, that they care about foreign peoples? 
At all.
     When the Dalai Lama was asked by a CIA officer in 1995:
"Did we do a good or bad thing in providing this support [to
the Tibetans]?", the Tibetan spiritual leader replied that
though it helped the morale of those resisting the Chinese,
"thousands of lives were lost in the resistance" and that
"the U.S. Government had involved itself in his country's
affairs not to help Tibet but only as a Cold War tactic to
challenge the Chinese."{6}

"Let me tell you about the very rich," wrote F. Scott 
Fitzgerald. "They are different from you and me."
So are our leaders. Consider Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor to Jimmy Carter. In a 1998 interview he admitted that the official story that the US gave military aid to the Afghanistan opposition only after the Soviet invasion in 1979 was a lie. The truth was, he said, that the US began aiding the Islamic fundamentalist Moujahedeen six months before the Russians made their move, even though he believed -- and told this to Carter -- that "this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention". Brzezinski was asked whether he regretted this decision. Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.{7} Besides the fact that there is no demonstrable connection between the Afghanistan war and the breakup of the Soviet empire, we are faced with the consequences of that war: the defeat of a government committed to bringing the extraordinarily backward nation into the 20th century; the breathtaking carnage; Moujahedeen torture that even US government officials called "indescribable horror"{8}; half the population either dead, disabled or refugees; the spawning of thousands of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists who have unleashed atrocities in numerous countries; and the unbelievable repression of women in Afghanistan, instituted by America's wartime allies. And for playing a key role in causing all this, Zbigniew Brzezinski has no regrets. Regrets? The man is downright proud of it! The kindest thing one can say about such a person -- as about a sociopath -- is that he's amoral. At least in his public incarnation, which is all we're concerned with here. In medieval times he would have been called Zbigniew the Terrible. And what does this tell us about Jimmy Carter, whom many people think of as perhaps the only halfway decent person to occupy the White House since Roosevelt? Or is it Lincoln? In 1977, when pressed by journalists about whether the US had a moral obligation to help rebuild Vietnam, President Carter responded: "Well, the destruction was mutual."{9} (Perhaps when he observed the devastation of the South Bronx later that year, he was under the impression that it had been caused by Vietnamese bombing.) In the now-famous exchange on TV between Madeleine Albright and reporter Lesley Stahl, the latter was speaking of US sanctions against Iraq, and asked the then-US ambassador to the UN: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is the price worth it?" Replied Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."{10} One can give Albright the absolute full benefit of any doubt and say that she had no choice but to defend administration policy. But what kind of person is it that takes a job appointment knowing full well that she will be an integral part of such ongoing policies and will be expected to defend them without apology? Not long afterwards, Albright was appointed Secretary of State. Lawrence Summers is another case in point. In December 1991, while chief economist for the World Bank, he wrote an internal memo saying that the Bank should encourage migration of "the dirty industries" to the less-developed countries because, amongst other reasons, health-impairing and death-causing pollution costs would be lower. Inasmuch as these costs are based on the lost earnings of the affected workers, in a country of very low wages the computed costs would be much lower. "I think," he wrote, "the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest-wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."{11} Despite this memo receiving wide distribution and condemnation, Summers, in 1999, was appointed Secretary of the Treasury by President Clinton. This was a promotion from being Undersecretary of the Treasury -- for international affairs. We also have Clinton himself, who on day 33 of the aerial devastation of Yugoslavia -- 33 days and nights of destroying villages, schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, the ecology, separating people from their limbs, from their eyesight, spilling their intestines, traumatizing children for the rest of their days ... destroying a life the Serbians will never know again -- on day 33 William Jefferson Clinton, cautioning against judging the bombing policy prematurely, saw fit to declare: "This may seem like a long time. [But] I don't think that this air campaign has been going on a particularly long time."{12} And then the man continued it another 45 days. Clinton's vice president, Albert Gore, appears eminently suitable to succeed him to the throne. In 1998, he put great pressure on South Africa, threatening trade sanctions if the government didn't cancel plans to use much cheaper generic AIDS drugs, which would cut into US companies' sales.{13} South Africa, it should be noted, has about three million HIV-positive persons among its largely impoverished population. When Gore, who at the time had significant ties to the drug industry{14}, was heckled for what he had done during a speech in New York, he declined to respond in substance, but instead called out: "I love this country. I love the First Amendment."{15} It's interesting to note that when Madeleine Albright was heckled in Columbus, Ohio in February 1998, while defending the administration's Iraq policy, she yelled: "We are the greatest country in the world!" Patriotism is indeed the last refuge of a scoundrel, though Gore's and Albright's words don't quite have the ring of "Deutschland über alles" or "Rule Britannia". In 1985, Ronald Reagan, demonstrating the preeminent intellect for which he was esteemed, tried to show how totalitarian the Soviet Union was by declaring: "I'm no linguist, but I've been told that in the Russian language there isn't even a word for freedom."{16} In light of the above cast of characters and their declarations, can we ask if there's a word in American English for "embarrassment"? No, it is not simply that power corrupts and dehumanizes. Neither is it that US foreign policy is cruel because American leaders are cruel. It's that our leaders are cruel because only those willing and able to be inordinately cruel and remorseless can hold positions of leadership in the foreign policy establishment; it might as well be written into the job description. People capable of expressing a full human measure of compassion and empathy toward faraway powerless strangers -- let alone American soldiers -- do not become president of the United States, or vice president, or secretary of state, or national security advisor, or secretary of the treasury. Nor do they want to. There's a sort of Peter Principle at work here. Laurence Peter wrote that in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence. Perhaps we can postulate that in a foreign policy establishment committed to imperialist domination by any means necessary, employees tend to rise to the level of cruelty they can live with. A few days after the bombing of Yugoslavia had ended, the New York Times published as its lead article in the Sunday Week in Review, a piece by Michael Wines, which declared that "Human rights had been elevated to a military priority and a pre-eminent Western value. ... The war only underscored the deep ideological divide between an idealistic New World bent on ending inhumanity and an Old World equally fatalistic about unending conflict. ... there is also a yawning gap between the West and much of the world on the value of a single life." And so on. A paean to the innate goodness of the West, an ethos unfortunately not shared by much of the rest of the world, who, Wines lamented, "just don't buy into Western notions of rights and responsibilities."