- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Is Lebanon part of a wider plan?

"[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]... a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan" (Pentagon official quoted by General Wesley Clark)

According to General Wesley Clark--the Pentagon, by late 2001, was Planning to Attack Lebanon

"Winning Modern Wars" (page 130) General Clark states the following:

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

...He said it with reproach--with disbelief, almost--at the breadth of the vision. I moved the conversation away, for this was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either. ...I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."

Of course, this wholly consistent with the US Neocons' master plan, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," published in August 2000 by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) 

And, as PNAC's website ( http://www.newamericancentury.org   ) notes, that the lead author of that plan, Thomas Donnelly, was a top official of Lockheed Martin--a company well acquainted with war and its profit potential.


At 25/7/06 5:33 pm, Anonymous Zed said...

Wow, check out some of the names attached to their statement of principles. Very scary! I'm surprised that I've never come across this in the past. It explains a lot.

At 25/7/06 5:56 pm, Anonymous Zed said...

Heres some links to some of the people in the above site in case your not familiar of some of the names;
Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
Eliot A. Cohen
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
OK I'm out of time, someone else can finish this. My point is these are very influential people and alot are in office now. Thanks Martyn good bloging, Tim will be proud.

At 25/7/06 6:06 pm, Anonymous bomber said...

....................................The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one
thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.

Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and
to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions." Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.

Why is this important? After all, wacky think tanks are a cottage industry in Washington, DC. They are a dime a dozen. In what way does PNAC stand above the other groups that would set American foreign policy if they could?
Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the
imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position
with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The
Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."

PNAC gave birth to a new group, The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed Chalabi, who eventually fell foul of America after he started to bit that hand that feed him by criticising American tactics and civillian deaths. When you dance with the devil, the devil doesn't change, you do.

Most concerning is the final quote in the PNAC where they ask if any of their ideas will be adopted, they respond to this rheotrical question with the following, "only if another Pearl Harbour type event were to occur". The following year September 11th happened.

At 25/7/06 9:45 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is the take in the Daily Star, Beirut today:


In 1991, after calling for the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam Hussein, President H.W. George Bush stood by as the Iraqi Army brutally crushed the uprising in southern Iraq. The reasons for American inaction then were less important than the results.

A dozen years later, when the United States invaded Iraq, the administration of George W. Bush was surprised when Iraqis did not rush to the streets in ecstatic celebration. It was especially surprised that Shiites were not secularized, as advertised by the Iraqi expatriate boosters of the war. Indeed, American decision-makers discovered two realities: Iraqi Shiites deeply revered the marjaiyya, the senior clerics who provide guidance to adherents; and Iran, virtually the only country that lent assistance to southern Iraq in 1991 and provided sanctuary for Shiite oppositionists, enjoyed considerable influence.

Fast forward to 2006: Lebanon's Shiites, believed to be the largest confessional group in the country, have borne the brunt of the Israeli assault. Other Lebanese have died and suffered, especially in the South. I think of the Maronites of Rmeish, the Druze of Hasbayya, the Greek Orthodox of Khiam, the Greek Catholics of Marjayoun, among others; but the biggest burden is upon the Shiites of the South, the Bekaa Valley and Beirut's southern suburbs.

When this war concludes, one hopes in the coming days, but more probably in early August, where will those Shiites turn politically and religiously?

In this sense, 1991 is instructive.

Will the Shiites turn away from Hizbullah?

There is little doubt that the horrendous tragedy for Lebanon stems from misjudgment by the party's leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. He admitted as much in an interview last week with Al-Jazeera.

The early evidence suggests strongly that Shiites will emerge from this war even more politicized than before July 12, when the Israeli onslaught began.

This war is consolidating sectarian loyalties, reinforcing the role of religious institutions and only heightening distrust of the US and major Arab states - most prominently Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Just because many tens of thousands of Lebanese Shiites may have to live in tents does not mean that they are going to emerge from this war a diminished political force. I expect the contrary to be true. There will be two beneficiaries of their politicization: Hizbullah and Iran.

There are other political trends in the Shiite community, including the secularized middle class and elites, and followers of the Amal movement, which retains its patronage networks. Nonetheless, Hizbullah will continue to appeal to many Shiites, particularly those who see the party as a manifestation of their modern understanding of Shiism and of Islamic values.

The willingness of major Arab states to lend license to Israel's war for hegemony will only confirm the need for a Lebanon-based party capable of protecting Shiite interests.

But this party will also affirm Iran's organic connection to Lebanon.

Moreover, if past patterns of government funding hold, peripheral areas like the South, the Bekaa and the southern suburbs will have to find their own capital to rebuild. Much of that money will come from Lebanese Shiites themselves - both inside the country and in the diaspora. Iran will also no doubt be a major funder. There is little likelihood that the US will compete with Iran to rebuild Shiite-dominated areas. One hopes that Europe would be more enlightened, but that is another subject.