{17} The Times fed us this morality tale after "the West" had just completed the most ferocious sustained bombing of a nation in the history of the planet, a small portion of whose dreadful consequences are referred to above. During the American bombing of Iraq in 1991, the previous record for sustained ferociousness, a civilian air raid shelter was destroyed by a depleted-uranium projectile, incinerating to charred blackness many hundreds of people, a great number of them women and children. White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater, reiterating US military statements that the shelter had been a command-and-control center, said: "We don't know why civilians were at that location, but we do know that Saddam Hussein does not share our value for the sanctity of human life."{18} Similarly, during the Vietnam War, President Johnson and other government officials assured us that Asians don't have the same high regard for human life as Americans do. We were told this, of course, as American bombs, napalm, Agent Orange, and helicopter gunships were disintegrating the Vietnamese and their highly regarded lives. And at the same time, on a day in February 1966, David Lawrence, the editor of US News & World Report, was moved to put the following words to paper: "What the United States is doing in Vietnam is the most significant example of philanthropy extended by one people to another that we have witnessed in our times." I sent Mr. Lawrence a copy of a well-done pamphlet entitled American Atrocities in Vietnam, which gave graphic detail of its subject. To this I attached a note which first repeated Lawrence's quotation with his name below it, then added: "One of us is crazy.", followed by my name. Lawrence responded with a full page letter, at the heart of which was: "I think a careful reading of it [the pamphlet] will prove the point I was trying to make -- namely that primitive peoples with savagery in their hearts have to be helped to understand the true basis of a civilized existence." The American mind -- as exemplified by that of Michael Wines and David Lawrence -- is, politically, so deeply formed that to liberate it would involve uncommon, and as yet perhaps undiscovered, philosophical and surgical skill. The great majority of Americans, even the most cynical -- who need no convincing that the words that come out of a politician's mouth are a blend of mis-, dis- and non-information, and should always carry a veracity health warning -- appear to lose their critical faculties when confronted by "our boys who are risking their lives". If love is blind, patriotism has lost all five senses. To the extent that the cynicism of these Americans is directed toward their government's habitual foreign adventures, it's to question whether the administration's stated interpretation of a situation is valid, whether the stated goals are worthwhile, and whether the stated goals can be achieved -- but not to question the government's motivation. It is assumed a priori that our leaders mean well by the foreign people involved -- no matter how much death, destruction and suffering their policies objectively result in. Congressman Otis Pike (R.-NY) headed a committee in 1975 which uncovered a number of dark covert actions of US foreign policy, many of which were leaked to the public, while others remained secret. In an interview he stated that any member of Congress could see the entire report if he agreed not to reveal anything that was in it. "But not many want to read it," he added. "Why?" asked his interviewer. "Oh, they think it is better not to know," Pike replied. "There are too many things that embarrass Americans in that report. You see, this country went through an awful trauma with Watergate. But even then, all they were asked to believe was that their president had been a bad person. In this new situation they are asked much more; they are asked to believe that their country has been evil. And nobody wants to believe that."{19} This has been compared to going to a counselor because your child is behaving strangely, and being told, "You have a problem of incest in your family." People can't hear that. They go to a different counselor. They grab at any other explanation. It's too painful.{20} In The History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides, speaking of the practice of plundering villages, the main source of a warrior's livelihood, tells us that "no disgrace was yet attached to such an achievement, but rather credit". Almost all of us grew up in an environment in which we learned that thou shalt not murder, rape, rob, probably not pay off a public official or cheat on your taxes -- but not that there was anything wrong with toppling foreign governments, quashing revolutions, or dropping powerful bombs on foreign people, if it somehow served America's "national security". Let us look at our teachers. During the bombing of Yugoslavia, CBS Evening News Anchor, Dan Rather, declared: "I'm an American, and I'm an American reporter. And yes, when there's combat involving Americans, you can criticize me if you must, damn me if you must, but I'm always pulling for us to win."{21} (In the past, US journalists were quick to criticize their Soviet counterparts for speaking in behalf of the State.) What does this mean? That he's going to support any war effort by the United States no matter the legal or moral justification? No matter the effect on democracy, freedom or self-determination? No matter the degree of horror produced? No matter anything? Many other American journalists have similarly paraded themselves as cheerleaders in modern times in the midst of one of the Pentagon's frequent marches down the warpath, serving a function "more akin to stenography than journalism".{22} During the Gulf War, much of the media, led by CNN, appeared to have a serious missile fetish, enough so to suggest a need for counseling. The CEO of National Public Radio, Kevin Klose, is the former head of all the major, worldwide US government broadcast propaganda outlets, including Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and the anti-Castro Radio Marti, which broadcasts into Cuba from Florida. NPR, which can be thought of as the home service of the Voice of America, has never met an American war it didn't like. It was inspired to describe the war against Yugoslavia as Clinton's "most significant foreign policy success."{23} And the head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Robert Coonrod, has a résumé remarkably similar to that of Klose, from Voice of America to Radio Marti. Is it any wonder that countless Americans -- bearing psyches no less malleable than those of other members of the species -- are only dimly conscious of the fact that they even have the right to be unequivocally opposed to a war effort and to question the government's real intentions for carrying it out, without thinking of themselves as (horror of horrors) "unpatriotic"? Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship. During the 1991 Gulf War, the Bush administration conducted three briefings a day with such telegenic figures as generals Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf. Marlin Fitzwater later recalled that when ABC-TV interviewed a group of Kansans around a kitchen table, "every answer at that table reflected one of the reasons we had given for going in."{24} In Spain, in the 16th century, the best minds were busy at work devising rationalizations for the cruelty its conquistadors were inflicting on the Indians of the New World. It was decided, and commonly accepted, that the Indians were "natural slaves", created by God to serve the conquistadors. Twentieth-century America took this a step further. The best and the brightest have assured us that United States interventions -- albeit rather violent at times -- are not only in the natural order of things, but they're actually for the good of the natives. The media and the public do in fact relish catching politicians' lies, but these are the small lies -- lies about money, sex, drug use, and other peccadillos, and the ritual doubletalk of campaignspeak. A certain Mr. A. Hitler, originally of Austria, though often castigated, actually arrived at a number of very perceptive insights into how the world worked. One of them was this: The great masses of the people in the very bottom of
their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously
and purposely evil ... therefore, in view of the primitive
simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall a victim
to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves
lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that
were too big.{25}
How many Americans, after all, doubt the official rationale for dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- to obviate the need for a land invasion of Japan, thus saving thousands of American lives? However, it's been known for years that the Japanese had been trying for many months to surrender and that the US had consistently ignored these overtures. The bombs were dropped, not to intimidate the Japanese, but to put the fear of the American god into the Russians. The dropping of the A-bomb, it has been said, was not the last shot of World War II, but the first shot of the Cold War.{26} In 1964, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, when asked about US involvement in the overthrow of the government of Brazil, declared: "Well, there is just not one iota of truth in this. It's just not so in any way, shape, or form." Yet, the United States had been intimately involved in the coup, its role being literally indispensable.{27} In the 1980s, the Reagan administration declared that the Russians were spraying toxic chemicals over Asia -- the so-called "yellow rain" -- and had caused thousands of deaths. So precise was Washington's information they could state at one point that in Afghanistan 3,042 had died in 47 separate incidents. President Reagan denounced the Soviet Union for these atrocities more than 15 times in documents and speeches. The "yellow rain", it turned out, was pollen-laden feces dropped by huge swarms of honeybees flying far overhead.{28} These are three examples, chosen virtually at random. Numerous others could be given. But at the beginning of the 21st century do the American people really need to be reminded that governments lie, that great powers lie greater, that the world's only superpower has the most to lie about; i.e., cover up? Do I have to descend to the banality of telling this to my readers? Apparently so, if we are to judge by all those who swallowed the "humanitarian" excuse for the bombing of Yugoslavia without gagging, including many on the left. The idea of "altruism" has been a recurrent feature of America's love affair with itself. From 1918 to 1920, the United States was a major part of a Western invasion of the infant Soviet Union, an invasion that endeavored to "strangle at its birth", as Winston Churchill put it, the Russian Revolution, which had effectively removed one-sixth of the world's land surface from private capitalist investment. A nation still recovering from a horrendous world war, in extreme chaos from a fundamental social revolution, and in the throes of a famine that was to leave many millions dead, was mercilessly devastated yet further by the invaders, without any provocation. When the smoke had cleared, the US Army Chief of Staff put out a report on the undertaking, which said: "This expedition affords one of the finest examples in history of honorable, unselfish dealings ... to be helpful to a people struggling to achieve a new liberty."{29} Seventy years later, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell, was moved to tell an audience in California that the United States has "so many friends" in the Pacific because of "our values, our economic system, and our altruism".{30} He made these remarks shortly after directing
the slaughter by bombing of a multitude of Panamanian innocents.
Author Garry Wills has commented on this American benevolence toward foreigners: "We believe we can literally kill them with kindness, moving our guns forward in a seizure of demented charity. It is when America is in her most altruistic mood that other nations better get behind their bunkers." What is it, then, that I mean to say here -- that the US government does not care a whit about human life, human rights, humanity, and all those other wonderful human things? No, I mean to say that doing the right thing is not a principle of American foreign policy, not an ideal or a goal of policy in and of itself. If it happens that doing the right thing coincides with, or is irrelevant to, Washington's overriding international ambitions, American officials have no problem walking the high moral ground. But this is rarely the case. A study of the many US interventions -- summarized numerically above, and detailed in the "Interventions" chapter -- shows clearly that the engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, nor even simple decency, but rather by the necessity to serve other masters, which can be broken down to four imperatives:
1)making the world open and hospitable for -- in current terminology -- globalization, particularly American-based transnational corporations; 2)enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of Congress and residents of the White House;
3)preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a
successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
4)extending political, economic and military hegemony over as much of the globe as possible, to prevent the rise of any regional power that might challenge American supremacy, and to create a world order in America's image, as befits the world's only superpower.