For South Lebanon there is much discussion of an international force, or a revamped United Nations force, but its mandate remains unclear. Will it facilitate the movement of the Lebanese Army to the border area? Will it act to disarm Hizbullah? What will it do if Israel, with a robust record for recidivism, raids Lebanon, kidnaps or kills Lebanese, or attempts to prevent Lebanese from returning to their homes in a unilaterally imposed buffer zone? Will that force protect the Lebanese with firmness or even deadly force, or will it stand by permissively? One can imagine a variety of ways that the force may delegitimize itself and become part of the problem.

In the eyes of those Lebanese with the biggest stake in the South, namely the Shiites, many may still, incredible as it may seem to outsiders, put more stock in Hizbullah's ability to protect them than in that of well-intended Turks, French, Italians, Russians or Canadians.

At a time of heightened sectarian tensions in the Arab world, fed largely by the civil war in Iraq, the consolidation of Lebanese Shiite identity is likely to greatly complicate the challenges facing the US in the Middle East.

The fact that this seems to be so poorly understood in the upper reaches of the Bush administration is alarming.

The result is a facile analysis buttressing the administration's approach to the region, and its support for Israel's war in Lebanon, in particular. Had Bush desired Israeli restraint, he could have imposed this. But, Israel's war is America's war, or so the president believes.

Difficult times lie ahead for Lebanon.

If much of the Shiite community comes out of this war politicized, not to mention angry and militant, then demands on the government will grow dramatically and the prospects for political turmoil or worse will accelerate.

In this context, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's notion of what is under way seems to be irrelevant. She has said: "What we're seeing here, in a sense, is the growing - the birth pangs of a new Middle East. And whatever we do, we have to be certain that we are pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old one."

Haven't we heard variations on that theme before?

Augustus Richard Norton, a professor of international relations at Boston University, has been studying and writing about Lebanon for a quarter century. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

At 26/7/06 1:09 am, Blogger sagenz said...

would you rather the neo cons or the jihadists won the war. Long term peace would be better served by taking the war directly to iran. there is no point in punishing lebanese civilians. the mad mullahs need to feel some of the pain.

At 26/7/06 7:50 am, Anonymous bomber said...

........................................Oh my God sagenz, that is your comment after that incredibly detailed post from Anon? Are you on medication? Seriously, can you read, Christ man DID YOU READ ONE WORD OF THAT POST? I will say it real slow for you ok WHAT THE ISRAELIS ARE DOING WILL ONLY MAKE THE SITUATION WORSE - THERE IS NO MILITARY SOLUTION - come on sagenz, if you're going to post comments you have to justify them, I appreciate you are an Israeli supporter BUT their actions won't work and will only cause more death - it's like we are all talking about 2 + 2 = 4, and you've come in yelling that 2 + 2 should = 17, please justify yourself so we can bask in your wisdom, because all I rwad then from you was bullshit, and if you are an example of the mentality we are facing it is terrifying, not because you are right, but because your logic is so retarded, but your the only one who can't see that.

At 26/7/06 8:41 am, Blogger Neil Morrison said...

bomber, have a read of Joschka Fischer's piece in The Guardian -


Now I don't know if Fischer is sufficiently Left for you but on the internastional stage of reality based thinking he is seen as intelligent and dovish and no US or Israeli poddle. And the byline is "If Israel can build bridges from a position of strength, this war offers a chance for lasting peace in the region."

At 26/7/06 10:04 am, Blogger bomber said...

....................................Hey Neil, thank you for the link, I've just read it and I disagree with his analysis of the situation. He says this conflict was created for Iranian dominance in the region, couldn't it be argued that there is actually widespread public support for the return of Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners? Hizbollah has traded prisoners in the past, what seems to have happened is that Hizbollah AND Hamas miscalculated Israels response, because there is more to Israels response than just these soldiers. Couldn't it be argued that the kidnapping has given Israel the excuse to escalate this in the same way America used September 11th as a reason to invade Iraq? IF the future was as rosey as Fischer paints it, why is Israel continuing to build and expand on the West bank? And if we buy Fischers argument that this is Iranian hegemony flexing its muscles, can we trace that to America antagonising that situation with their nuclear stand off, which might not have come about if that fuckwit Bush hadn't tagged them with that 'Axis of Evil' brain fart. Remember the moderate clerics were making in roads right up until Bush made that comment and the population voted in a hardliner - look I agree that Iran could be a threat, but Bush must take some of the responsibility for escalating this beyond diplomacy. I think Fischer is being VERY optimistic about the motives of Israel and America in all of this, and part of me might have agreed with his analysis if I hadn't witnessed the mass lie that was Iraq.