To American policymakers, these ends have justified the means, and all means have been available.{31} In the wake of the 1973 military coup in Chile, which overthrew the socialist government of Salvador Allende, the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, Jack Kubisch, was hard pressed to counter charges that the United States had been involved. "It was not in our interest to have the military take over in Chile," he insisted. "It would have been better had Allende served his entire term, taking the nation and the Chilean people into complete and total ruin. Only then would the full discrediting of socialism have taken place. The military takeover and bloodshed has confused the issue."{32} Though based on a falsehood made up for the occasion -- that Allende's polices were leading Chile to ruin -- Kubisch's remark inadvertently expressed his government's strong fealty to the third imperative stated above. During the Cold War, US foreign policy was carried out under the waving banner of fighting a moral crusade against what cold warriors persuaded the American people, most of the world, and usually themselves, was the existence of a malevolent International Communist Conspiracy. But it was always a fraud; there was never any such animal as the International Communist Conspiracy. There were, as there still are, people living in misery, rising up in protest against their condition, against an oppressive government, a government likely supported by the United States. To Washington, this was proof that the Soviet Union (or Cuba or Nicaragua, etc., functioning as Moscow's surrogate) was again acting as the proverbial "outside agitator". In the final analysis, this must be wondered: What kind of omnipresent, omnipotent, monolithic, evil international conspiracy bent on world domination would allow its empire to completely fall apart, like the proverbial house of cards, without bringing any military force to bear upon its satellites to prevent their escaping? And without an invasion from abroad holding a knife to the empire's throat? Enemies without number, threats without end Now, of course, Washington spinmeisters can't cry "The Russians are coming, and they're ten feet tall!" as a pretext for intervention, so they have to regularly come up with new enemies. America cherishes her enemies. Without enemies, she is a nation without purpose and direction. The various components of the National Security State need enemies to justify their swollen budgets, to aggrandize their work, to protect their jobs, to give themselves a mission in the aftermath of the Soviet Union; ultimately, to reinvent themselves. And they understand this only too well, even painfully. Presented here is Col. Dennis Long, speaking in 1992, two years after the end of the Cold War, when he was director of "total armor force readiness" at Fort Knox: For 50 years, we equipped our football team, practiced
five days a week and never played a game. We had a clear
enemy with demonstrable qualities, and we had scouted them
out. [Now] we will have to practice day in and day out
without knowing anything about the other team. We won't
have his playbook, we won't know where the stadium is, or
how many guys he will have on the field. That is very
distressing to the military establishment, especially when
you are trying to justify the existence of your organization
and your systems.{33}
The United States had postponed such a distressing situation for as long as it could. A series of Soviet requests during the Cold War to establish a direct dialogue with senior NATO officials were rejected as "inappropriate and potentially divisive". Longstanding and repeated Soviet offers to dissolve the Warsaw Pact if NATO would do the same were ignored. After one such offer was spurned, the Los Angeles Times commented that the offer "increases the difficulty faced by U.S. policy-makers in persuading Western public opinion to continue expensive and often unpopular military programs."{34} In 1991, Colin Powell touched upon the irony of the profound world changes in cautioning his fellow military professionals: "We must not ... hope that it [the changes] will disappear and let us return to comforting thoughts about a resolute and evil enemy."{35} But the thoughts are indeed comforting to the military professionals and their civilian counterparts. So one month the new resolute and evil enemy is North Korea, the next month the big threat is Libya, then China, or Iraq, or Iran, or Sudan, or Afghanistan, or Serbia, or that old reliable demon, Cuba -- countries each led by a Hitler-of-the-month, or at least a madman or mad dog; a degree of demonizing fit more for a theocratic society than a democratic one. And in place of the International Communist Conspiracy, Washington now tells us, on one day or another, it's fighting a War Against Drugs, or military or industrial spying, or the proliferation of "weapons of mass destruction", or organized crime, or on behalf of human rights, or, most particularly, against terrorism. And they dearly want the American public to believe this. Here, for your terrorist-threat collection, are some of the headlines appearing in the Washington Post and New York Times in one 7-week period in early 1999: Jan. 22: "Clinton Describes Terrorism Threat for 21st Century" Jan. 23: "President Steps Up War on New Terrorism" Jan. 23: "Thwarting Tomorrow's Terrors" Jan. 29: "Anti-Terrorism Powers Grow" Feb. 1: "Pentagon Plans Domestic Terrorism Team" Feb. 1: "The Man Who Protects America From Terrorism" Feb. 2: "U.S. Targeting Terrorism With More Funds" Feb. 16: "Anti-Terrorism Military Drills Take Parts of Texas by Surprise" Feb. 17: "Has the U.S. Blunted Bin Laden?" Feb. 19: "Spending to Avert Embassy Attacks Assailed as Timid: Terrorist Threat Looms" Feb. 19: "Bangladesh: Bin Laden's Next Target?" Feb. 23: "Preparing for Invisible Killers" Mar. 7: "Muslim Militants Threaten American Lives" Mar. 8: "Reagan Building Vulnerable to Attack" Mar. 14: "2 Groups Appeal U.S. Designation as Terror Organizations" Mar. 16: "Clinton Plans Training for Firefighters on Terrorism" And on January 20, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen -- a man who has written an ode to the F-15 fighter jet, literally{36} -- announced that $6.6 billion was to be spent on a national missile defense system, a revival of President Reagan's Star Wars system. In explaining this expenditure, Mr. Cohen cited only one threat -- from North Korea. North Korea! A country that can't feed its own people is going to wage a missile attack upon the United States? What possible reason -- other than an overpowering, irresistible yearning for mass national suicide -- could North Korea have for launching such an attack? Yet the average American, reading Cohen's announcement, must have found it very difficult to believe that one of their "leaders" could just step forward and publicly proclaim a crazy tale. They assume there must be something to what the man is saying. That's how the man gets away with it. Does the man believe it himself? No more likely than that President Clinton believes it. In 1993, while in South Korea, Clinton declared: "It is pointless for them [North Korea] to develop nuclear weapons. Because if they ever use them it would be the end of their country." This burst of honesty and common sense, which visits politicians occasionally, was prompted in this instance by a journalist's question about how likely it was that North Korea would comply with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.{37} Oddly enough, less than a year later, a survey showed that six times as many young South Koreans feared the United States as feared North Korea.{38} Returning to 1999 and its new "threats" -- in August a new National Security Council global strategy paper for the next century declared that "the nation is facing its biggest espionage threat in history."{39} A remarkable statement. What ever happened to the KGB? Any Americans now past 30 had it drilled into their heads from the cradle on that there was a perpetual Soviet dagger aimed at our collective heart in the hand of the spy next door. Thousands lost their jobs and careers because of their alleged association to this threat, hundreds were imprisoned or deported, two were executed. Surely Senator Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover are turning over in their graves. Meanwhile the drumbeat warnings of a possible chemical or biological attack upon the United States grow louder with each passing week. Police, fire and health agencies go through regular exercises with all manner of sophisticated equipment. Active-duty Army and Marine Corps personnel are engaged in the same. The FBI has an extensive hazardous materials unit ready to rush to the scene of an attack. And now the National Guard has joined the frenzy, outfitted in full-body protective suits with air tanks. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has argued that the National Guard units are redundant and their mission poorly defined. The Washington Post reported that "In fact, some critics regard the [Guard] teams largely as an effort to find a new mission for the Guard and help it avoid deeper budget cuts in the post Cold War era."{40} As noted, the same can be said about other elements of the National Security State. In October 1999, ABC's "Nightline" program ran a five-part series in which it simulated a biological weapons attack on a large American city, featuring a squad of terrorists releasing anthrax spores into the subway system, complete with panic, death, and rampant chaos. Ted Koppel made the explicit pronouncement that such an attack was bound to take place in the US at some future time. As one would expect, the programs were long on sensationalism and short on science. This was spelled out later by the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies.{41} Ironically, the fact that such a center exists is another sign of the ("threatening") times. Shortly after this the FBI announced that the Washington area had become "the number one target in the world" for possible terrorist attacks. How did they know? Well, "downtown Washington receives three to six suspicious packages a day". Anything actually terroristic in any of these packages? Apparently not.{42} All this in response to actual chemical, biological or radiological weapon attacks of -- at last count -- zero. But there have been many false anthrax reports, no doubt largely inspired by all the scare talk; talk which never gives the public a clue to how extremely difficult and unpredictable it actually would be to create and deliver a serious anthrax attack, particularly over a wide area; scare talk that also makes more credible and acceptable the US 1998 bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant on the (false) grounds that it was making chemical and biological weapons. Air travel is another area where the "threat" mentality looms larger than life, and common sense. A flight from Atlanta to Turkey, August 4, 1999, that was about to take off was halted by the FBI; all 241 passengers were forced to leave the plane, some of them were questioned, one man was detained; all the luggage was unloaded and each piece painstakingly matched to a passenger; bomb-sniffing dogs and explosive experts were rushed in, and the flight was held up for more than four hours. The reason? The FBI had received word that one of the passengers might be "a potential threat to national security". And the reason for that? The man had paid for his ticket in cash.{43} Three weeks later, at Chicago's O'Hare Airport, a man was seen running the wrong way into a passageway normally used by those exiting the terminal. He disappeared into the crowded concourse. Neither he nor anything suspicious was found. For all anyone knew, the man had simply forgotten something somewhere or had a very urgent need to get to what he thought was the closest bathroom. Whatever, as a result of this "threatening" situation, 6,000 passengers were evacuated, at least 120 flights were canceled, and air traffic was disrupted across the country for several hours.{44} With all the scare talk, with all the "threats", what exactly has taken place in the real world? According to the State Department, in the period of 1993-1998 the number of actual terrorist attacks by region was as follows: Western Europe 766, Latin America 569, Middle East 374, Asia 158, Eurasia 101, Africa 84, North America 14.{45} It is now well known how during the Cold War the actual level of Soviet military and economic strength was magnified by the CIA and Defense Department, how data and events were falsified to exaggerate the Russian threat, how worst-case scenarios were put forth as if they were probable and imminent, even when they failed to meet the demands of plausibility.{46} One of the most enduring Soviet-threat stories -- the alleged justification for the birth of NATO -- was the coming Red invasion of Western Europe. If, by 1999, anyone still swore by this fairy tale, they could have read a report in The Guardian of London on newly declassified British government documents from 1968. Among the documents was one based on an analysis by the Foreign Office joint intelligence committee, which the newspaper summarized as follows: The Soviet Union had no intention of launching a military
attack on the West at the height of the cold war, British
military and intelligence chiefs privately believed, in
stark contrast to what Western politicians and military
leaders were saying in public about the "Soviet threat".