At 26/7/06 10:44 pm, Blogger sagenz said...

bomber - I agree with you that Israels response in Lebabnon and Gaza have often been disproportionate and counter productive. I have a great deal of sympathy for the plight of palestinians and Lebanese. That gets me labelled anti israeli in plenty of places. try googling sagenz and tony leverton if you are really interested.
My point is this. Instead of breaking infrastructure and pissing off their neighbours why not go after the source. Iran supplied 12000 rockets to Hezbollah in March of this year. why should iran get to play proxy war and be under no threat themselves. It is clear they are using Palestine as a distraction so as to achieve their own wider aims. israel and lebanon are simply front line pawns in the clash between the democratic west and the islamists. The solution is two pronged. Reward peaceful endeavour by investment and aid and use military force against the islamists who will not listen to reason. The strategy in Afghanistan after the Taliban were removed. The mullahs of Iran see the West as weak and unwilling to fight for their beliefs.
The reason to go after Iran is to demonstrate there is a price to be paid.
sorry I did not provide justification.

A ceasefire at this point will achieve nothing but a propaganda victory for hezbollah and that is the worst of all possible outcomes. They need to be humiliated. Then they might come to the table but I would not be optimisitic. Pretending they are civilised human beings who can be talked to rationally is a waste of time. I presume your thought process is along the lines of reducing support for extremists by treating normal people humanely. I completely agree with that. But we seem to differ in that I believe the stick is required as well rather than surrender.
And marching against Israel??? well that is just a sick joke. doing that shows people as simple pawns who have bought into the islamist peace propaganda.

At 27/7/06 10:18 am, Anonymous bomber said...

......................................Hey sagenz, thank you for providing your thoughts, but I really don't see much long term solution in your thinking. Let's talk about Iran for a second – you suggest they want a fight, I would suggest that they are terrified and completely distrustful of America, and with very just cause. Let’s no forget it was a CIA coup that brought the Shar into power. His dictatorship was brutal and repressive, so much so that the secular moderate nation of Iraq turned to radicalized Islam to other throw him. The Iranians have seen the worst that America can be, while publicly decrying Iran, the Americans were cutting secret dirty deals under the table directly with the Iranians. They saw how America supported Saddam Hussein, how many of their people died. Islam isn’t a violent religion, but the reactionary forces to American Imperialism is incredibly violent. The moderate clerics were making in roads against the hard line clerics right up until Bush had his ‘Axis of Evil’ brainfart. If you had the kind of relationship Iran has had with America, wouldn’t you be terrified that they had suddenly invaded two countries near you? There is no military solution here, only diplomatic, and as for Hizbollah attacking, this is still over the disputed land of the Shebaa farms, so this s still about disputed land. That isn’t a justification of course, but the are base reasons to this conflict and a lot of it has to do with Israel occupying land. Without sorting that ongoing injustice, we won’t have peace – the problem seems to be that Israel DOESN’T WANT TO SETTLE the issues of occupation because they intend to annex land or keep the status quo which is annexation through stealth.

At 27/7/06 11:05 pm, Blogger sagenz said...

The long term thought process is maintaining the two strands. peaceful behaviour gets rewarded with investment. warlike behaviour gets rewarded with counter agression. We both agree on the first strand. You think diplomacy will substitute for the second. That is where we disagree. Neo Cons and Israelis understand that islamists ( as distinct from peaceful and moderate islam) see avoiding agression as weakness rather than strength. September 11 happened because US withdrew from Lebanon after Marines killed, withdrew from Somalia after Rangers killed and did nothing after the Cole was bombed. Same logic as Hitler and appeasement. It does not work. That path is much harder but Japan and germany are now peaceful democracies. At some point they had to be fought. The same applies to the Islamists. Fight them now when they are not strong or fight them later when it will be much harder. A difficult choice. But calling for a ceasefire now gives Hezbollah the victory and will make the next conflict bigger and more bloody. Is that really what you want? I think not.

At 28/7/06 10:33 am, Blogger bomber said...

………………………………………..SAGENZ! Oh come on girlfriend, you didn’t just go there did you?

“September 11 happened because US withdrew from Lebanon after Marines killed, withdrew from Somalia after Rangers killed and did nothing after the Cole was bombed.”

Are you on medication? YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS WITH THAT STATEMENT! September 11th happened because of deep seated resentment and hatred for America because of their support for brutal dictatorships in the Middle East, Al Quada made the leap of logic that it was pointless attacking these regimes if they didn’t hit the country that allowed these regimes the military force and resources to continue their dictatorships. Add on top of that the possible fact that some within the American security apparatus knew September 11th was coming, but did nothing to stop it so that it could be used as a catalyst to start a new oil war in Iraq, dude your analysis is just too simplistic. There were many forces at work on September 11th – appeasement was not one of them.

At 31/7/06 10:00 pm, Blogger Brewerstroupe said...

Gentlemen. I think this guy should know a thing or two.
"Everyone talks like it's complex and difficult to understand. That's a cop-out for not wanting to accept reality. It's just a classic ethnic conflict about who owns this piece of land. It's as simple as that."
-- Niel McDonald, CBC News Jerusalem Bureau Chief


Post a Comment

<< Home