"The Soviet Union will not deliberately start general war or even limited war in Europe," a briefing for the British chiefs of staff -- marked Top Secret, UK Eyes Only, and headed The Threat: Soviet Aims and Intentions -- declared in June 1968. "Soviet foreign policy had been cautious and realistic", the department argued, and despite the Vietnam war, the Russians and their allies had "continued to make contacts in all fields with the West and to maintain a limited but increasing political dialogue with Nato powers".{47} Subtlety is not the order of the day. In 1998, the Pentagon created a new bureaucracy: the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, a budget already in the billions, personnel numbered in the thousands, and "made up primarily of agencies founded to reduce the threat posed by the Soviet Union".{48} It's called recycling. The Soviet threat, the terrorist threat, the new enemies, the same old same old, feverishly fostered at home and abroad, the mentality that the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, et al. have had critical, life-saving, catastrophe-preventing missions thrust upon them, here, there, and everywhere, and we rein these saviors in on pain of national and world disaster ... working the old protection racket again. "I think we are already at war," CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate in 1997. "We have been on a war footing for a number of years now."{49} The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. H.L. Mencken, 1920 Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear --
kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor -- with
the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil ... to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real. General Douglas MacArthur, speaking of large Pentagon budgets, 1957{50} The political spectrum and conspiracies It's ironic, but the far right in the United States is more open to believing the worst about American foreign policy than are most liberals. This may be because those on the far right, being extremists themselves, do not instinctively shy away from believing that the government is capable of extreme behavior, at home or abroad. The radical left and right share a profound cynicism about their government's very intentions. But those in between the two poles do not naturally come by such views. To many of the latter, the statements here about the United States not meaning well may sound like an example of that frequent object of ridicule, the "conspiracy theory". They hear me saying (snicker) that our leaders have gotten together, covertly, in some secluded safe-house, to maliciously plan their next assault on everything holy, while throwing out signals intended to confuse and to obscure their real intentions. But if our leaders strive for unambiguous righteousness, is it not a conspiracy? Don't they meet to plan how they're going to do nice things? Or perhaps they don't have to do this so formally because since they all mean nice to begin with, it thus happens quite automatically, naturally, built into the system -- the government system, the corporate system, the military system, the intelligence system, the government-corporate-military-
intelligence nexus.
But why, then, wouldn't it be the same with meaning bad? It's not that Americans can't believe in any conspiracy theory. Witness the remarkably long shelf life of the International Communist Conspiracy. It's still a highly saleable commodity. "Conspiracy" researcher and author Jonathan Vankin has observed: Journalists like to think of themselves as a skeptical lot.
This is a flawed self-image. The thickest pack of
American journalists are all too credulous when dealing
with government officials, technical experts, and other
official sources. They save their vaunted "skepticism" for
ideas that feel unfamiliar to them. Conspiracy theories
are treated with the most rigorous skepticism.
Conspiracy theories should be approached skeptically. But there's no fairness. Skepticism should apply equally to official and unofficial information. To explain American conspiracy theories ... I've had to rectify this imbalance. I've opened myself to conspiracy theories, and applied total skepticism to official stories.{51} Like the coverup in Waco. In August 1999 we finally received official confirmation that the FBI had fired incendiary devices into the Branch Davidian sect compound in 1993, where 76 people died in a fire the same day. This, after six years of categorical official denials, while "conspiracy theorists" and "conspiracy nuts", who insisted otherwise, were ridiculed, or -- the more usual case -- met by the media's most effective weapon: silence. Can the truth about the "October Surprise", TWA800, Jonestown, and Mena, Arkansas under Governor Clinton be far behind? Yes, far behind. We'll likely never hear an official admission about those events until well into the new century. The First Watergate Law of American Politics states: "No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine." The Second Watergate Law of American Politics states: "Don't believe anything until it's been officially denied." Both laws are still on the books. Cold War continuum Though the putative "communist threat" has disappeared, the taxpayers still fill tractor-trailers to the bursting with cash and send them off to what had once been known as the War Department, then humorously renamed the Defense Department. ... That department's research into yet more futuristic weapons of the chemical dust and better ways to kill people en masse proceeds unabated, with nary a glance back at the body fragments littering the triumphant fields. ... Belief in an afterlife has been rekindled by the Clinton administration's new missile defense system, after universal certainty that Star Wars was dead and buried. ... NATO has also risen from the should-be-dead, more almighty than ever. ... Many hundreds of US military installations, serving a vast panoply of specialized warfaring needs, still dot the global map, including Guantanamo base in Cuba, and for the first time in Albania, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia. ... Even as you read this, American armed forces and special operations forces, such as the Green Berets, are being deployed in well over 100 countries in every part of the world. ... Washington is supplying many of these nations with sizeable amounts of highly lethal military equipment, and training their armed forces and police in the brutal arts, regardless of how brutal they already are. ... American nuclear bombs are still stored in seven European countries, if not elsewhere ... And American officials retain their unshakable belief that they have a god-given right to do whatever they want, for as long as they want, to whomever they want, wherever they want. In other words, whatever the diplomats and policymakers at the time thought they were doing, the Cold War skeptics have been vindicated -- it was not about containing an evil, expansionist communism after all; it was about American imperialism, with "communist" merely the name given to those who stood in its way. In sum total, all these post-Cold War non-changes engender a scenario out of the 1950s and 1960s. And the 1970s and 1980s. John Foster Dulles lives! Has Ronald Reagan been faking illness as he lurks behind the curtain of OZ? Why has all this continued into the 21st century? American foreign-policy makers are exquisitely attuned to the rise of a government, or a movement that might take power, that will not lie down and happily become an American client state, that will not look upon the free market or the privatization of the world known as "globalization" as the summum bonum, that will not change its laws to favor foreign investment, that will not be unconcerned about the effects of foreign investment upon the welfare of its own people, that will not produce primarily for export, that will not allow asbestos, banned pesticides, and other products restricted in the developed world to be dumped onto their people, that will not easily tolerate the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organization inflicting a scorched-earth policy upon the country's social services or standard of living, that will not allow an American or NATO military installation upon its soil ... To the highly-sensitive nostrils of Washington foreign-policy veterans, Yugoslavia smelled a bit too much like one of these governments. Given the proper pretext, such bad examples have to be reduced to basket cases; or, where feasible, simply overthrown, like Albania and Bulgaria in the early 1990s; failing that, life has to be made impossible for these renegades, as with Cuba, still. As Michael Parenti has observed: "It has been noted that the cost of apprehending a bank robber may occasionally exceed the sum that is stolen. But if robbers were allowed to go their way, this would encourage others to follow suit and would put the entire banking system in jeopardy."{52} And this was the foundation -- the sine qua non -- of American foreign policy for the entire twentieth century, both before and after the existence of the Soviet Union, from the Philippines, Panama and the Dominican Republic in the first decade of the century, to Peru, El Salvador, and Colombia in the last decade. Can we in fact say that the Cold War has actually ended? If the Cold War is defined as a worldwide contention between the United States and the Soviet Union for the hearts and minds of the Third World (for whatever motives), then certainly it is over. But if the Cold War is seen not as an East-West struggle, but rather a "North-South" struggle, as an American effort -- as mentioned above -- to prevent the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model, and to prevent the rise of any regional power that might challenge American supremacy, then that particular map with the pins stuck in it still hangs on the wall in the Pentagon's War Room. (Said a Defense Department planning paper in 1992: "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival ... we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."{53} [emphasis added]) The current manifestation of this continuum, by whatever name, can be viewed as yet another chapter in the never-ending saga of the war of the rich upon the poor. And with the Soviet presence and influence gone, American interventions are more trouble-free than ever. (Consider that US friendliness toward Iraq and Yugoslavia lasted exactly as long as the Soviet Union and its bloc existed.) There's a word for such a continuum of policy. Empire. The American Empire. An appellation that does not roll easily off an American tongue. No American has any difficulty believing in the existence and driving passion for expansion, power, glory, and wealth of the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-
Hungarian Empire, or the British Empire. It's right there in
their schoolbooks. But to the American mind, to American schoolbooks, and to the American media, the history of empires has come to a grinding halt. The American Empire? An oxymoron. A compelling lust for political, economic and military hegemony over the rest of the world, divorced from moral considerations? Suggesting that to Americans is akin to telling them of one's UFO abduction, except that they're more likely to believe the abduction story. Earth is not enough Previous empires could not even imagine it. The American Empire is making detailed plans for it. Control of outer space. Not only control, but planning for wars there. Let us mark the words of the gentlemen of the Pentagon: US Space Command -- dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment. Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict. ... During the early portion of the 21st century, space power will also evolve into a separate and equal medium of warfare. ... The emerging synergy of space superiority with land, sea, and air superiority will lead to Full Spectrum Dominance. ... Development of ballistic missile defenses using space systems and planning for precision strikes from space offers a counter to the worldwide proliferation of WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. ... Space is a region with increasing commercial, civil, international, and military interests and investments. The threat to these vital systems is also increasing. ... Control of Space is the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space, if required. ... Control of Space is a complex mission that casts USCINCSPACE [US Commander-in-Chief of space] in a classic warfighter role and mandates an established AOR [area of responsibility].{54} ... With regard to space dominance, we have it, we like it, and we're going to keep it.{55} ... We will engage terrestrial targets someday -- ships, airplanes, land targets -- from space. ... We're going to fight in space. We're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into space.{56} In 1963, the UN General Assembly adopted by unanimous acclamation a resolution calling upon all States: "To refrain from placing in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, installing such weapons on celestial bodies, or stationing such weapons in outer space in any other manner."{57} This expressed hope is still very much alive today. On January 26, 1999, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva: "One concept which is now widely shared is that of maintaining outer space as a weapons-free environment." The Madman philosophy In March 1998, an internal 1995 study, "Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence", by the U.S. Strategic Command, the headquarters responsible for the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal, was brought to light. The study stated: Because of the value that comes from the ambiguity of what the US may do to an adversary if the acts we seek to deter are carried out, it hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational and cool-headed. The fact that some elements may appear to be potentially out of control can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts within the minds of an adversary's decision makers. This essential sense of fear is the working force of deterrence. That the US may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be a part
of the national persona we project to all adversaries.{58}
The author of these words would have the world believe that the United States has only been pretending to be "out of control" or "irrational and vindictive". However, it can be argued -- based on the objective facts of what Washington has inflicted upon the world, as described in this book -- that for more than half a century American foreign policy has, in actuality, been clinically mad. On the other hand, the desire for world hegemony, per se, is not necessarily irrational, whatever else one may think of it. Michael Parenti has pointed out that US foreign policy "may seem stupid because the rationales offered in its support often sound unconvincing, leaving us with the impression that policymakers are confused or out of touch. But just because the public does not understand what they are doing does not mean that national security leaders are themselves befuddled. That they are fabricators does not mean they are fools."{59} A Truth Commission In recent years, the people of South Africa, Guatemala and El Salvador have held official Truth Commissions to look squarely in the eyes of the crimes committed by their governments. There will never be any such official body to investigate and document the wide body of Washington's crimes, although several unofficial citizens' commissions have done so over the years for specific interventions, such as in Vietnam, Panama, and Iraq; their findings were of course ignored by the establishment media (whose ideology is a belief that it doesn't have any ideology). In the absence of an official Truth Commission in the United States, this book is offered up as testimony. Do not spend too much time looking for a review of it in the New York Times, Washington Post, or Los Angeles Times. Washington, DC, January 2000 NOTES 1. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans' Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century, December 8, 1994, p.5 2. Washington Post, October 2 and 23, 1996 and July 31, 1997 for the estimated numbers of affected soldiers. 3. Journal of the American Medical Association, September 1, 1999, p.822. 4. Washington Post, October 19, 1999, p.3 5. Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans' Health? op. cit., passim 6. John Kenneth Knaus, Orphans of the Cold War (New York, 1999), p.312. Knaus was the CIA officer who spoke to the Dalai Lama. 7. Le Nouvel Observateur (France), January 15-21, 1998, p.76. There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version. 8. Washington Post, January 13, 1985, p.30 9. New York Times, March 25, 1977, p.10 10. "60 Minutes", May 12, 1996 11. For the full text of the relevant part of his memo, see The Economist (London), February 8, 1992, p.66 (US edition) 12. Washington Post, April 25, 1999, p.28 13. John Judis, "K Street Gore", The American Prospect,
July-August 1999, p.18-21
14. Ibid. 15. Washington Post, June 18, 1999. After protesters repeatedly disrupted Gore's campaign appearances, the US removed South Africa from the sanction watch list. (Ibid., December 4, 1999, p.18) 16. Interview with Reagan at the White House, October 29, 1985, broadcast October 30 on "The World at One", Radio 4, Great Britain. 17. New York Times, June 13, 1999 18. Ibid., February 14, 1991, p.16 19. "An Oriana Fallaci Interview: Otis Pike and the CIA", New Republic (Washington, DC), April 3, 1976, p.10 20. Borrowed from former CIA analyst David MacMichael 21. Speaking at the National Press Club, Washington, DC, June 25, 1999. 22. Phrase borrowed from media critic Norman Solomon 23. NPR Morning edition, Mara Liasson, June 11, 1999 24. Washington Post, March 27, 1999 25. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1971; original version 1925) Vol. 1, chapter 10, p.231 26. William Blum, "Hiroshima: Needless Slaughter, Useful Terror", Covert Action Quarterly (Washington, D.C.), #53, Summer 1995, p.22-25 27. William Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II (Common Courage Press, Maine, 1995), chapter 27 28. New York Times, March 9, 1982, p.1; March 23, 1982, p.1 and 14; The Guardian (London) November 3, 1983, March 29, 1984; Washington Post, May 30, 1986. 29. Los Angeles Times, September 2, 1991, p.1 30. Vital Speeches of the Day, May 1, 1990, p.421, speech delivered March 23, 1990. 31. For excellent and concise summaries of how and why the United States planned and achieved world domination, see Noam Chomsky, What Uncle Sam Really Wants (Odonian Press, Berkeley, 1992) and Michael Parenti, Against Empire (City Lights Books, San Francisco, 1995) 32. Thomas Hauser, The Execution of Charles Horman (New York, 1978), p.191. (Horman was an American killed by the Chilean junta in the wake of the coup.) 33. New York Times, February 3, 1992, p.8 34. New York Times, January 7, 1983, p.4; The Guardian (London), December 6, 1986 (first quote); Los Angeles Times, October 25, 1989, p.7 (second quote), and October 26. 35. AIR FORCE Magazine (Arlington, VA), March 1991, p.81 36. New York Times, March 21, 1999, p.34 37. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States (GPO), 1993, Vol. I, p.1060-1, July 11 38. The Economist (London), June 4-10, 1994, p.40 39. Washington Times, August 24, 1999, p.1; the words are those of the newspaper and may be a paraphrase of the original. 40. Washington Post, August 28, 1999, p.3 41. Donald Henderson, "Dangerous Fictions about Bioterrorism", Washington Post, November 8, 1999, p.21; see also Roni Kruzman, "Koppel's 'Biowar of the Worlds'", Extra! (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, NY), January/February 2000, p.21 42. Washington Post, October 29, 1999, p.14 43. Atlanta Journal, August 4, 1999, p.1 44. Washington Post, August 27, 1999 45. State Department, "Patterns of Global Terrorism, 1998", released April 1999, can be read on their website 46. See, e.g., Tim Weiner, "Military Accused of Lies Over Arms", New York Times, June 28, 1993, p.10; Tim Weiner, Blank Check (New York, 1990), p.42-43, for CIA's inflated figures re Soviets; Anne H. Cahn, "How We Got Oversold on Overkill", Los Angeles Times, July 23, 1993, about a GAO study; Douglas Jehl & Michael Ross, "CIA Nominee Faces Charges He Slanted Data", Los Angeles Times, September 15, 1991, p.1; Arthur Macy Cox, "Why the U.S., Since 1977, Has Been Misperceiving Soviet Military Strength", New York Times, October 20, 1980, p. 19 (Cox was formerly an official with the State Department and the CIA) 47. The Guardian (London), January 1, 1999 48. Washington Post, October 2, 1998 49. Ibid., September 9, 1998, p.17 50. Mencken: In Defense of Women (1920); MacArthur: William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur, 1880-1964 (Dell, New York, 1978), p.827 51. Jonathan Vankin, Conspiracies, Cover-ups and Crimes: Political Manipulation and Mind Control in America (New York, 1991), p.120 52. Parenti, op. cit., p.49 53. "Pentagon's Planning Guidance for the Fiscal Years
1994-1999", New York Times, March 8, 1992, p.14
54. United States Space Command: Vision for 2020, excerpts are in same sequence as found in the publication; put out by U.S. Space Command, Director of Plans, Peterson AFB, Colorado, August 1997 55. Keith R. Hall, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Space and Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, speaking to the National Space Club, September 15, 1997. 56. General Joseph Ashy, at the time Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Space Command, cited in Aviation Week and Space Technology (New York), August 5, 1996, p.51 57. October 17, 1963, UN Resolution number 1884 58. From the study's Introduction, p.8. The Boston Globe, March 2, 1998, p.5 contains almost the entire passage. 59. Parenti, op. cit., p.80
To write to the author: bblum6@aol.com
return to beginning
return to homepage: http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm