After NATO Strike Kills 8 Afghan Women, Pundits Still Wonder: Why Do They Hate Us?
By Peter Hart – FAIR – 09/17/2012
The protests and violence in Egypt, Libya and Yemen have caused a notable uptick in media discussions about, as Newsweek’s cover puts it, “Muslim Rage.”
Part of the corporate media’s job is to make sure real political grievances are mostly kept out of the discussion. It’s a lot easier to talk about angry mobs and their peculiar religion than it is to acknowledge that maybe some of the anger has little to do with religion at all.
Take the news out of Afghanistan yesterday: A NATO airstrike killed eight women in the eastern province of Laghman who were out collecting firewood. This has happened before. And attacks that kill a lot of Afghans–whether accidental or not–tend to be covered the same way–quietly, and with a focus not on the killing but on the ramifications.
So yesterday if you logged into CommonDreams, you may have seen this headline:
NATO Airstrike in Afghanistan Kills 8 Women
Now look for the same news in the New York Times today (9/17/12). It’s there–but the headline is this:
Karzai Denounces Coalition Over Airstrikes
The Times gave a clear sense of what was important: “Mr. Karzai’s condemnation was likely to rankle some Western officials…” the paper’s Matthew Rosenberg explained, who went on to explain that
the confrontational tone of the statement was a sharp reminder of the acrimony that has often characterized relations between Mr. Karzai and his American benefactors.
In the Washington Post, the NATO airstrikes made the front page–sort of. Readers saw this headline at the website:
4 troops killed in southern Afghanistan insider attack
As you might have already guessed, the killings of Afghan women are a secondary news event:
Four U.S. troops were killed Sunday at a remote checkpoint in southern Afghanistan when a member of the Afghan security forces opened fire on them, military officials said. The attack brought to 51 the number of international troops shot dead by their Afghan partners this year. The insider attack came on the same day that NATO warplanes killed nine women gathering firewood in the mountains outside their village in an eastern province, according to local officials.
One has to wonder whether, absent the deaths of U.S. troops, the airstrike would have made the news at all.
EXPOSING U.S. AGENTS OF LOW-INTENSITY WARFARE IN AFRICA
The “Policy Wonks” Behind Covert Warfare & Humanitarian Fascism
This special report includes three unpublished video clips of interviewees from the Politics of Genocide documentary film project: Ugandan dignitary Remigius Kintu, former Rwandan prime minister Fautisn Twagiramungu, and Nobel peace prize nominee Juan Carrero Saralegui.
By Kieth Harmon Snow | Conscious Being Alliance | August 13, 2012
From the 1980s to today, an elite group of Western intelligence operatives have backed low-intensity guerrilla warfare in certain African ‘hotspots’. Mass atrocities in the Great Lakes and Sudan can be linked to Roger Winter, a pivotal U.S. operative whose ‘team’ was recently applauded for birthing the world’s newest nation, South Sudan. Behind the fairytale we find a long trail of blood and skeletons from Uganda to Sudan, Rwanda and Congo. While the mass media has covered their tracks, their misplaced moralism has simultaneously helped birth a new left-liberal ‘humanitarian’ fascism. In this falsification of consciousness, Western human rights crusaders and organizations, funded by governments, multinational corporations and private donors, cheer the killers and blame the victims—and pat themselves on the back for saving Africa from itself. Meanwhile, the “Arab Spring” has spread to (north) Sudan. Following the NATO-Israeli model of regime change being used in Central & North Africa, it won’t be long before the fall of Khartoum.
SPLA Tank in South Sudan: An old SPLA army tank sits in the bush in Pochalla, Jonglei State, south Sudan in 2004. Israel, the United States, Britain and Norway have been the main suppliers of the covert low-intensity war in Sudan, organized by gunrunners and policy ‘wonks’. Photo c. keith harmon snow, 2004.
It is, oh! such a happy fairy tale! It begins as all happy fairy tales do, in fantasy land. The fantasy is one of human rights princes and policy ‘wonks’ in shining armor and the new kingdom of peace and tranquility, democracy and human rights, that they have created. That is what the United States foreign policy establishment and the corporate mass media—and not a few so-called ‘human rights activists’—would have us believe about the genesis of the world’s newest nation, South Sudan.
“In the mid-1980s, a small band of policy wonks began convening for lunch in the back corner of a dimly lit Italian bistro in the U.S. capital,” wrote Rebecca Hamilton in the recent fairytale: “The Wonks Who Sold Washington on South Sudan.” Hamilton is a budding think-tank activist-advocate-agent whose whitewash of the low intensity war for Sudan (and some Western architects of it), distilled from her book Fighting for Darfur, was splashed all over the Western press on 11 July 2012. [1]
The photos accompanying Hamilton’s story show a happy fraternity of ‘wonks’—John Prendergast, Eric Reeves, Brian D’Silva, Ted Dagne and Roger Winter. What exactly is a ‘wonk’? Well, looking at the photo, these ‘wonks’ are obviously your usual down-jacket, beer- and coffee-slurping American citizens from white America, with a token black man thrown in to change the complexion of this Africa story. Their cups are white and clean, their cars are shiny and new, their convivial smiles are almost convincing. There is even a flag of the new country just sort of floating across Eric Reeves’ hip.
Because of Dr. Reeves’ ‘anti-genocide’ work in Sudan, Boston College professor Alan Wolfe has written that the Smith College English professor is “arrogant to the point of contempt.” (I have had a similar though much more personal experience of Dr. Reeves’ petulance.)
“John Prendergast (L-R), Eric Reeves, Brian D’Silva, Ted Dagne and Roger Miller [sic]—pose for a photograph in this undated image provided to Reuters by John Prendergast,” reads the original Reuters syndicated news caption for the posed image of the Council of Wonks. (U.S. intelligence & defense operative Roger Winter is misidentified as “Roger Miller”.)
The story and its photos project the image of casual, ordinary people who, we are led to believe, did heroic and superhuman things. What a bunch of happy-go-lucky wonks! Excuse me: policy wonks! And their bellies are presumably warmed by that fresh Starbucks ‘fair trade’ genocide coffee shipped straight from the killing fields of post-genocide [sic] Rwanda… where, coincidentally, Starbucks reportedly cut a profit of more than a few million dollars in 2011.
This is a tale of dark knights, of covert operators and spies aligned with the cult of intelligence in the United States. Operating in secrecy and denial within the U.S. intelligence and defense establishment, they have helped engineer more than two decades of low intensity warfare in Sudan (alone), replete with massive suffering and a death toll of between 1.5 and 3 million Sudanese casualties—using their own fluctuating statistics on mortality—and millions upon millions of casualties in the Great Lakes of Africa.
Behind the fantasy is a very real tale of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocides real and alleged, and mass atrocities covered up by these National Security agents with the aid of a not-so-ordinary English professor—their one-man Ministry of Disinformation—Dr. Eric Reeves.
“After ordering beers, they would get down to business: how to win independence for southern Sudan, a war-torn place most American politicians had never heard of.” Rebecca Hamilton thickened the plot, delving deeper into the intrigue and the extra-ordinariness of this happy Council of Wonks. “They called themselves the Council and gave each other clannish nicknames: the Emperor, the Deputy Emperor, the Spear Carrier. The unlikely fellowship included an Ethiopian refugee to America, an English-lit professor and a former Carter administration official who once sported a ponytail.”
How quaint! How absolutely Clark Kent! From the photo, I immediately recognized three of the five Council of Wonks members posed casually next to a car in some nondescript parking lot somewhere in America. There is John Prendergast, Eric Reeves, Brian D’Silva, Ted Dagne and… Roger Winter. (Not ‘Roger Miller’: the massive Reuters syndicate can’t even get the wonk’s name right.)
“The Council is little known in Washington or in Africa itself.” Rebecca Hamilton deepened the intrigue. “But its quiet cajoling over nearly three decades helped South Sudan win its independence one year ago this week. Across successive U.S. administrations, they smoothed the path of southern Sudanese rebels in Washington, influenced legislation in Congress, and used their positions to shape foreign policy in favor of Sudan’s southern rebels, often with scant regard for U.S. government protocol.”
Smoothed the path of the Sudanese rebels? That’s an understatement. That’s not all they did.
Faustin Twagiramungu, former Prime Minister under Paul Kagame’s Rwandan Patriotic Front government (1994-1995), speaks on U.S. intelligence operative Roger Winter:
Wonks? What is a wonk anyway? Sounds excessively benign. Even charming. Not being an English professor-cum-genocide-savior or a national security operative or a gun-running covert intelligence asset myself, I looked the word up in my American Heritage dictionary, but it doesn’t exist in my (apparently) antiquated copy. Seems the word ‘wonk’ is about as new as the country of South Sudan.
wonk/wäNGk/
|
|
Synonyms: bookworm, dink [slang], dork [slang], geek, grind, swot [British], weenie, nerd
“Look at the names mentioned by the story,” says Dr. Jean-Marie Vianney Higiro, one of many former Rwandan government officials who continues to be harassed by the regime of president Paul Kagame in Rwanda and watched by U.S. Homeland Security. “All of them have a good cover. They move from one job to another easily. The story suggests they are somehow unrelated to the U.S. government even though their employer is the U.S. government.”
What does this Roger Winter know about the Rwandan rebel ‘Zero Network’ and alleged CIA involvement in shooting down the presidential plane on April 6, 1994—assassinating the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, their top aides and the French crew? Was Roger Winter involved in the October 23, 1993 assassination of Burundi’s Hutu president Melchior Ndadaye?
“It is also known that Roger Winter, an influential American politician, was present at Paul Kagame’s headquarters at Mulindi [Rwanda] a few days before the offensive launched in the night of April 6-7, 1994,” reported Bernard Lugan, a prominent French historian and the editor of the online journal L’Afrique Réelle.
“Whoever shot down the plane, the killing began within hours, as Kagame and his Tutsi army fought their way toward Kigali to stop the genocide they had helped provoke,” wrote U.S. scholar-diplomat Stephen Weissman in 2004. While selling the establishment mythology where Kagame ‘stopped the genocide’—which the RPF actually provoked and supported—Weissman also elaborates a very serious point. “Traveling with them, by his own account, was at least one American—the refugee’s [Paul Kagame’s] friend Roger Winter. Should Congress ever investigate America’s role in the Rwandan holocaust, Mr. Winter would be a star witness.” [2]
“Roger Winter was the chief logistics boss for [RPF] Tutsis until their victory in 1994,” said Ugandan dignitary Remigius Kintu, “and he was operating from 1717 Massachusetts Avenue NW in Washington D.C. This was the nerve center of the operations against Rwanda.”
Ugandan dignitary Remigius Kintu speaks on U.S. intelligence operative Roger Winter:
Storyteller Rebecca Hamilton set out to save Sudan from itself during her “Save Darfur” days at Harvard University, circa 2004, where she organized the campaign to divest Harvard from corporations doing business with Khartoum.
Since then, doors have opened for Rebecca Hamilton everywhere she goes—though she was once detained in Khartoum. Surprised to be suspect as a ‘journalist’, Hamilton later chronicled her six-hour ordeal in the Atlantic Monthly, where she positioned herself as an innocent journalist detained by the Government of Sudan’s “dreaded internal security agency”. With her cell phone on mute she texted her husband to “contact [my] employer in Washington”—but she didn’t tell us who that employer in Washington is.
A “special correspondent for the Washington Post in Sudan,” Rebecca Hamilton is also supported by the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting and the New America Foundation. These institutions serve and advance the ever expanding Anglo-American Zionist Empire—multinational corporations and investment banks and currency speculators like Soros and the German Jewish firm Warburg Pincus. [3] These entities have deep ties to establishment news corporations and their use of qualifiers like ‘Pulitzer’—perceived to be synonymous with truth and integrity in investigative reporting—only serve to blind the ‘news’ consuming masses to these institutions’ hidden agendas. They are also deeply tied to powerful Christian and Jewish interests, and lobbies.
The New America Foundation is funded by all the big foundations (Ford, MacArthur, Pew, Bill & Melinda Gates, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Open Society) and the U.S. Department of State donates hundreds of thousands of dollars (in the $299,000 to $999,999 category) annually. Members of their ‘Leadership Council’ and ‘National Security Advisory Council’ include the prominent Council on Foreign Relations member Fareed Zakaria. An editor-at-large at Time, a Washington Post columnist and the host of CNN‘s foreign-affairs show, Zakaria is also director of The Aspen Institute. [4] Zakaria was a columnist for Newsweek and editor of Newsweek International from 2000 to 2010. On August 10, 2012, Zakaria was suspended from several media positions for plagiarism.
Back in 2008, the New American Foundation funded another major agitprop piece on Roger Winter by Eliza Griswold in the New York Times Magazine. Another sanitized story, a bit more honest though, “The Man for a New Sudan” makes it clear that Roger Winter effectively served as a military commander for the SPLM in Sudan. Like Rebecca Hamilton’s wonk fare, it is a story of a white knight in shining armor fighting his way to martyrdom, hand and foot, suffering and sandstorms, rag-tag rebels and roughshod rebellion, against the evil and superior Khartoum government. [5]
What western ‘news’ consumers fail to understand is that these left-liberal institutions hone and tune the ‘news’ that appears in venues across the political spectrum. ‘News’ stories like “The Wonks Who Sold Washington on South Sudan” are produced with the understanding that they will: [a] serve corporate interests; [b] advance themes of democracy and freedom; [c] shield western power brokers from criticism and scrutiny; [d] whitewash western war crimes; [e] demonize anyone perceived to be hostile to the western economic and financial systems; and [f] support economic, political and/or military warfare all over the world.
These hegemonic objectives are achieved by overt and covert means, including: conventional warfare; intelligence operations; low intensity warfare; psychological operations or Psy-Ops; assassinations; coup d’etats; subversion; ‘democracy promotion’; election-rigging; and other illegal tax-payer funded foreign interventions.
Clean-cut American ‘media’ personalities and ‘journalists’ like Rebecca Hamilton and Eliza Griswold and Nicholas Kristof are used to manufacture domestic consent—to inculcate ignorance, apathy, confusion, complacency and patriotism—in the English-language (U.S., Canadian, European, Australian) infotainment consuming masses. They are also used to make us more ethnocentric. This is primarily achieved through emotionally potent oversimplifications: facts don’t matter.
The propaganda techniques used by these mainstays of American Freedom [sic] are no more or less manipulative and sinister than those we associate with Russia or China or the so-called ‘Axis of Evil’ states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen). Like the bloodied victims (whether foreign civilians or U.S. troops), tortures, massacres and other war crimes and crimes against humanity are whited-out from the pages and screens of Western ‘news’ venues, leaving us with sanitized fantasy tales reinforcing our own sense of truth and justice, and the inherent goodness we all want to believe in.
“The lives of countless men, women and children depend on the truth,” says war correspondent John Pilger in his documentary film The War You Don’t See. Like the non-coverage of the ongoing western-backed terrorism in Burundi, Congo, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Somalia and Uganda, “The Wonks Who Sold Washington on South Sudan” is a propaganda piece covering up the war we didn’t see—and the war we don’t see—in Sudan. The strategy to fracture and divide Sudan is similar to the strategy at work in the Congo, and it echoes the RPF’s strategy of ‘fight and talk’ used to achieve regime change in Rwanda, 1990 to 1994.
In the low intensity wars waged against Sudan (1989-2006), Uganda (1980-1985), Rwanda (1990-1994) and Congo-Zaire (1996-1997), it was not enough to try to destroy the organized military forces of the legitimate governments in power; a movement or group responsive to U.S. interests had to be created, legitimated, and presented to the target (domestic) populations as viable alternatives to the governments to be overthrown or replaced. For such purposes the U.S. and its allies (primarily U.K. and Israel) sponsored the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), the National Resistance Movement (NRM), Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), and the Alliance for the Democratic Liberation of Congo-Zaire (ADFL). [6] (Such terrorism has also occurred in northern Uganda—where Museveni’s soldiers targeted the Acholi people.)
SPLA soldiers and captured GoS Tank: SPLA soldiers stand near a Government of Sudan (GoS) tank they destroyed at “Kit bridge battle” in south Sudan in early November 1995. SPLA soldiers commanded by Gabriel Majok Nak (third left) on standby for deployment. Photo by Jimmy Adriko on December 8, 1995, courtesy of the New Vision newspaper Kampala, Uganda.
These propaganda stories and the institutions that manufacture them also whiteout all Israeli ties to the carnage. Israel routinely advised and trained the security forces of the Mobutu regime in Zaire and the Hissen Habre regime in Chad and they backed both Idi Amin and Museveni in their guerrilla wars. Israeli MOSSAD agent David Kimche worked alongside Roger Winter to aide the RPF victory in Rwanda. Israeli commanders were spotted on the battlefields of eastern Congo-Zaire and the Israeli firm Silver Shadow reportedly armed the Ugandan People’s Defense Forces in their alliance with the Congolese warlord Jean Pierre Bemba and his ruthless Movement for the Liberation of Congo. [7]
Israel backed the SPLM with defense and intelligence cooperation for decades. Israel backed the ‘rebels’ in Darfur, both the Sudan Liberation Army—an extension of the SPLM—and, more significantly, the so-called Justice and Equality Movement. Tanks and artillery equipment were off-loaded at the U.S. military port of Mombasa, Kenya, and driven across Kenya and South Sudan. [8]
Israel’s support for the new South Sudan is no longer covert. In April 2012, just before the full-scale SPLA offensive in the disputed Heglig border region, Israeli and South Sudanese newspapers reported that Israeli aircraft have been delivering military hardware and mercenaries (from other African countries) in South Sudan to fight against the Khartoum government. South Sudanese soon after shot down a Sudanese MiG-29 fighter jet: the SPLA claimed that Khartoum “didn’t know we have that capacity.” [9]
In December 2011, Salva Kiir, South Sudan’s new warlord president, chose Israel for one of his first official visits. In November 2011 Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hosted the leaders of Uganda and Kenya. During his December visit, Kiir held meetings with President Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. These are the same players backing the Dan Gertler companies behind the dictatorship of Hyppolite Kanambe (alias Joseph Kabila) and the Western-backed plunder and depopulation in the Congo. [10]
On July 23, 2012, in return for decades of covert Israeli support for the SPLA’s low-intensity war, the SPLA regime running the new South Sudan signed over Sudan’s water rights and “infrastructure development” to Israel. The deals were sealed by Israeli government and agents for Israeli Military Industries (IMI)—an aerospace and defense contractor fully owned by the Israeli government, and a prime U.S. military supplier.
Israeli and South Sudan: Israeli Prime Minsiter Benjamin Netanyahu
with South Sudan President Salva Kiir in December 2011.
Meanwhile, the United States has routinely deployed covert forces in the Great Lakes, Chad, Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, Mali, Niger—all over the place. In October, 2011, president Barack Obama announced that the Pentagon was sending “100 armed advisers” to Uganda. An insult to the people’s intelligence, these are not “armed advisers”—they are U.S. Special Forces. But U.S. forces are all over the region, from Camp Hurso in Ethiopia and Camp Lemonnier in DJibouti to the new AFRICOM base in Kisangani, Congo. Evidence of the Special Forces is obliterated by most news agencies. If and when the presence of the U.S. military is revealed, it is casually noted, downplaying their presence, as if it were routine.
For example, the Pentagon’s special “conservationist” J. Michael Fay dropped a bombshell in disguise in the story “Ivory Wars: Last Stand in Zakouma” in the March 2007 print issue of National Geographic. Ostensibly about elephants in Zakouma National Park in Chad, the story is more imperialist anti-Islamic propaganda related to the Arab militias on horses, hailing out of Darfur, known as Janjaweed. “I saw a large helicopter to the southeast.” Fay builds the drama for the reader. “It made straight for our truck. We could run, but we couldn’t hide. It was a Russian-made Mi-17 with a missile launcher, the same type that had mistakenly fired the day before on a column of Chadian and American soldiers north of the park.” [10-a]
Looking at the map, north of the park could be Chad or Sudan. What is a column of American soldiers doing in Chad? Or is it Darfur? Well, obviously! They are saving elephants!
A few days later, Fay reports “[a] pair of French military Mirage fighter jets running sorties toward Sudan (more than a thousand rebels were retreating there) buzzed the Tinga, spooking a herd of elephants I was watching at the pool.” Oh, and, by the way, “Marc Wall, the U.S. Ambassador to Chad, just happened to be visiting the park.” [10-a]
The article reveals all without revealing anything. The presence of French fighter jets, American soldiers, the U.S. Ambassador—who is out for a “safari”—provide proof of highly organized military campaigns that are rendered invisible by the propaganda system.
“Nationhood has many midwives,” reads the long caption appearing with many of the Council of Wonks story photos. But if the Council of Wonks are the ‘midwives’ of South Sudan’s birthing process, their result has been a bloody abortion and a grotesquely deformed progeny whose ‘leaders’ are promoting ethnic hatred and selling the place off to the highest bidder.
Tirelessly and furiously pumping out disinformation,day in and day out, year in and year out, for several decades now, the happy cabal of Washington wonks has paved the public mind with hysterical accounts of Arab and Islamic terrorism and African tribalism. They have blinded U.S. taxpayers to the unholy truth that our tax dollars have been used to covertly fund, arm, supply and re-supply at least four massive guerrilla insurgencies that have shattered five sovereign countries, terrorized scores of millions of people, and drenched Sudan and the Great Lakes in blood and skeletons.
“Everybody is working to protect the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement [SPLM], but the truth is the SPLM is doing all of these terrible things every day,” says Luke Chuol, a South Sudanese human rights defender based in Canada. “These people from the U.S. and U.N., all they care about is to give the SPLA money and weapons.” [11]
When South Sudan became the world’s newest nation on 9 July 2011, the SPLA—the armed wing of the SPLM—became South Sudan’s national army. Mr. Chuol, a member of the South Sudan’s Nuer tribe, has called on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate crimes against humanity committed in South Sudan in May 2011 by the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA). The Nuer community alleges that the specific and systematic attacks against the Nuer people constitute ethnic cleansing by the SPLA.
Roger Winter & John Garang: Judging the youth of Sudan People’s Liberation Army leader John Garang (L) and Roger Winter (R), this photo is probably circa 1985 (Winter would have been 42 years old). Garang was trained at Ft. Benning, GA, home to the notorious School of the Americas (from 1984).
Caption created by Reuters: John Garang (L) shakes hands with Roger Winter, now an honorary adviser to the South Sudan government and one of the Council’s original members, in this undated image taken in Sudan and provided to Reuters by Roger Winter. Nationhood has many midwives. South Sudan is primarily the creation of its own people. It was southern Sudanese leaders who fought for autonomy, and more than two million southern Sudanese who paid for that freedom with their lives. U.S. President George W. Bush, who set out to end Africa’s Longest-running civil war, also played a big role, as did modern-day abolitionists, religious groups, human rights organizations and members of the U.S. Congress. But the most persistent outside force in the creation of the world’s newest state was the Council, a tightly knit group never numbering more than seven people, which in the era before email, began gathering regularly at Otello, a restaurant near Washington’s DuPont Circle.”
In January 2011, the SPLA and governor Kuol Manyang Juuk of South Sudan’s Jonglei state diverted 1000 guns meant for graduating police and delivered them to Murle tribesmen so that the Murle could fight their rival the Lou Nuer community. SPLA Commander-in-Chief General Salva Kiir—the first president of the newly independent [sic] South Sudan—was reportedly aware of the diversion of weapons. Following the SPLA’s redistribution of weapons last July, massive ethnic violence in Jonglei state has created perhaps as many as 100,000 internally displaced people (IDPs), with ongoing clashes in the spring of 2012.
“The SPLA is looting everywhere,” says Mr. Chuol, accusing the SPLA of behaving like an army of occupation and terror. “They are taking everything for themselves, acting like they are heroes. They are torturing, raping, and killing people, and burning down villages.” [11]
The fairy tales about Roger Winter and Eric Reeves and the Council of Wonks have airbrushed such inconvenient truths from history. “South Sudan is primarily the creation of its own people,” continues the ever-repeated Reuters caption, drumming home the new-old Madeleine Albright and Hillary Clinton propaganda line about ‘Africa by and for Africans’. “It was southern Sudanese leaders who fought for autonomy, and more than two million southern Sudanese who paid for that freedom with their lives.”
“The reality,” says Mr. Chuol, whose family and friends have suffered from the recent violence, “is that the U.S. and U.N. are abandoning the people of South Sudan, because they only want to focus on the problems of the Bashir government in Khartoum.” [11] The divide and conquer politics of Empire would dictate that rebel factions be set at each other’s throats, enabling greater western penetration and control of the new South Sudan.
Of course, no propaganda piece would be complete withoutthe patriotic accolades for former U.S. President George W. Bush, who “set out to end Africa’s Longest-running civil war, [and] also played a big role,” Rebecca Hamilton tells us, “as did modern-day abolitionists, religious groups, human rights organizations and members of the U.S. Congress. But the most persistent outside force in the creation of the world’s newest state was the Council, a tightly knit group never numbering more than seven people, which in the era before email, began gathering regularly at Otello, a restaurant near Washington’s DuPont Circle.”
From the very first days of their insurrection, the SPLM has committed massive atrocities, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts of genocide. It was the same story with Museveni’s NRM guerrillas in Uganda, Kagame’s RPF guerrillas in Rwanda, and with the Ugandan and Rwandan ADFL guerrillas in Congo-Zaire.
Roger Winter was involved with each of these four major guerrilla campaigns. From the early 1970’s to the present day he has moved in and out of foreign countries under the cover of the United States Committee for Refugees (USCR) and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and other entities.
“Starting in the early 1980’s, the United States began to reorganize the military establishment to conduct low-intensity warfare campaigns. The Joint Chiefs of Staff formed special low-intensity conflict divisions within the Department of Defense and within each military service, and also reintroduced political and psychological warfare branches. The Pentagon even drafted a Psy-Ops ‘master plan’ at the behest of a presidential directive, and the National Security Council set up a top-level ‘board for low intensity conflict’.” [12]
Spain’s human rights icon Juan Carrero Saralegui on intelligence operative Roger Winter:
Getting beyond the infantile nonsense about “Emperor” and “Deputy Emperor” and “Spear Carrier,” the roles of our Council of Wonks in creating conflict, shipping weapons, covering massacres, and producing propaganda for these insurgencies are not completely clear. The military and intelligence hierarchies they operate within are equally nontransparent.
Rebecca Hamilton tells a happy story of the origins of the Council of Wonks. It begins in 1978, when Brian D’Silva studied at Iowa State University alongside “an intensely charismatic southern Sudanese man named John Garang, who had been dreaming of a democratic Sudan… After graduation, D’Silva went with Garang to Sudan to teach at the University of Khartoum.”
D’Silva was a Ford Foundation visiting professor at U-Khartoum, but Rebecca Hamilton drops the reference to Ford, a known conduit to the covert U.S. intelligence sector and foreign interventions. [13] D’Silva joined the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to work in Sudan in the 1980’s. D’Silva’s old schoolmate is John Garang, “a conscript in the Sudanese arm [who] led a mutiny of southern Sudanese soldiers,” Hamilton tells us. Enter the Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Movement (SPLM), “which led the fight for southern autonomy.” [14]
In the early 1980’s, Sudan was run by the CIA’s man Jaafar Nimeiri, who was ousted in 1985, and USAID maintained tight ties with the CIA. From 1985 to 1989, the Reagan Administration maintained a strong allegiance to the unstable Islamic government prior to the ascension to power of Omar al-Bashir. USAID at the time was deeply involved in agriculture, especially interventions in plantations and gum arabic production. [15] Gum arabic is essential for soft drinks (Coke, Pepsi, Fanta) and beer, and for ice cream and other foods, and Sudan has a near monopoly. Gum arabic imports were exempt from president Clinton’s trade embargo of October 1997. Rep. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) sponsored the gum arabic loophole and Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.) backed it: N.J. is home to three major corporations importing gum arabic. USAID operations became more and more untenable from 1985, and were completely displaced in 1989 under the Islamic government of Omar al-Bashir. Such facts are unmentioned by Hamilton—heretical to a fairytale of U.S. policy wonks who “dreamed of democracy” in Sudan. Then as now, Brian D’Silva operated under the USAID cover.
Of course, Sudan is also about oil. While the Council of Wonks minister of propaganda Dr. Eric Reeves was screaming about genocide in Darfur, he was also denying that massive petroleum reserves were up for grabs in Darfur. [15-a]
In his Washington Post article titled “Regime Change in Sudan,” Dr. Eric Reeves called for the overthrow of the government of Sudan, by any means necessary, and noted that some “governing body” needed to be created to take its place. This is exactly what has happened in other “Arab Spring” countries—Libya, Egypt, Yemen—and was the modus operandi for the U.S. invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. These are effectively coup d’etats.
“A proportionately representative interim governing council must be created externally but be ready to move quickly to take control when the NIF [National Islamic Front] is removed by whatever means are necessary,” Dr. Eric Reeves opined. [15-b]
Roger Winter appears on the wonk scene after a 1981 visit to Sudan “for a non-governmental outfit called the U.S. Committee for Refugees,” says Rebecca Hamilton. Like the International Rescue Committee (IRC), the U.S. Committee for Refugees (USCR) has a euphemistic name suggesting humanitarian motives, but both are deeply connected to the U.S. intelligence and defense community, and their work with ‘refugees’ is more about selectively monitoring populations on the move, gathering intelligence on political dissidents, identifying points of leverage or intervention in complex emergencies.
Roger Winter then meets Francis Deng, “a respected legal scholar” at a prominent U.S. think tank, and, Hamilton tells us, Deng “calls up a cousin in the rebel movement to ensure that on future visits, Winter would have access to all the so-called liberated areas—the parts of Sudan held by the rebels—where he could gather direct testimony on the impact of the war.”
Nonsense. Like all Alice in Wonderland fairytales, the rabbit hole goes much deeper than we are told here. The true facts remain hidden in classified documents, waiting for some enterprising muckracker—completely unlike Rebecca Hamilton or Nicholas Kristof—to excavate by FOIA from the bowels of the U.S. National Security apparatus.
“By the mid-1980s,” Rebecca Hamilton tells us, “these three future Council members–D’Silva, Deng and Winter–were working in the United States as proxies for John Garang, trying to open doors for the SPLM in Washington.” Enter John Prendergast, “a wayward college graduate in search of a cause” who had been traveling in the Horn of Africa.”
Caption by Reuters: Smith College Professor and South Sudan expert Eric Reeves is pictured at home in Northampton, Massachusetts June 29, 2012. Nationhood has many midwives. South Sudan is primarily the creation of its own people… blah, blah, blah.” REUTERS: Matthew Cavanaugh.
“By the early 1990s, the group’s work was starting to pay off.” Rebecca Hamilton distills the fairy tale down to platitudes. Ted Dagne “was seconded from the Congressional Research Service to the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Africa, where he began to build allies for the southern Sudanese cause… By the mid-nineties, five men—Dagne, Deng, D’Silva, Prendergast and Winter—were meeting regularly at Otello’s.”
Another key player in the covert network, and Roger Winter’s protégé, was Susan Rice, William Jefferson Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State on African Affairs political hit-man [sic] on Sudan and the Great Lakes. According to Rebbecca Hamilton, John Prendergast “applied to work for Susan Rice”—sometime in the 1990’s—and “she hired him.”
The Prendergast history is intentionally vague. “At 33, he was former President Bill Clinton’s director of African Affairs at the National Security Council,” wrote a Philadelphia magazine. [16] It was 1996. The Clinton administration was sponsoring the invasion of Congo-Zaire, and famine was sweeping south Sudan—due in part to the SPLM using food as a weapon of war—but this is a clean and shiny profile of John Prendergast. Susan Rice hired Prendergast after his gig at the National Security Council, making him one of her special advisers at the U.S. Department of State.
“While you sing [John Prendergast’s] praises, the Congolese people who have been dying since 1996 have NO use for JP, though he might go by there and spread some crumbs around from the money he raises and lives by.” Dr. Yaa-Lengi Ngemi, Congolese author of Genocide in the Congo, sent a letter to the posh Philadelphia tabloid. “WHY? Let me put it this way for you to understand: It’s like raising money to feed someone in chains and who is being tortured everyday instead of denouncing and getting rid of the brutes torturing the man.” [17]
Prendergast later worked for the International Crises Group, another intelligence think tank and agitprop NGO fronting for factions close to the U.S. government—described by Rebecca Hamilton as “an independent research group”. Operating behind front groups like ENOUGH and Raise Hope for Congo, John Prendergast has been long involved in supporting and covering up the western defense and intelligence sector’s involvement in low-intensity conflicts in Africa. Like the so-called “non-government organizations” or “NGOs” named RESOLVE, Save Darfur, Raise Hope for Congo, STAND (Students Taking Action Now: Darfur), United to End Genocide, the Genocide Intervention Network and many more, these groups morph and reconfigure, always drawing massive funds from specious U.S. government front organizations like the Center for American Progress. Their brochures are fancy, full color productions, their organizing is funded, their messages are simple—as appealing as the Kony2012 video—watered-down-and-feel-good campaigns that displace the true grass roots movements for social justice in Africa.
Rebecca Hamilton also deleted the key fact that Susan Rice and John Prendergast worked together to create the Pentagon’s prized Africa Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI)—a euphemistically named entity created to project U.S. power in Africa—run by U.S. Army Special Forces Command (SOCOM).
“By the late 1990s, Washington was not just providing humanitarian assistance to the southern Sudanese,” Rebecca Hamilton’s agitprop reports. “It was also giving leadership missions and training, as well as $20 million of surplus military equipment to Uganda, Ethiopia and Eritrea, who all supported the southern rebels. Prendergast said the idea was to help states in the region to change the regime. ‘It was up to them, not us,’ he said in an interview…”
Operation Lifeline Sudan: An International Rescue Committee plane flying from the United Nations’ base for Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS) in Lokichogio, Kenya, lands in south Sudan’s Jonglei State near Pochalla and is met by Anuak and Nuer refugees. The plane dropped a humanitarian mission to investigate attacks against Ethiopian Anuak and Nuer refugees in nearby Gambella state, Ethiopia, January 16-24, 2004.
Photo c. keith harmon snow, 2004.
Africa by and for Africans! Notice how Rebecca Hamilton distances the U.S. government from the already 15 plus years of covert low-intensity warfare facilitated—since the early 1980’s—by Roger Winter. The military equipment is also described as ‘surplus’—a ploy of plausible denial and disinformation that further downplays the covert support for a nasty and bloody low-intensity war in Sudan. Of course, there is no mention of Roger Winter’s role in the low-intensity wars in Africa’s Great Lakes countries.
“The Council’s Deputy Emperor, Eric Reeves, joined in 2001.” Rebecca Hamilton writes. “Reeves was a professor of English literature at Smith, a small college in Western Massachusetts. He had no background in Sudan. But after reading about the humanitarian conditions in the south and attending a lecture Winter gave at the college, Reeves became the Council’s most prolific writer. He published hundreds of opinion pieces and blogged detailed reports brimming with moral outrage against Khartoum.” [18]
Dr. Eric Reeves is perhaps America’s greatest emotional manipulator. Reading his texts, one is overwhelmed by superlatives and assaulted by inflammatory emotional language. “The brutal regime in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, has orchestrated genocidal counterinsurgency war in Darfur for five years, and now is poised for victory in its ghastly assault on the region’s African populations.” [19]
Add the delusions, the outright lies and invented facts provided from the field by the other members of the Council of Wonks, the arrogance and brow-beating of anyone who dissents against him, and the patriotism, and it is clear that Reeves demonstrates what Wilhelm Reich described as fascism. [20]
And then there is his petulant behavior. Reeves tolerates zero criticism or divergence from the party line. If he doesn’t want to hear what someone has to say, and his mind is closed to alternative perspectives, he quite literally throws a temper tantrum: even Rebecca Hamilton wrote how he stormed out of a Save Darfur meeting. [21]
Dr. Eric Reeves refuses to sit on any panels with anyone who deviates from his sacred script, and he can be downright nasty. For example, on July 6, 2006, at Dr. Reeves’ own Smith College, Reeves refused to participate in a panel on Darfur titled “Intervention, Regime Change and the Politics of Genocide” and he did not attend the event. The head of Smith’s African Studies, Dr. Eliot Fratkin, was one of the panel members, as was this journalist. (Dr. Fratkin applauded the panel, at its conclusion, but Fratkin changed his position overnight and distanced himself the following day.) [21-a]
At Smith College on December 9, 2010, when a journalist interrupted Reeves during the question and answer session following Reeves’ lecture on Darfur, Reeves went berserk: the journalist was assaulted by the event organizers, and Smith College security issued the journalist a “No Trespassing for Life” notice for three colleges: Smith College, Mt. Holyoke and Hampshire College.
The mass media spread Reeves’ Sudan propaganda far and wide, and whole social movements have been engineered—from Mia Farrow and George Clooney to the Darfur Action Group of the Northampton (MA)-based Congregation B’Nai Israel Church to the Holocaust Memorial Museum—to mobilize constituencies and misdirect public action. The political calculus at work is based in a left-liberal hawkishness that has lost its moral compass, and this misplaced moralism is a cultural phenomenon that serves the powerful forces of Empire.
This is what I call humanitarian fascism. The cover story is full of fictions, little lies and outright disinformation. While the resumés of most development and policy experts are typically findable on-line, the details of Prendergast, Dagne, D’Silva and Winter’s careers are not so easily discoverable.
For example, in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, John Prendergast worked in southern Sudan for several so-called non-government organizations that, in fact, have very close ties to the foreign policy and intelligence establishment: Bread for the World and Human Rights Watch.
Access to south Sudan was facilitated through the so-called ‘humanitarian’ wing of the SPLM, the Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Association (SRRA). From Nairobi—a hub for U.S., British and Israeli defense and intelligence interests in East Africa and the Horn—western agents fly to Lokichogio, on the Kenya-Sudan border, where a United Nations base offered support for the billion dollar western misery-cum-missionary enterprise, Operation Lifeline Sudan.
Sudan in pictures: A racist, blurry, black, decontextualized New York Times Magazine photo that accompanied a Nicholas Kristof article.
Very euphemistically named, Bread for the World is a Christian faith-based organization close to the heart of the Christian Coalition. Past and current Bread for the World directors have included U.S. Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.)(d. 2012) and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA). Other directors include Clinton White House insiders Mike McCurry and—president Barack Obama’s current Secretary of Defense and former CIA director (2009-2011)—Leon Panetta.
“In 1995, Christian Solidarity International initiated a controversial program in Sudan called slave redemption,” wrote Rebecca Hamilton. “The Zurich-based human-rights organization began paying slave traders for the freedom of southerners captured in raids by government-backed militias from the north. Christian Solidarity took journalists and pastors from the black evangelical community along on their missions, and stories of modern-day slavery filtered into church congregations and the U.S. media.”
Many Jewish and Christian political organizations and think tanks have supported the long years of covert low-intensity warfare in Sudan. The religious propaganda produced by the policy wonks sold western minds to support a Jewish and Christian fundamentalist war against Islam that would otherwise never have existed. The slavery campaigns amounted to one massive fabrication after another, Psy-Ops used against western ‘news’ consumers and the Christian and Jewish masses. [22]
Intelligence operatives Ted Dange, John Prendergast and Roger Winter shuttled U.S. politicians to SPLM territory to see the misery for themselves—misery that the Council of Wonks’ Dr. Eric Reeves always attributed to a “genocidal counterinsurgency by the Government of Sudan.” Nicholas Kristof took the flag and ran with it in such massive disinformation pieces as “The Secret Genocide Archive.” [23] Nicholas Kristof was rewarded with a Pulitzer Prize for his Sudan agitprop.
Roger Winter took Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and another member of Congress (unnamed by Rebecca Hamilton) to meet SPLM commander John Garang on one of his visits to rebel-held areas of Sudan in 1989. Ted Dagne’s “network of southern Sudan allies in Congress solidified,” Rebecca Hamilton wrote. “He organized trips into SPLM-held areas for bipartisan delegations, including Tennessee Republican Sen. Bill Frist and the late New Jersey Democratic Rep. Donald Payne.”
Donald Payne served on numerous top-level Congressional committees involved in African Affairs and he accompanied the Clinton’s on the victory tour in Africa in 1998, he was arrested for protesting in front of the Sudan Embassy in 2001, and supported the Genocide Intervention Network, one of the Prendergast-linked intelligence agitprop groups. Payne was tied to numerous other Christian-right charity organizations—like Servant’s Heart—working in Africa, and to the Africa Society, a pro-business intelligence and propaganda front group.
Bread for the World director and former senator Bob Dole (R-KA) worked for years to advance the interests of mid-western U.S. grain corporations, esp. Archers Daniels Midland. U.S. lobbyists for big agribusiness seeking vast landholdings in Sudan worked out of Dole’s office and frequently traveled to Sudan. Dole also used and manipulated the World Food Program as an imperial tool to both leverage foreign markets and protect domestic ones.
Famines, starvation, internally displaced people and refugee flows are these organizations’ stock in trade, and the war in south Sudan simultaneously took land out of agricultural production and created a market for U.S. corporations to dump surplus and sub-standard grains for a profit. Many of these organizations are today connected to Yoweri Museveni—former co-chair of the euphemistically named Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa (PCHPA)—and they operate in tandem with USAID, which is really just a Christian-based “soft policy” wing of the Pentagon that uses food as a weapon under the disguise of charity. Many of USAID’s programs are highly invisible.
Kigali, Rwanda, 4 July 2010: Paul Kagame decorates Roger Winter with special medals celebrating RPF victory; U.S. Rep. Donald Payne also received one of Kagame’s medals.
Donald Payne and Roger Winter were decorated by Rwandan president Paul Kagame at the July 4, 2012 celebration of the 16th Anniversary of the RPF’s victory in Rwanda. Donald Payne, then 76, received only the UMURINZI “Campaign Against Genocide Medal for being “among ‘very few’ people in the world who recognized the Tutsi Genocide as the governments, media and individuals continued to debate.” Roger Winter, then 67, received both Rwanda’s URUTI Liberation Medal and UMURINZI medal.
“Roger Winter is one of Kagame’s most ardent supporters, and one of the most biased, and least credible,” says Rene Lemarchand, long-time Central Africa expert and former USAID consultant (1992-1998). “It is not for nothing that Winter has been decorated by [Paul] Kagame for his past services as a praise-singer (griot) on behalf of his patron. He played a key role in 1992 in putting Kagame in touch with high-ranking bureaucrats in the U.S. State Department, and he kept in close touch with the RPF in subsequent years. I would trust him about as far as I can throw a piano. I believe you’re right in saying that Winter worked as a U.S. intelligence operative. That’s my gut feeling but I cannot prove it.” [24]
“The silence is fathomless and overwhelming and eventually there will be no more sounds from this region,” wrote Roger Rosenblatt in a July 1993 Vanity Fair feature article (later published as a book) that sold the U.S. policy line on Sudan in 1993. [25] The article is a sales pitch, a provocative pornography of misery and violence meant to tug on western heart strings and open purses for western charity NGOs. Whether by accident or intention, depopulation of indigenous lands is one of the objectives of Empire, enabling foreign interests to more easily steal and occupy the land.
“No side has a claim on morality in these wars.” Rosenblatt prepares the argument for our SPLA support, taking the side sanctioned by the popular insanity, and in sync with the National Security apparatus. This is, after all, a war for public opinion at home, as much as for Empire in Sudan.
“When [Government of Sudan] military convoys lose vehicles to rebel mines, they usually burn the closest village and murder its inhabitants.” Rosenblatt is unwilling to expose the SPLM tactics in low-intensity warfare, where the people are used as human shields. “Soldiers routinely rape women displaced from their homes by the fighting; the SPLA has also been accused of rape and kidnapping.” The GoS soldiers are guilty of rape, while SPLA soldiers are only accused. “Both the government and the SPLA have menaced relief operations and blown up trucks carrying food and medicine.” So there are, in fact, two warring factions in this war! “The government has amputated the limbs of prisoners of war; so has the SPLA.” [25]
“Yet nearly everyone [sic] agrees that the Bashir government has been the main persecutor in the wars.” Roger Rosenblatt’s script is still in use today! “Muslim fundamentalists armed and inspired by Iran, they are the theocratic cleansers of their country—a twist on the ethnic cleansers in Bosnia. They seek to “Islamize” the Sudan—as indeed Iran may seek to Islamize the entire Horn of Africa—by converting or killing off all the Christians and animists in the South. Their weapons are famine, political repression, the torture of dissidents, and outright slaughter.” [25]
Yet nearly everyone does not agree.
To conclude the upside-down and backwards charade, Rosenblatt proffered the thesis that “the U.S. government provided only intermittent humanitarian aid to the Sudan, either because it is loath to interfere with a sovereign government (this is how the political situation in Sudan differs from Somalia) or because there is no obvious geopolitical advantage in doing so in the post-Cold War environment.” [25]
No obvious geopolitical advantage! No geopolitical interests! No strategic interests! “The silence is fathomless and overwhelming,” indeed, and if “eventually there will be no more sounds from this region,” it will be due to the massive corporate depopulation land-grab [Lebensraum] by Wall Street bankers, industrial philanthropists and other white collar predators.
The example of Jarch Capital comes quickly to mind. Wall Street banker Philippe Heilberg’s Jarch Capital, an investment firm, acquired 400,000 hectares in South Sudan in the last few years. These landholdings the size of Vermont were acquired in a deal with SPLM warlord Gabriel Matip. Jarch Capital came under some mild scrutiny when it was learned that Jarch executives include a former Clinton era Pentagon agent named Gwenyth Todd, and Joseph Wilson. In 1997, just before Clinton destroyed Sudan’s Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory with cruise missiles, Joseph Wilson ran the National Security Council’s East Africa Desk. Working under him was none other than National Security Council agent John Prendergast, America’s humanitarian poster boy for Sudan and George Clooney’s sidekick. [26]
“Whatever the causes of the war, it is southern civilians who have paid most dearly for it, and continue to pay,” wrote Human Rights Watch in a November 1994 report. “In this second civil [sic] war, even the adults are hard pressed to survive where displacement, asset destruction, famine and disease are constantly recurring. Children, always the most disadvantaged in any war, have been additionally punished in Sudan by being separated from their families, where they might find a modicum of adult protection, supervision and concern. They remain at greater risk than adults.” [27]
John Prendergast was one of several key researchers for the HRW report, based on research at refugee camps in Kenya, Sudan and Uganda from January to June 1993, and interviews in conducted in London, Cairo, Nairobi and Washington DC. The report concluded that “the SPLA has engaged in recruitment of boy soldiers and in the separation of children from their families… Since 1987 the SPLA has maintained large camps of boys separate from their relatives and tribes in refugee camps in Ethiopia and in southern Sudan. From these camps the SPLA has drawn fresh recruits as needed, regardless of the age of the boys.”
Not only were the SPLA “lost Boys” camps used for military recruitment: they were also places of death. Conditions were abhorrent. While the Operation Lifeline Sudan was paying huge salaries to western ex-patriots, and while Christian NGOs were shipping bibles to remote locations suffering famine, boys were living in absolute misery in these camps. Scores of thousands of children have died due to the indirect causes of the U.S. covert war. Roger Winter and the low-intensity SPLM war created the so-called “Lost Boys of Sudan”—not the Khartoum government, as we are always led to believe.
SPLA child soldiers in south Sudan: photo courtesy of the New Vision newspaper, Kampala, Uganda.
The Council of Wonks are all well aware of the atrocities committed by the SPLM. Like Human Rights Watch, and sometimes working for them, sometimes not, John Prendergast wrote about the SPLM campaigns of terror in south Sudan. In his book, Frontline Diplomacy: Humanitarian Aid and Conflict in Africa, for example, Prendergast explores how the SPLM uses food as a weapon, how they shuttle refugees around for their strategic and tactical advantage, using people as human shields, attacking relief organizations and enforcing starvation to leverage foreign intervention. Over the years however, Prendergast went silent on SPLM abuses.
The government think tank U.S. Institute for Peace (USIP) funded Prendergast’s Frontline Diplomacy project, just as they funded Philip Gourevitch to travel back and forth to see his friend Paul Kagame and produce the ‘non-fiction’ propaganda book We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families: Stories from Rwanda (Verso, 1999).
The USIP funded other Sudan and Rwanda propaganda, conferences and policy papers. Speaking at a USIP conference titled “Religion, Nationalism and Peace in Sudan” on September 16-17,1997, Roger Winter reportedly demanded full-scale backing from the U.S. government for a war “to bring down the Khartoum government” in Sudan, adding, “even though I know it will bring about a humanitarian catastrophe.” John Prendergast and Ted Dagne were on the same panel as Winter, and Council of Wonks member Francis Deng spoke on another panel.
Over the past few decades, the human rights agencies became more and more muted about crimes committed by the U.S., the U.K. or Israel—if mentioned at all—with resources and public relations increasingly concentrated on documenting the crimes of ‘enemies’ that are in the way of Empire. “The grand narrative of human rights contains a subtext which depicts an epochal contest pitting savages, on the one hand, against victims and saviors, on the other,” writes Professor Makau Mutua. [28]
SPLM war crimes and crimes against humanity are documented in stark detail in the March 1990 Human Rights Watch/Africa Watch report Denying “The Honor of Living”: Sudan, a Human Rights Disaster. Between 1984 and 1989, the SPLM attacked southern Garrison towns, disappeared and tortured, and shot civilian airliners out of the sky. In 1986, the SPLM attacked Ugandan (mostly Acholi) refugees in southern Sudan—forced out of Uganda by Museveni’s NRM low-intensity war there—killing refugees and forcing at least 35,000 refugees back to insecurity in Uganda. In 1989 the SPLM attacked Ethiopian refugee camps on the Ethiopian border. Both instances were violations of international humanitarian law.
As Operation Lifeline Sudan grew in scope, so too did the scale and magnitude of the crimes committed by the SPLM—and the sophistication of the western intelligence apparatus at hiding them. The Council of Wonks and the ‘human rights’ establishment and the misery industry increasingly closed their eyes to SPLM atrocities, funded by western taxpayers, and increasingly honed and tuned the propaganda corps to demonize the Government of Sudan in keeping with the savior versus savage narrative at work behind the new humanitarian fascism.
Did the SPLM reform itself in the mid-1990s and post-2000 era? Starting in 1999, from his offices at Smith College, policy wonk Eric Reeves screamed louder and louder—ever more hysterical by the day—about the Government of Sudan’s bombing campaigns, the climbing death tolls, the genocide, and about our moral imperative to facilitate “regime change” in Khartoum by any means necessary. Meanwhile, John Prendergast became increasingly silent about SPLM terrorism in Sudan in direct proportion to his proximity to the U.S. government. The closer Prendergast got to the National Security apparatus—and the perks of power and private profit—the quieter he became.
Ditto with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and the western human rights corpus. The massive tome Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda (1999), researched and written by Human Rights Watch agent Alison Des Forges, offers a scant 43 pages (out of 793 pages) on crimes committed by the “highly disciplined” RPF, and these crimes are often downgraded to allegations or unverified reports. Roger Winter is not once mentioned in the book. Alison Des Forges also worked as a consultant to USAID.
Similarly, the 343-page Human Rights Watch book Behind the Red Line: Political Repression in Sudan (1996) offers a mere 20 pages (out of 343 pages) attending to SPLM crimes, and these 20 pages also include further “Crimes by All Parties to the Conflict.”
As human rights and so-called humanitarian NGOs have evolved, they have become ever more focused on presenting western civilization as saviors and our proxy forces as victims, in a contest with savages. In the case of the governments (and people) we wish to overthrow, the ‘savages’ are the Arab Government of Sudan, the Hutu government of Rwanda, and so on, and so forth. It is all too easy for affluent westerners to adhere to this narrative.
It is “a project for the redemption of the redeemers,” writes Makau Mutua, “in which whites who are privileged globally as a people—who have historically visited untold suffering and savage atrocities against nonwhites—redeem themselves by ‘defending’ and ‘civilizing’ ‘lower,’ ‘unfortunate,’ and ‘inferior’ peoples.” [28]
An early SPLA photo: A photo of an SPLM bridge in south Sudan taken by Roger Winter in the 1980’s.
Hamilton reports that Smith College professor Eric Reeves began working with the policy wonks—and the implication is he began working on Sudan—in 2001 after Roger Winter spoke at Smith College. In fact, it was the other way around: Eric Reeves began screaming about “genocide in Sudan” in 1999. If his Sudan crusade was inspired by Roger Winter, he has changed his story.
“When the former executive director of the U.S. branch of Doctors Without Borders, Joelle Tanguy, told Reeves she thought Sudan needed a champion, she probably didn’t expect it to be an English prof from Northampton, Massachusetts.” John Prendergast wrote this while eulogizing Eric Reeves in his book Not On Our Watch: The Mission to End Genocide in Darfur and Beyond. [29] “Fighting cancer and frequently working from his hospital bed, he has waged an often lonely but always Herculean struggle to ensure that the American public is aware of what is happening to the people of Sudan…”
Reeves has stated he met Joelle Tanguy and adopted the Sudan cause “early in 1999”. On April 1, 1999, Smith College hosted a lecture by Roger Winter organized by Eric Reeves. “Winter ‘is a really distinguished presence in the world of humanitarian agencies,’ says Smith English professor Eric Reeve, an organizer of the event…” [30]
On October 30, 2000, Smith College hosted a special ceremony where Roger Winter and the U.S. Committee for Refugees honored Reeves with an award recognizing Reeves “for his widely published work calling attention to Sudan’s vast and ongoing humanitarian crisis.” [31]
Eric Reeves Disinformation Graphic: ‘They Bombed everything that Moved’:
a flagrant example of Dr. Eric Reeves’ highly incredible anti-Khartoum propaganda.
In Eric Reeves’ hysterical perspective, virtually all violence in Sudan is attributed to the “genocidal counterinsurgency by the [Khartoum] Government of Sudan.” Reeves’ disinformation—especially his inflation and fluctuation of mortality estimates in Darfur (2003-2010)—has been roundly debunked. [32] The charge of genocide in Darfur was equally specious—meaningless in the context used by Eric Reeves and Nicholas Kristof.
In 2006, the U.S. Government Accountability Office in collaboration with the National Academy of Sciences convened twelve experts to review six sources of data on mortality in Darfur. The GAO study, reported to the U.S. Congress in November 2006, questioned the validity of three of the six ‘expert’ international sources providing estimates of mortality on Darfur, offering a “devastating critique of assumptions, source data and extrapolations behind the findings of the two most prolific high-end researchers associated with Save Darfur…” [32]
One of these high-enders was professor John Hagan, who authored the highly politicized “Atrocities Documentation Report” produced by an NGO called the Coalition for International Justice. The second high-end researcher was Dr. Eric Reeves. “Nine of the experts found Hagan’s source data ‘generally’ or ‘definitely’ unsound, while ten experts said the same of Reeves’ source data. Ten said Hagan’s assumptions were ‘somewhat’ or ‘very unreasonable,’ and eleven said so with regard to Reeves. Eleven said Hagan’s extrapolations were ‘somewhat’ or ‘very inappropriate,’ and all twelve said so in reference to Reeves.” [32]
Worse still, the escalation of Save Darfur hysteria occurred in 2006, even as the violence in Darfur had greatly receded. Reeves’ mortality estimates went up and down and up again, and he paid no attention to the GAO critique, but continued to scream about between 400,000 to 500,000 dead due to the “genocidal counterinsurgency” by the Government of Sudan. Given the cloudy assessments of the actual mortality—somewhere between the Government of Sudan’s estimate of 10,000 and other reasonable estimates of around 200,000—the hysterical behavior of Dr. Eric Reeves is shocking.
Of course, behind Reeves was the Council of Wonks. To his credit, Dr. Eric Reeves specifically acted as Minister of Disinformation for the Council’s anti-Sudan campaign: he had nothing to do with the low-intensity wars in Uganda, Rwanda or Congo. Or did he?
While the (extremely conservative) International Rescue Committee estimates of death tolls in the neighboring Congo were coming in at 3.9 million dead by 2004 and 5.4 million dead by 2007—some 45,000 Congolese dying every month—Reeves was inflating mortality statistics on Darfur, monopolizing attention, getting shriller and shriller by the day, focusing the global consciousness on Darfur. Like Mahmood Mamdani—whose analyses of Reeve’s manipulation of Darfur mortality stats was utilized above—Dr. Eric Reeves has protected Yoweri Museveni and Paul Kagame from scrutiny; the former by deflecting attention from the SPLM’s covert supply chain in Uganda, the latter by whitewashing the Rwandan Defenses Forces’ (formerly known as the Rwandan Patriotic Front) combat operations under the African Union flag in Darfur. By falsifying consciousness on Sudan, Dr. Eric Reeves was also falsifying consciousness about the Great Lakes.
Roger Winter and Ted Dagne and the other Council of Wonks members were Reeves’ primary sources of information, and Reeves accepted their data and perspective all too happily. His reports, appearing anywhere and everywhere in the U.S. media, reeked of hysteria and outright lies. Reeve’s understanding of a greater geopolitical context, such as the political fault lines of front line states (Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda) involved in Sudan’s war (or the international geopolitical importance of countries like Libya) was unnecessary for the mission of propagandizing the western public and providing cover for the covert low-intensity war prosecuted by the SPLA and backed by Washington.
New York Times Magazine caption: Winter meets a Darfur rebel [sic], Minni Minawi, in Juba, Sudan.
“To this day [Reeves] carries his draft card from the Vietnam war in his wallet,” wrote Rebecca Hamilton in Fighting for Darfur, “its status is marked ‘1-0′—conscientious objector.” [21] The irony is thick as the blood in South Sudan. While the media always underscores Reeves’ supposed morality—was it a commitment to non-violence or a refusal to support an imperialist war?— Reeves openly advocated more conventional U.S. military war against Sudan. His draft card in his wallet offers proof of his saintliness. Dr. Reeve’s struggle with leukemia is also invoked as irrefutable evidence of his saintliness.
Reeves’ statements before the U.S. Congress sound like pro-SPLM military briefings. “The SPLA has not, so far, successfully attacked in a major way the oil infrastructure.” Reeves is responding to U.S. Congressman Ed Royce, Chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Africa Subcommittee in March 2001. “There have been attacks on the oil pipeline as it approaches Eritrea. There have been attacks and seizures of individual wells, but the security is very, very extensive. The scorched earth warfare that the government of Sudan has conducted has created a cordon sanitaire that has made it virtually impossible for the SPLA to deploy resources that would allow for major military attack on the infrastructure in the Unity and Heglig fields.” [33]
There is no rest for the wicked, and so the Council of Wonks will not stop their war until the National Islamic Front Government of Sudan is gone. It doesn’t matter how messy it gets.
“Security cooperation between Khartoum and Washington [Central Intelligence Agency] and London [Secret Intelligence Service (MI6)] has increased sharply in volume over the past two years, for instance in the number of documents handed over and the numbers of joint liaison meetings,” reported Africa Confidential. The article stated obvious facts that the policy wonks have hidden. “Some Western strategists regard the longer term plan to engage the NIF regime on security, and also more widely in peace negotiations with the Sudan People’s Liberation Army, as regime change by stealth.” The same AC article reported: “Western intelligence sources briefed journalists that some teams of U.S. Special Forces units were operating in northern Sudan in pursuit of terror cells and Al Qaida units.” [34]
In a speech before the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights on June 16, 2011, Roger Winter—described as “the former U.S. special envoy to Sudan”—called for immediate military action against Khartoum in order to strengthen the South Sudan army and, ostensibly, to halt attacks on civilians.
“Take a military action against a Khartoum military target now,” Winter said, adding that the goal would be “to strengthen the SPLA in meaningful ways as a deterrent against Khartoum aggression, provocation and attacks against civilians.” [35]
Like Reeves and the other members of the Council of Wonks, Winter blames all the violence on Khartoum and he inflates mortality estimates out of thin air. “Winter said that any commitments made by the Khartoum government are unreliable and that the government’s actions had led to the death of three million people.” [35]
No matter their hysteria, their warmongering, or their lack of credibility, these guys continue to be widely celebrated and published. Evidence suggests that the system appreciates them precisely because they obfuscate reality and inculcate necessary illusions. “We are, once again, on the verge of genocidal counterinsurgency in Sudan,” screamed the mad doctor and indefatigable dink at Smith College, in his June 13, 2011 Washington Post Op/Ed titled “In Sudan, Genocide Anew?” “History must not be allowed to repeat itself.”
Irish Catholic gun-runner Daniel Eiffe is another shady intelligence operator who is never mentioned by Dr. Eric Reeves, and certainly a friend of Roger Winter and the Council of Wonks.
“This year, the Republic of South Sudan officially became a state,” reported Eoin Butler, in the Irish Times, “thanks in no small part to a diminutive former priest from County Meath [Ireland], who also has gunrunning, renegade militancy and newspaper publishing on his CV.” [36]
“How did a diminutive priest [Daniel Eiffe] go from providing humanitarian aid for the victims of civil war, to taking up arms in support of one side?” Butler asks. Eiffe is the publisher of the Sudan Mirror, a pro-SPLA and pro-Christian South Sudan newspaper published with the support of Trociare and other international AID agencies.
In the early 1990’s, Eiffe was employed by Norweigan People’s Aid, a gun-running NGO that uses humanitarian relief as its cover. Eiffe organized weapons and logistics for the SPLA through Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni in Kampala, Uganda. [36] USAID has funded Norwegian People’s Aid for years; USAID support in 2010, for example, was $8.5 million (while other U.S. government agencies gave NPA $6.9 million in 2010).
Photo: Daniel Eiffe in Juba, Sudan.
The rebel priest ‘commander’ Dan Eiffe’s Sudan Mirror is also funded by USAID, ensuring that the people of the new South Sudan are properly educated about the wonders of their new found freedom and democracy. The Office of Transitional Initiatives (OTI), a subsidiary of USAID, in conjunction with the Sudan Development Trust (run by Eiffe) set up The Sudan Mirror and the Sudan Radio Service. USAID’s OTI also works with PACT, another U.S. government NGO ‘charity’ front staffed by former U.S. government officials, intelligence and financial planners, including a close relative of the Bush family.
Eighteen months after the Comprehensive Peace Agreement [sic] that ended Sudan’s two-decade civil war had been signed, few Sudanese knew its details. This was precisely because the power brokers involved—including USAID and Roger Winter, U.S. government officials, and the leadership of the SPLA—do not represent the people or their best interests.
“That began to change in April and May 2006, when USAID launched an initiative to help more than 150,000 people in five Southern Sudanese states access details of the agreement and participate more fully in implementing the peace. Documents in Arabic and English were distributed to all government officials in the south, and an official summary was developed and published in English and Arabic. The Sudan Radio Service created audio versions of the summary in seven languages—Moro, Arabic, simple Arabic, Toposa, Shilluk, Dinka, and Nuer—and the Sudan Mirror published 22,000 summaries to be included as supplements in its Easter edition.” [37]
The Sudan Mirror has also been supported by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, a British government-backed organization, akin to the U.S. government’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED), International Republican Institute (IRI) and National Democratic Institute (NDI), all involved in “promoting democracy and human rights” through subversive and clandestine programs aligned with NATO intelligence and defense operations. [38]
Daniel Eiffe’s ties to Roger Winter and USAID are outlined in a 1998 expose by the right-wing Lyndon LaRouche publication Executive Intelligence Reveiw. “Eiffe himself operates out of Wilson Airport in Nairobi, Kenya, and has a forward base at Lokichoggio, Kenya, along the border with Sudan. Even in July, after the scandals around the NPA had exploded in Norway, Winter’s U.S. Committee for Refugees brought Eiffe to Washington to lobby for money, a stance that was endorsed in July 29 [1998] hearings by the Africa Subcommittee of the House of Representatives, in which Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice called for funding non-governmental organizations operating outside of the United Nations’ Operation Lifeline [Sudan]—a clear reference to the NPA.”
Sudanese refugees at the Ethiopian border: A makeshift refugee camp sports the usual western misery industry branding meant to stand out for fundraising purposes and product placement in western media productions. Miserable conditions in Sudanese IDP and Ugandan and Ethiopian refugee camps in South Sudan dictate high levels of disease and death, and whole generations have been lost to misery. Conditions at Sudanese refugee camps in Ethiopa, Kenya, and Uganda were equally miserable. Photo c. keith harmon snow, Pochalla, Sudan, 2004.
In a 2009 radio interview, Daniel Eiffe stated that in June [sic] 1998 he stood in the U.S. Congress and said to the congressmen and women: “Southern Sudan is apartheid at its worst. Apartheid is a tea party in comparison to what happens in Southern Sudan.” Eiffe confirmed that he was in Washington “meeting with Congressman Donald Payne, the head of the [Congressional] Black Caucus, he’s very close to Clinton, he’s a good friend of mine.” [39]
Donald Payne was one of the Council of Wonks closest collaborators.
A few key details about the Council of Wonks’ Francis Deng are also in order. Sudanese diplomat Francis Deng is on the board of the ‘charity’ International Alert—which is also funded by the Westminister Foundation for Democracy. Other International Alert funders are USAID, Bread for the World, and the National Endowment for Democracy.
In formulating the U.S. position on Sudan, Francis Deng worked closely with the prominent U.S. government official Elliot Abrams. “For example, on Sudan, we helped elevate the issue of religious persecution in southern Sudan,” said Abrahms, then chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, “and for that matter in northern Sudan, to get it more attention from the president and the National Security Council and the secretary of state and make it a larger item in U.S. foreign policy.” [40]
Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, and retired U.S. Marine Corps officer Oliver North were pivotal players in the Iran-Contra affair—all were serving under the administration of then U.S. president Ronald Reagan.
In Francis Deng we find another choice topic for a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Deng has the perfect cover: he has for many years been the United Nation’s Special Adviser to the Secretary General on Displaced Persons and, since 2007, the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide. Deng began his long and distinguished career at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: common sense suggests he is a Central Intelligence Agency spook.
If Francis Deng is merely an honorable diplomat, then Americans are equally foolish in their acceptance of the drug-dealer-turned-Christian-savior cover story provided for Sam Childers—the infamous ‘machine gun preacher’ of south Sudan.
A mercenary who could not possibly operate in south Sudan without the sanction of the U.S. and commanders Roger Winter and Dan Eiffe, Sam Childers has been backed by the Museveni regime and the SPLM—who put a unit of SPLA soldiers under Childers’ personal command. Childers exemplifies the countless fronts in which militarized Christianity operates in South Sudan with both open and clandestine U.S. support. Of course, machine-gun preacher makes a great ‘documentary’ film for oblivious propaganda consumers and arm-chair human rights patrons. “God protects me in Africa,” Sam Childers always says.
Remember the trial of Henry Kissinger? Can a case be made that Roger Winter should be indicted and charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide? [41]
Where was Roger Winter in the 1970’s? His public dossier suggests that he started with the U.S. Committee for Refugees in 1981, at the age of 38; he was director of USCR by the middle of the 1980’s and transitioned to USAID working in Sudan from 2001 to 2006. Then he became some kind of Special Adviser in south Sudan, and they even created a special office for him in Washington.
Back in the 1980’s, Roger Winter also worked with USCR in Indochina at a time when U.S. intelligence and defense operations were assisting ‘refugees’ fleeing the Pol Pot regime after decades of U.S. state-sponsored terrorism there; these ‘refugees’ would have included a phalanx of political and military operatives who supported U.S. covert operations like ‘Pheonix‘.
Winter’s ties to guerrillas in Central Africa pre-date the SPLM war in Sudan. In the early 1980’s Winter backed the National Resistance Movement (NRM) guerrilla war—led by Yoweri Museveni, Paul Kagame and other Hema-Tutsi elites—against the Milton Obote (2nd term) government in Uganda. Winter regularly visited Museveni’s NRM guerrilla’s in the bush. Winter is alleged to be one of the architects behind the false accusations blaming the Obote government for genocide in the Lowero Triangle. (The same tactic was used in Rwanda in 1992 to blame the Juvenal Habyariman government with genocide.) Most likely, Winter also advised the NRM in some of the nasty tactics in low-intensity warfare, including Psy-Ops and ‘pseudo-operations’—where NRM guerrillas disguised as government forces committed atrocities—terrorizing the population. [42] The terror tactics seen in Uganda appeared later in Rwanda (1990-1994) and again and again in the bloody Congo wars (1995-present). The signature of Museveni and Kagame’s guerrillas is all over the Congo, where pseudo-operations and Psy-Ops have been used to blame RPF atrocities on someone else (FARDC, Mai Mai, FDLR, LRA, Interahamwe).
For the duration of the 1980’s Winter advanced the militant plans of the Banyarwanda—Rwandan Tutsi elites who had ruled over the Hutu masses but fled Rwanda in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Roger Winter and the USCR even funded their propaganda tracts advocating guerrilla war. Working with the Tutsi diaspora, Roger Winter and the Association of Banyarwanda in Diaspora USA organized the International Conference on the Status of Banyarwanda [Tutsi] Refugees in Washington, DC in 1988, and this is where a military solution to the Tutsi problem was decided. The U.S. Committee for Refugees reportedly provided accommodation and transportation for the event.
“Roger Winter is an intelligence operative,” says Dr. Jean-Marie Vianney Higiro, a former Rwandan government official who fled Rwanda under threat of death in April 1994. “Winter organized the meeting of the Rwandan [Tutsi] diaspora in Washington, D.C in 1988. The USCR was one of the contributors to the RPF journal Impuruza.”
The best known of the RPF-Banyarwanda publications was Impuruza, created by Dr. Alexandre Kimenyi, a Rwandan Tutsi in the U.S., where it was published from 1982 to 1994. Like most RPF publications Impuruza circulated clandestinely in Rwanda amongst Hutu and Tutsi elite. This publication began the process of dehumanizing the Hutu people and set the stage for the ongoing genocide against them—a genocide facilitated by Roger Winter, funded by western tax-payers who have been betrayed by the military-industrial-media complex.
“Winter followed the activities of the RPF in Uganda, including visiting the battlefield,” says Dr. Jean-Marie Vianney Higiro. “He visited RPF forces in Rwanda before April 6, 1994. I met him first in Washington in 1988. The second time I met him was in Chicago in 1995 at a conference on Rwanda organized by a Rwandan Tutsi at the University of Illinois. Alison Des Forges was there too. [43] Roger Winter tried to stop the conference from happening. Winter handed out pro-RPF literature prepared by the U.S. Committee for Refugees. Then he was in Congo [Zaire] after the RPF and AFDL launched their military offensive to topple Mobutu regime. After the overthrow of Mobutu his target became Sudan where he sought the overthrow of the central government, but then settled with the independence of South Sudan. In South Sudan he serves under the cover of an adviser to the government of South Sudan. So, what is next? He has accumulated success after success.”
Acting as a spokesman for the RPF and their allies during the earlier stages of the RPF guerrilla war, Roger Winter appeared as a guest on major U.S. television networks such as PBS and CNN at times when the RPF was committing atrocities (e.g. in northern Rwanda 1990-1993). Winter and Rwanda ‘genocide’ propagandist Philip Gourevitch also made contacts on behalf of the RPF with American media, particularly the Washington Post, New York Times and Time magazine. U.S. Rep. Donald Payne worked closely with them to support the RPF’s low-intensity wars in Africa and the necessary propaganda in the U.S., Canada and Europe. Later, when the war in south Sudan shifted to Darfur, Donald Payne sponsored the hegemonic Darfur Genocide Accountability Act.
Roger Winter and Jeff Drumtra, another USCR agent, released numerous pro-RPF policy statements and alerts during the RPF assault of 1994. Winter and Drumtra were amongst the first U.S. officials to advocate that the civil war in Rwanda in 1994 be declared a genocide against Tutsi civilians. After April 6, 1994, they also worked to delegitimize Rwandan interim government.
“Effective policy requires a proper understanding of the root causes of the violence in Rwanda,” Winter and Drumtra wrote in a USCR alert. “The U.S. media have generally mischaracterized Rwanda’s massacres as amorphous, uncontrollable ‘tribal violence’ that Westerners cannot possibly understand or affect. Other reports mistakenly imply that the huge numbers of deaths are due to crossfire in the civil war between the government army and the rebel Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF).”
Winter and Drumtra helped shift the simplistic media accounts from their focus on tribal warfare to a new focus on coordinated and planned campaign of genocide being committed by the Hutu power structure. The International Tribunal on Rwanda has never proved that the genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda was planned by the “Hutu power structure” or “extremist Hutus” as has always been claimed. Roger Winter is one of the first to spread these ideas, which rely on simplistic reductionist arguments and distortions of the facts. On the other hand, Kagame’s role in facilitating the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Tutsis is now becoming more clear. In taking the pro-RPF position he took, and Winter facilitated the dehumanization of millions of Hutus and set the stage for the invasion of Congo-Zaire two years later. The parallels with south Sudan are striking.
Unclassified Roger Winter document: Dated May 3, 1994 and stamped “UNCLASSIFIED”, this document demonstrates the pro-RPF advocacy of Roger Winter and his associate, Jeff Drumtra, under cover of the U.S. Committee for Refugees during the so-called ‘100 days of genocide’ (April 6 to July 15) in Rwanda in 1994.
“USCR urges the U.S. and U.N. to declare formally that the massacres in Rwanda constitute genocide as defined in international law,” Winter wrote. “This declaration is an important step necessary for establishing the moral, legal, and political contact for forceful action by the international community: the international Genocide Convention of 1951 legally requires the international community to take action ‘appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide’.” [44]
Of course, there was no international action taken to stop the slaughter in Rwanda. Contrary to the disinformation campaign suggesting the United States knew what was happening and failed to act is the hard truth that the United States RPF proxy was prosecuting a terrorist war. The United States had no intention of stopping it, because we started it. It is the same story, slightly different, with the SPLM in Sudan.
“No independent observers have accused the RPF rebels or ethnic Tutsis of involvement in shooting down the plane of President Habyarirnana on April 6,” Winter and Drumtra wrote, producing some of the earliest disinformation befogging the double presidential assassination of Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana and Burundian president Cyprien Ntaryamira. Roger Winter steered attention away from the RPF (who were all Ugandans) and their western defense and intelligence backers. [45]
“No neutral international observers have accused the RPF of participating in massacres during the past month,” Winter and Drumtra continued. The disinformation that the RPF was a disciplined army was spread far and wide through the western media, always repeated by western journalists who helped cover up the egregious atrocities of the RPF. “The RPF, which currently controls at least half of Rwanda, should be encouraged to maintain the discipline of its troops,” they wrote, “abide by internationally recognized rules of human rights and honor its pledge to cooperate fully with human rights investigators of the U.N. and other agencies.” [45]
Winter further called for the Pentagon to jam the radio broadcasts of the “extremist Hutu” radio station. He also referenced his ties to the Pentagon directly. “USCR urges the U.S. to use immediately its technical capability to ‘jam’ the radio broadcasts of Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM), which Rwandan extremists have used to disseminate their racist, hate-filled violence. In recent days this radio station has broadcast messages to the militias and to the public exhorting them to accelerate the slaughter. U.S. military personnel have told USCR that the U.S. military has the ability to jam these broadcasts almost immediately.” [45]
The May 3, 1994 communiqué makes it clear that Winter had easy access to Kagame and other RPF commanders or officials, including RPF cadres in the United States—relations that began long before May 1994. Winter called for immediate protection for Rwandan’s currently in the United States, a critical step to provide domestic U.S. protection for Tutsis in the diaspora whom Winter was working with. [45]
The USCR disinformation insinuated that there was some distinct and distant separation between Roger Winter and the RPF and between Roger Winter and the U.S. military in Rwanda. In fact, as a covert operator, Winter moved in and out of western-backed guerrilla campaigns in Rwanda, Uganda, Congo and Sudan, always supporting the U.S./U.K./Israeli factions. Roger Winter’s propaganda, routinely and unquestioningly published by such mainstay U.S. institutions as the Washington Post, included pro-RPF and pro-SPLM pieces that furthered the psychological operations generated by the Pentagon and its RPF and SPLM proxy forces in the region.
At the height of RPF terror operations inside Rwanda (1994-1995) and Congo-Zaire (1995-1998), where millions of Rwandan Hutus and hundreds of thousands of civilian French-speaking Tutsis and millions of Congolese civilians were subject to the most egregious atrocities, Winter was whitewashing the RPF (UPDF) crimes and blaming the victims.
“Take the case of the 120,000 suspected perpetrators of genocide now in Rwanda’s jails,” Winter wrote in February 1998. “Many have never been formally charged, a fact that most of my colleagues view as an egregious abuse of human rights and proof that Rwanda’s leaders lack commitment to basic rules of justice. I see it differently. I regard their jailing as a human rights victory. Most of the country’s judges, attorneys and investigators were killed during the genocide or fled the country, leaving no means of trying these 120,000 prisoners. But they are still alive and awaiting trial. They have not been gunned down or chopped apart in a frenzy of revenge for the genocide many of them committed. Instead, they have remained in jail while the Rwandan government tries to rebuild its judicial system. The detention of suspects for trial indicates a willingness to abide by fundamental human rights principles under difficult circumstances.” [46]
In fact, the RPF did chop up Hutu and French-speaking Tutsi people in the coldest of cold blood, both out of sight of the world community in Rwanda from 1990 to 1994 and, as with the massacre of over 10,000 civilians at Kibeho and other refugee camps inside Rwanda in 1995—in plain sight of the entire world. Kibeho was so cold-blooded that the trenches that would become mass graves were dug days in advance of the RPF attack.
Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo: Rwandan refugee camps that spotted the eastern frontier of the Congo (then Zaire), around Goma and Bukavu, were attacked by the RPF and U.S. troops in the fall of 1996. The Kagame regime began sending guerrilla death squads into Zaire as early as the summer of 1994, when the massive refugee exodus from Rwanda occurred. Photo c. keith harmon snow, 2006.
Roger Winter routinely lied, distorted the facts, and produced disinformation to cover up the RPF atrocities—including the genocide against at least 300,000 Hutu civilians in Eastern Congo from 1995 to 1998.
“After the [1994] genocide, we failed to push hard enough to expel genocidal killers from refugee camps,” Winter wrote, in 1998, exercising the standard good-versus-evil, savages-versus-saviors dichotomy that has been used to wholly dehumanize both the former Habyarimana government leaders and the Hutu people more generally, and to facilitate the genocide against them, “and we shrank from the truth that it was worth risking bloodshed to force a separation between killers and legitimate refugees.” [46]
The truth that we shrink from is that the former Habyarimana government leaders were under attack, and they had a right to defend their country and their families.
Winter was meeting with the ‘ADFL rebel leaders’ in eastern Congo and defending them in the Washington Post even as the rebels were slaughtering Hutu people and Congolese civilians in the most ruthless campaign of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in recent contemporary history, and one that—some 14 years after the atrocities occurred—was finally, though tepidly, referenced as ‘genocidal’ in a 2010 United Nations “Mapping Report” for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [47]
“Some leaders despise their own citizens,” Winter opined, in 1998, defending the guerrilla-democrats that Madeleine Albright and Philip Gourevitch and the New Yorker magazine lauded as ‘a new breed of African leader’. [48] “But sometimes governments are more inexperienced than evil.”
The so-called ‘inexperienced’ leaders that Winter was defending were Rwanda’s Kagame and Uganda’s Museveni (Ethiopia’s dictator Meles Zenawi was typically included in this group) and the reference extended to SPLA guerrilla commander John Garang and ADFL puppet ‘commander’ Laurent Kabila.
Paul Kagame’s operational military tactics and methods of information control were far from anything we might define as ‘inexperienced’.
Kagame’s doctrine of ensuring information shutdown was central to his strategy in the invasions of Rwanda and Congo-Zaire.
“We used communication and information warfare better than anyone,” Paul Kagame told Nik Gowing in an interview on 8 April 1998. “We have found a new way of doing things.”
“Many believe that this highly effective strategy of information control and access shut down was the result of Kagame refining the knowledge of information warfare he acquired during a U.S. Command and Staff course in 1990,” wrote Nik Gowing, in a 1997-1998 study funded by the European Union. [49]
“Rwandan officials laugh off these suggestions. They say Kagame only spent three months out of a planned twelve months as a Ugandan officer on a training course at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. He cut short his studies to return to lead and plan the RPF advance into northern Rwanda after the commander, Fred Rwigena, was killed in action. However Kagame himself acknowledges the importance of the Fort Leavenworth contribution to his thinking, especially in information warfare and communications. Kagame confirmed that “central to my studies in Leavenworth” were “organisation, tactics, strategy, building human resources, Psy-Ops [psychological operations], information, psychology and communications among the troops.” [49]
Nik Gowing’s credentials are very interesting. From 1989-1998, Gowing worked variously as an international consultant, BBC World news anchor and diplomatic editor for Britain’s Channel Four News. His reports were aired frequently by the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour on PBS, NBC’s SuperChannel and CNN International. These are the same institutions that covered up Kagame’s low-intensity guerrilla operations and subsequent crimes. In 1994, Gowing was a resident fellow at the Joan Shorenstein Barone Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy in the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. [49]
Nik Gowing was also a Visiting Fellow in International Relations at Keele University, a board member for the British Association for Central and Eastern Europe, a member of the Director’s Strategy Group at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, and a governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy—the British think tank that is funding pro-SPLM propaganda in alliance with USAID and Irish gunrunner Daniel Eiffe.
Nik Gowing’s potentially volatile 1998 conference paper did nothing to hold anyone account for recent past abuses or to forestall the terrorism that the ‘new breed of African leaders’ would soon unleash on Central Africa.
“The full picture of Rwandan, Ugandan and—arguably—non-regional involvement has yet to be uncovered,” Gowing wrote. Like Samantha Power in her September 2001 Atlantic Monthly disinformation feature “Bystanders to Genocide,” Gowing suggests that the many high-level sources he interviewed are honest and their statements can be taken at face value. “Extensive high-level interviewing for this study has provided evidence of limited political, logistical and advisory support by both regional and nonregional powers. Hearsay and circumstantial evidence is reported. However, despite widespread concerns at the time of writing there is scant documentary proof or evidence of either direct backing or complicity. Rwandan officials from Vice President Paul Kagame downwards deny emphatically any such relationship.” [49]
Really? It seems that the evidence of foreign backing for the RPF/UPDF invasion was readily available. Notably, though Gowing interviewed and quoted many ‘humanitarian aid’ professionals on the ground in Central Africa, most are not named, and he never mentions Roger Winter. “There remain many ‘whisky talk’ suspicions about outside, non-regional involvement,” he concluded. [49]
Both the U.S. and France deployed large teams of special operations forces in Central Africa. In Goma, at this time, a western war correspondent photographed U.S. Special Forces machine-gunning unarmed refugee men, women and children in what he described as “one of the most horrible examples of mass atrocities I have ever seen.” He was later threatened into silence by U.S. officials. The U.S. military was all over Bujumbura, Kigali and Entebbe. [50]
“U.S. agents were seen with rebels in Zaire,” reported the Boston Globe on October 8, 1997. “Active participation is alleged in military overthrow of Mobutu.” [51] Was this Roger Winter?
To funnel selected intelligence to United Nations headquarters’ Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), the U.N. had created a special multinational intelligence Situation Center (SitCen) in New York. The SitCen’s new Information and Research (I&R) Unit existed from 1993 to 1999, providing “significant and useful intelligence about arms shipments, belligerent activities,” noted Canadian military expert A. Walter Dorn, “and the status of refugees and [making] several prescient predictions and warnings.” [52]
The SitCen was staffed and informed by Russian, French, British, and U.S. defense and intelligence officials seconded to the operation. “These individuals maintained substantial links to the intelligence services of their home countries, most having come from these agencies. They were ‘the interface’ with these intelligence services. In return for the loan of these officers and the information they provided, the nations sought the U.N.’s coded cables (situation reports) from the field, some of which may have made their way back to national capitals, a prospect that displeased some U.N. Secretariat officials.” [52]
The U.N.s DPKO received credible intelligence documenting that Kagame’s RPF forces were engaged in ‘pseudo-operations’ that are the signature of Kagame’s and Museveni’s guerrilla terrorism in the entire region: disguising themselves and their atrocities as the work of the ‘enemy’—the Lord’s Resistance Army, the Mai Mai, the FDLR, the Interahamwe, government forces of Milton Obote in Uganda or Juvenal Habyarimana in Rwanda—pick your bogeymen.
“The I&R Unit reports describe night raids by the Zairian rebel [ADFL] forces…. In an act of deception, the government of Rwanda stationed its forces ‘under the disguise of Banyamulenge’ in Zaire to protect hydroelectric plants that provide power to both Rwanda and Burundi (19 December 1996).” [52]
“The I&R Unit boldly asserted that the Tutsi rebellion was backed by ‘American teams’ (6 February 1997). Despite official U.S. support for the Canadian-led humanitarian mission in November-December 1996, the Unit alleges that the U.S. sought to undermine the operation: ‘On the American request to deter the deployment of a U.N.-authorized Multi-National Force led by a Canadian General, the RPF [Rwandan army] along with ADFL [rebel group] elements lured the ex-FAR and Interahamwe in a combat operation north of the Muganga camp (Zaire).” [52]
“If these allegations were true,” Dorn wrote, “it has a striking parallel with duplicity in the Congo mission in the 1960s. While U.N. forces were protecting the Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba as part of a U.N. operation explicitly backed (and partly paid for) by the U.S., CIA operatives in the Congo were trying to assassinate him and later backed the Army Chief Joseph Mobutu as he seized the Presidency.” [52]
“The U.S. position after the attack was clear: it wanted the mission aborted,” wrote Dorn. “The U.S. estimate of the number of remaining refugees was almost 400,000 less than the consensus figures used by the humanitarian community. Lieutenant General Maurice Baril, the Multinational Force Commander, was suspicious of U.S. reports of numbers, which were too rapidly sliding downwards. Members of the I&R Unit had briefed him on what they believed was [U.S.] disinformation. Both the French and British officers in the Unit were tracking the numbers. France was providing figures from overflights with Mirage jets. The British officer was gaining information from U.N. agencies on the ground (e.g., UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, etc.). They both concluded that the U.S. numbers were far too low.” [52]
“One is left to wonder if a strong early U.N. intervention could have saved the Congo from the subsequent chaos and loss of over three million lives,” Dorn concluded, “or at least have mitigated the human tragedy.” [52]
Had Kagame been stopped cold in 1998, millions upon millions of Congolese people, and uncountable Rwandan people, would likely not have been raped, mutilated or killed—and the Congo would be a very different place than it is today.
Gowing’s report reads like an after-the-fact apology of why and how journalists and ‘humanitarian’ NGO’s couldn’t report the truth about the mass slaughter of Congolese IDPs and Rwandan refugees. “I had no doubt it was genocide,” he quotes one unnamed NGO insider to say. “We still had no doubt, but should we say it was genocide? No.” [52]
According to the glowing Western propaganda, the new breed of African leader was supposedly determined to steer Africa in a new direction, and it would behoove the world to allow them some latitude in their excesses. “Central Africa’s new leaders have the enormous task of reassembling nations that are among the poorest on earth, ethnically divided,” wrote Roger Winter, “riven with corruption and saturated with arms and shadowy groups willing to use those arms to gain power.” [53]
Roger Winter never failed to remind the good and caring media consumers of the West about the shadowy forces of evil who are ‘saturated with arms’ and—unlike the guerrilla forces of the SPLM or the NRM or the RPF (or Roger Winter himself)—willing to use these arms to destroy all the good that had been ostensibly achieved through Roger Winter’s selfless dedication to human rights and statecraft.
“The military in Rwanda is more willing to listen to criticism if we acknowledge the difficulties they face in waging counterinsurgency wars,” Winter added, again casting the criminal aggressors as the aggrieved victims. Looking back at Winter’s statements made at the time these crimes were fresh (1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, etc.), we see in his unabashed defense of the murderous ADFL guerrillas—themselves comprised mostly of the RPF and UPDF and some smaller numbers of Eritrean, Ethiopian and SPLM regulars—a conscious admission that massive atrocities had been and were still being committed. Yet Winter apologizes away all responsibility. [53]
Does Roger Winter ever suggest that the United States or Israel should acknowledge the difficulties that the Government of Sudan faces in waging its “genocidal counterinsurgency war” against the SPLM?
“It seems certain that thousands of Rwandan refugees and genocidaires (those who commit genocide) were killed last year [1997] during the civil war [sic] that brought Congo’s new leaders to power,” Winter wrote. “Less certain is whether [Laurent] Kabila and his colleagues [Kagame, Museveni] actively sought to kill refugees—or whether the deaths resulted from poor military tactics, lack of troop discipline or the actions of foreign soldiers. A U.N. human rights investigation is examining those questions.”
Roger Winter had it both ways. He regularly described Kagame and the RPF as highly disciplined and responsible, good-intentioned and cooperative, open to human rights monitoring. Here he is dismissing the brutal slaughter and the hunting down and killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent and unarmed Hutu civilians—mostly women and children—on the grounds that perhaps the ADFL [read: RPF] were suffering from “poor military tactics” or “lack of troop discipline.” We should excuse the RPF, faced with “the difficulties of waging counterinsurgency war,” but when the Government of Sudan is faced with counterinsurgency war they are guilty of genocide. [53]
Pochalla, south Sudan: Suffering Ethiopian refugees get a sermon in 2004. Photo c. keith harmon snow, 2004.
While we observe these rationalizations of cold-blooded murder, remember that Roger Winter ostensibly worked as an advocate for refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs), employed by an organization called the U.S. Committee for Refugees. According to his supposed job description—ever touted by the western press and U.S. State Department—Winter was an advocate for vulnerable people caught up in the maelstrom of war. However, he behaves instead like an apologist for murder who blames the victims and protects their killers.
“For more on this story we are joined by Roger Winter, the director of the U.S. Committee for Refugees, a private, non-profit organization advocating protection and assistance of displaced persons,” reported National Public Radio icon Charlyne Hunter-Gault on May 17, 1997. “He spent almost two weeks with the leader of the rebel movement, Laurent Kabila, since the conflict began more than four months ago.” [54]
Charlayne Hunter-Gault advanced several lines of disinformation already put in motion by the U.S. State Department and its subservient western media organizations. First was the idea Laurent Kabila was the ‘leader of the rebel movement’, the ADFL. This fiction was peddled with the utmost seriousness in the western press. Combined with the Psy-Op that this was a ‘homegrown rebellion’ against President Mobutu, this served to render Kagame, Kabarebe, Museveni, Salim Saleh and the real ADFL leadership invisible. Even more invisible, then, was the Pentagon’s involvement. [54]
Second was the false theme that Roger Winter had only recently established communications with the ADFL ‘rebels’, and this around the time of the fall of the city of Kisangani—some eight months into the genocidal campaign against the Hutu refugees in Congo-Zaire’s forests. In reality, Winter was in constant liaison with the U.S.-backed RPF rebels as they invaded Congo-Zaire from Rwanda. As previously noted, Winter’s comraderie with the RPF power structure was established as early as 1988 in Washington D.C., and he was no stranger to RPF operations zones during the four year civil war (1990-1994) in Rwanda.
Deflecting the gaze of western media consumers from seeing the truth—that this is a western-backed invasion led by a western proxy army in contravention of international law—Charlayne Hunter-Gault asks the standard leading question about Tutsis being under attack, falsely framing the discussion of war and plunder in Congo-Zaire around the need to protect Tutsi people from genocide of the kind that (we were all told) spontaneously erupted in Rwanda. “Because this started,” Charlayne Hunter-Gault points out, “of course, when the Tutsis in the Eastern part of Zaire were threatened with expulsion by Mobutu, rose up in arms, and so [Kabila] joined that.” [54]
“Exactly. What happened was, in my view, that what was triggered, the fuse was lit by this so-called planned expulsion of the Banyamulenge, this Tutsi population you’re talking about,” Roger Winter duplicitously explains. “But it’s rapidly evolved far beyond the Tutsi issue or Rwanda-related issue, as a lot of outsiders would seek to make it. What it’s become is a struggle for a new Zaire. That’s what’s unfolding right now. And it’s important to have that as the context, not some exterior outside forces.” [54]
Roger Winter’s deceptions run deep. To begin with, the whole notion of Banyamulenge rights in Congo-Zaire is highly contested. Instead, the pro-Tutsi agenda uses the argument of an ever present threat of a Tutsi genocide in Congo-Zaire as carte-blanche justification for Kagame’s military operations in eastern Congo. In the PBS Newshour interview with Charlayne Hunter-Gault, Winter revealed that he had visited ‘rebel’ bases, plural, a remarkable impossibility for your average humanitarian aid worker, made possible in fact by Roger Winter’s close association with the rebels, the U.S. military and the intelligence establishment. This is the profile of a covert operator, a cold warrior, an Iran-contra gunrunner type outfitting rebels and providing a liaison for logistics and communications in low-intensity wars. [54]
Rwanda, Congo-Zaire, Sudan—Roger Winter ran a covert arms operation for the United States military, funding and supplying and advising guerrillas in-low intensity warfare.
“Well, let me say when I was with [Kabila] the last week or so of January,” Winter said, “it was very clear to me that young [Congolese] men of all ethnic stripes from all over the country were rallying to that cause. I went to some military training bases, and the young men who were training were not Tutsi. They were from Chaba. They were from all over the country, and exiles returning. He was setting up a civil structure to govern, as it were, the areas that were under his control, and the great bulk of the people were not Banyamulenge. They were from all over the country.” [54]
In fact, the ‘rebels’ were most heavily drawn from the ranks of the RPF and UPDF, with assorted Ethiopian, Eritrean and SPLA regulars, and some Congolese Tutsis (Banyamulenge). In fact, there were also plenty of Congolese boys—the ‘kidogo‘ child soldiers—and these were intentionally armed and sent to the frontlines where they were meant to draw enemy fire. The kidogo—the Sons of Congo—were sacrificed, in cold blood.
Roger Winter was on the ground in eastern Congo during the RPF attacks on refugee camps, shuttling back and forth between the Kivu provinces and the U.S. embassy and RPF headquarters in Rwanda.
According to professor Filip Reyntjens, one of the foremost experts on Central African affairs: on 16 November 1996, “the day after the attack against Mugunga refugee camp, Roger Winter organised a meeting between Laurent Kabila, the ADFL figurehead, and U.S. special envoy Ambassador Richard Bogosian, Ambassador Robert Gribbin, and a U.S. military colonel reporting to U.S. General Edwin P. Smith military and U.S. diplomats.” Dr. Reyntjens exposes the false statements made by Ambassador Gribbin and General Smith. Major Richard Orth, a long time agent of the Defense Intelligence Agency, was an ardent RPF collaborator, to the point of embarrassing the U.S. State Department. [55]
U.S. Major-General Edward Smith stated categorically that aerial and satellite reconnaissance backed the US claim that almost all the refugees had returned to Rwanda. The Pentagon and U.S. State Department’s recent production of satellite images for anti-Hutu asylum removals in the U.S. is striking evidence that the U.S. has superior intelligence about what was happening where and when. [50]
Knowing perfectly well that U.S. covert forces and military advisers were on the ground in support of the RPF invasion, Winter produced disinformation to counter international efforts to provide a multinational peacekeeping force to intervene to protect some 1.2 million Hutu refugees in eastern Congo-Zaire. In another USCR production co-signed by Jeff Drumtra Winter wrote: “We should only send troops to eastern Zaire if their purpose is to disarm Rwandan Hutu killers who participated in the 1994 genocide.” [56]
Winter sold the same disingenuous line used in Rwanda in 1994: an international peacekeeping force would only strengthen the ‘Rwandan Hutu killers’. “As long as the international force pledges not to confront the killers,” Winter wrote, November 21, 1996, clearly working on behalf of the RPF and not for the protection of vulnerable Rwandan and Congolese populations, “the force would not be useful and could be counterproductive.” [56]
Winter was not the only one who lied. U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson and Madeleine Albright did their share, lying through their teeth about the Pentagon’s holocaust in Zaire.
Winter then redoubled the lies, providing doublespeak about Pentagon forces being deployed to ostensibly protect Rwandan Hutu refugees that were forced back to Rwanda, and downplaying the numbers of returning Hutu refugees: “U.S. officials have indicated that a small American military contingent will help provide humanitarian assistance inside Rwanda to 600,000 former refugees who have returned home in the past week.” [56]
Translated to tactical and strategic military language: The RPF wanted a clear path to dominate the enemy–eliminating as many Hutu people as possible–and achieve a decisive military victory. Hutu refugees were not only slaughtered in Congo-Zaire, but also on return to Rwanda.
Roger Winter was blatantly supporting the RPF military campaign, while disingenuously arguing that it best served the interests of millions of Rwandan survivors. These were absolutely destitute human beings, ematiated, hopeless and sick after months of intentional starvation under an macabre UNHCR policy of intentional withholding of food in the camps in eastern Congo: the World Food Program rations were stored over the summer of 1996 and only disbursed to arriving RPF troops in September and October. These were the survivors of the RPF bombing campaign against the refugee camps–survivors of some 6 years of persecution and terrorism against them that began with the RPF invasion of October 1990.
Kagame complained that an international force deployed to eastern Congo-Zaire might strengthen his adversaries and inhibit the RPF’s absolute victory. These strategic objectives had previously been demonstrated to succeed: between April and July of 1994, Kagame threatened the international community promising that the RPF would attack U.N. troops if the United Nations Assistance Mission to Rwanda (UNAMIR II) was expanded and strengthened. Instead, UNAMIR was gutted. As evidence of their belligerence–and their determination to annihilate the Rwandan masses–RPF troops engaged in combat with the French-led forces from the U.N.-authorized ‘Operation Turquoise’ dispatched on June 21, 1994 to create a safe zone’ in the southern prefectures of Rwanda.
Congolese Armed Forces (FARDC) in North Kivu: The U.N. creation of FARDC ‘integrated’ brigades offered the perfect ‘Trojan Horse’ to facilitate Rwandan military infiltration of eastern Congo. Photo c. keith harmon snow 2005.
Following suit in Congo-Zaire in 1996, Kagame’s RPF troops and Pentagon backers similarly lobbied to prevent international forces from being deployed to provide any humanitarian protection for the millions of refugees. Roger Winter was their point man in Washington, their leading advocate in the propaganda diplomacy to win hearts and minds for the RPF plans, and he is culpable in the subsequent war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide that have occurred in the Great Lakes since, beginning with the first UPDF invasion of Rwanda of 1 October 1990 and up to the present day Rwandan occupation of eastern Congo.
While the Pentagon and U.S. State Department and the U.N. Security Council feigned concern for some 1.2 million Rwandan refugees in eastern Congo-Zaire in the fall of 1996, they had no real intention of doing anything but stalling, enabling the RPF to advance the invasion as the Pentagon proxy. This involved U.S. covert forces, heavy weaponry provided by Washington, troop deployments supported by C-130 aircraft, and state-of-the-art Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) support, including massive satellite dishes installed on Idjwe Island in Lake Kivu and in the Ruwenzori Mountains on the Uganda border.
Roger Winter’s ploy for the RPF succeeded in forestalling a multinational intervention. The western press seized on the idea that western policy-makers could do nothing but stall and argue about who would pay for ‘humanitarian’ troop deployments.
Winter and the USCR also engaged in the sinister campaign to convince the world that hundreds of thousands of refugees from Rwanda and Burundi–now mixed with hundreds of thousands of IDPs from Congo–were few in number, had all neatly crossed the border back to ‘safety’ in Rwanda and Burundi, or simply could not be found. Again, nothing could have been further from the ugly truth. [56]
“Uncertainty persists about the number, locations, and condition of Rwandan refugees in Zaire in the aftermath of violence in the past month. Several hundred thousand Zairians have also been affected by the violence,” Roger Winter and Jeff Drumtra stated in the USCR report of November 21, 1996. [56]
Winter’s USCR communiqué of November 26, 1996 responded directly to the international debate about the massive discrepancies in the estimates of the numbers of refugees (and IDPs) remaining in Congo-Zaire. However, Roger Winter further advocated that the only reasonable and effective solution to aiding these refugees (and IDPs) was to negotiate with the ADFL rebels for “improved access by humanitarian workers into eastern Zaire using Rwanda as a staging base for humanitarian supplies.” This advocacy relied on the oft-stated premise that the RPF military were the good guys, that they had “stopped the [Tutsi] genocide of 1994,” and it relied on the Psy-Op that the RPF was a disciplined, responsible and accountable fighting force that could be trusted to do the right thing according to international norms. [56]
In this disinformation communiqué, Winter proposed that the numbers of uprooted Rwandan, Burundian and Zairean people remaining in eastern Zaire were between 510,000 and 950,000. He also reported that the USCR had conducted nine site visits to eastern Zaire and Rwanda since 1994–making it clear that Winter maintained a constant presence in the region.
While covering up the massive RPF atrocities and U.S. covert forces machine-gunning of Rwandan refugees and Congolese civilians from Bukavu to Kisangani and all the way across the vast Congo, the western propaganda system finally declared that the refugees had rescued themselves. Nothing could have been further from the truth.
“Americans can be forgiven if they are frequently confused about foreign policy,” wrote the U.S. State Department media conduit Johanna McGreary, who uses journalism as her cover . “Like last week, when the pictures and the words looked remarkably out of synch to anyone trying to make sense of events in Africa. There was Bill Clinton announcing that the U.S. would participate ‘in principle’ in an international military force to rescue more than half a million sick and starving Rwandan refugees caught up in brutal tribal war. Even as he spoke, hundreds of thousands of them appeared on TV screens, marching safely out of Zaire back across the border to the homeland they had fled two years [earlier].” [57]
Time Magazine November 25, 1996: “How Should we help? In Zaire, refugees rescued themselves.”
Amongst the most egregious and offensive examples of the contempt, arrogance and white supremacy of the capitalist media system, this ‘news’ feature was published even as hundreds of thousands of innocent refugees–mostly women and children–were being hunted down and killed by the U.S. proxy forces directed by Roger Winter.
Over the next nine months, Hutu refugees who fled westward into Congo’s forests were hunted all across the vast Congo, into Central African Republic and Congo-Brazzaville. With a bounty in U.S. dollars paid by UNHCR, they were even hunted in Gabon, Cameroon, Angola and Zambia.
“In northwest Rwanda, reports suggest that government troops have killed thousands of people during counterinsurgency operations,” Winter continued, not specifying the year(s) he is referring to, as he in turns performs mental gymnastics to shield the RPF and UPDF domestic terror operations inside Rwanda. [56]
The Kagame/Museveni war machine massacred at least tens of thousands of Rwandans (mostly but not only Hutus) as it invaded northern Rwanda from Uganda, 1990-1994, and these were not “counterinsurgency operations”, but insurgency. Declassified documents produced by relief organizations during the so-called ‘100 days of genocide’ in 1994 show that it was the RPF killing Hutus–and not genocidal Interahamwe or the Hutu Armed Forces of Rwanda (FAR) killing Tutsis–and dumping the bodies in the Kagera River of northwest Rwanda. [50]
Throughout the late summer and fall of 1994 the RPF continued to commit massive atrocities against the population, documented in part by the infamous Robert Gersony, a highly respected consultant hired by UNHCR, whose then unwelcome report remains buried in the bowels of the United Nations. The premeditated mass murders at Kibeho in 1995 followed. In 1996 and 1997 scores of thousands, at the very least, of refugees returning from Congo-Zaire (the survivors of the coordinated RPF attacks against refugee camps in Zaire) were slaughtered in Rwanda’s Volcanoes National Park. [50]
In the end, Roger Winter sounds more like the Council of Wonk’s Goebbels-esque Minister of Propaganda, Dr. Eric Reeves. “What is less clear is the extent to which the killings are intentional massacres, or whether genocidaire insurgents are again using civilian populations as human shields in combat zones.” [56]
‘Genocidaires’ are Hutus by international consensus, and Hutus are genocidaires by international consensus, and genocidaire is the code word used to describe the local bogeyman ever out to destroy democracy in the Great Lakes theater.
Does anyone see the irony in Roger Winter’s suggestion that Rwandan genocidaire insurgents are “again using civilian populations as human shields in combat zones?” Such is exactly the modus operandi of the SPLM. Classic guerrilla warfare as practiced by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement has been premised on the SPLM’s ability to disappear into the vast landscape and become invisible amidst the civilian populations of South Sudan.
This is classic low-intensity warfare, and it is combined with modern propaganda, psychological operations, electioneering, and ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’ promotion by means of the distrubution of large sums of cash, the purchasing of local agents and the commodification of civil society through punishment and reward.
The recent “Arab Spring” uprisings in Khartoum signal further destabilization by the U.S. and its allies. The SPLA have been armed and are being prepared to complete the mission of regime change in Sudan. It happened the same, slightly differently, in Rwanda.
This is how the United States of America, Canada, Britain, our European allies, and Israel, have carved a ‘newly independent state’ out of the formerly autonomous sovereign nation of Sudan. This is how the same western alliance used low-intensity warfare to bring disaster capitalism to first Uganda, then Rwanda, and then the Congo. Wonkfare in America, warfare in Africa. It is time to issue indictments. ~
keith harmon snow is a war correspondent, photographer and independent investigator, and a four time Project Censored award winner. He is the 2009 Regent’s Lecturer in Law & Society at the University of California Santa Barbara, recognized for over a decade of work, outside of academia, contesting official narratives on war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide while also working as a genocide investigator for the United Nations and other bodies. He has worked extensively in the Great Lakes region of Africa. From 2004 to 2006 he worked as a consultant for Genocide Watch and Survivor’s Rights International, and he traveled to south Sudan in 2004. He worked as genocide investigator for the United Nations in Ethiopia in 2005.
NOTES:
[1] Rebecca Hamilton, Fighting for Darfur: Public Action and the Struggle to Stop Genocide, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
[2] Steve Weissman, “Rwanda – Whose Genocide?” truthout, March 31, 2004. Stephen R. Weissman, formerly Staff Director of the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Africa, has been a senior governance adviser to the U.S. Agency for International Development, associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Ford Foundation program officer.
[3] Max and Paul Warburg and other associates financed the rise of Adolph Hitler. While German members of the Warburg organizations affiliated with I.G. Farben were tried and convicted at Nuremburg, neither Max nor Paul nor any of their top affiliates at the U.S. subsidiary of I.G. Farben were ever charged. See, e.g.: Antony C. Sutton, The Empire of I.G. Farben: Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Clairview Books, 2010.
[4] The Aspen Institute has hosted Rwanda’s president Paul Kagame, and it’s board of directors include Nicholas Kristof (the Darfur, Sudan ‘genocide’ Pulitzer winner) and Madeleine Albright (former Secretary of State during the Clinton administration’s covert operations in Africa). The Aspen Institute describes itself as an “international non-profit organization dedicated to informed dialogue and inquiry on issues of global concern.” However, along with Fareed Zacharia–whose productions in Newsweek support some of the West’s most flagrant Psy-Ops against Western ‘news’ consumers–are a whole phalanx of defense and intelligence operatives. Most notable in relation to wars and interventions in Africa include Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former CIA Director John Deutch, former Secretary of Defense William Perry (1994-1997), and New York Times Corporation ‘journalist’ Nicholas Kristof.
[5] Eliza Griswold, “The Man For a New Sudan,” New York Times Magazine, June 15, 2008.
[6] For this story, all subversive guerrilla campaigns will be identified using the names of their political wings: SPLM, NRM, RPF, and ADFL. The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) is the political wing of former commander John Garang’s guerrilla forces called the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA). The National Resistance Movement (NRM) was the political wing of Yoweri Museveni’s guerrilla forces called the National Resistance Army (NRA); after 1986, the NRA were renamed the Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF). The Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) was the political wing of Paul Kagame’s guerrilla forces called the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA). The ADFL refers to the acronym attached to the forces of the Alliance for the Democratic Liberation of Congo-Zaire, though these were comprised most heavily of RPA and UPDF regulars, virtually all of whom came from Uganda.
[7] Wayne Madsen, Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa, 1993-1999, Mellon Press, 1999: p. 463. [8] See, e.g., keith harmon snow, “The Winter of Bashir’s Discontent: AFRICOM’s Covert War in Sudan,” AllThingsPass.com, March 4, 2009.
[9] Daniel Siryoti, Shlomo Cesana, The Associated Press and Israel Hayom Staff, “Israeli ‘Elements’ reported to be Arming South Sudan Army,” Israel Hayom, August 8, 2012.
[10] See: keith harmon snow, “Gertler’s Bling Bang Torah Gang: Israel and the Ongoing Holocaust in Congo,” Dissident Voice, February 9, 2008.
[11] Personal communication, Luke Chuol, July 31, 2012.
[12] William I. Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, U.S. Intervention, and Hegemony, Cambridge University Press, 1996: p. 82.
[13] Eric Thomas Chester, Covert Network: Progressives, the International Rescue Committee, and the CIA, M.E. Sharpe, 1994.
[14] USAID operative Brian D’Silva and Department of State operative Ted Dagne will not be addressed at length in this report. According to their own bios: Brian D’Silva has over 25 years of experience working on Sudan issues and in Sudan. He served as Ford Foundation Visiting Professor at the University of Khartoum and also with USAID/Sudan in Khartoum in the 1980s. In the 1990′s, he worked on Sudan issues from USAID’s Regional Office in Nairobi. Ted Dagne is Specialist in International Relations, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade at the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the U.S Congress. Ted has also served as a Professional Staff Member for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and as Special Adviser to U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan and to the Assistant Secretary of State, Department of State. Ted has conducted over 2,000 major studies on African affairs and he is the Associate Editor of the Mediterranean Quarterly Journal.
[15] James A. Chapman, et al, Agriculture and Natural Resources Strategy Assessment, Chemonics International, for USAID Project No. 650-0071-3-30123, December 1987.
[15-a] See, e.g., keith harmon snow, Oil in Darfur? Covert Ops in Somalia? The New Old Humanitarian Warfare in Africa, Global Research, February 7, 2007.
[15-b] Eric Reeves, “Regime Change in Sudan,” Washington Post, 23 August 2004: p. A15.
[16] J.F. Pirro, “John Prendergast: A Larger-Than-Life Humanitarian With an Undying Mission,” Mainline Today, November 16, 2011.
[17] Dr. Yaa-Lengi Ngemi and the CongoCoalition’s letter to editor Hobart Rowland and writer J.F. Pirro were posted on the article on December 15, 2011, but were subsequently deleted. The letter is reproduced here in full:
[Dear Hobart Rowland:
About J.F. Pirro describing John Prendergast [JP]: Since 2000 when we published our book, GENOCIDE IN THE CONGO, we have struggled to raise the issue of Gongo genocide by attempting to expose the criminals, their sponsors, and their apologists. It has been a long struggle because those dying are Africans and Black while those benefiting are mostly whites outside of Africa. And, until a white person sees the little 9 year-old African girl being gang raped as his own little daughter or the 30 year-old woman who is gang-raped then mutilated then her genitals carved off and carried away as his own wife or sister, until then, white journalists and “activists” can only scratch each other’s back, blow each other’s trumpet in order to make themselves feel good, raise money, hobnob all over the world giving the poor and the downtrodden scraps left over after they have enjoyed the money they raise in the name of “doing good” or “preventing genocide and crimes against humanity” instead of STOPPING the genocide going on RIGHT NOW.
Take your subject, JP, whom we have confronted in New York City (Columbia University) and Washington D.C. (a few times). While you sing his praises, the Congolese people who have been dying since 1996 have NO use of JP, though he might go by there and spread some crumbs around from the money he raises and lives by. WHY? Let me put it this way for you to understand: It’s like raising money to feed someone in chains and who is being tortured everyday instead of denouncing and getting rid of the brutes torturing the man.
To wit, your JP has NEVER denounced his former boss Bill Clinton who was behind the invasion of the Congo in 1996, in the first place (watch on Youtube “Crisis in the Congo: Uncovering the Truth”, so you can get an idea; with apologies to a great friend of mine who, rightly, feels the video does not give the whole truth).
Neither has your JP ever before denounced Paul Kagame–Bill Clinton’s personal friend and Hitler-in-Chief–for the millions of Congolese dead at his hands, nor exposed Hyppolite Kanambe, the former intelligence officer in Paul Kagame’s army who was set up in the Congo as “president”, a.k.a. “Joseph Kabila”.
We confronted your JP and he couldn’t defend his stance. Now he is beginning to “mention” Rwanda and Uganda; however, Enough Project continues with its line of business: Do not denounce Bill Clinton, Kagame, Museveni, Kanambe, or the multinationals, and do not call the world governments (who actually are behind the genocide in the first place) to either demand that Kagame and Museveni get out of the Congo and carry their Trojan Horse, Kanambe “Kabila” with them or that the world governments go in the Congo, as they did in Europe against the Nazis, and kick out the Rwandans, the Ugandans, and Hyppolite Kanambe who have been slaughtering the Congolese.
We understand, of course, that the views of Black Africans like us won’t make either your JP or his former master Bill Clinton loose his sleep over the millions of Conglese killed while they trot all over the place as “humanitarians”. Thus the Genocide in the Congo goes on, the gang rapes continue, and Enough blames it on “minerals” and promotes laws on “minerals” (they won’t even demand that the US Congress implements Law 109-456 that was signed by George W. Bush in 2006 because it will expose their sponsors. Just imagine, if, during the European holocaust, the world had talked about passing laws to denounce the use of Jews in the factories in Germany instead of denouncing and going in there to get rid of Hitler and his killing machine.
Yeah, as you wrote, “whatever it takes to raise the funding”, that’s what Bill Clinton, your JP, and their likes are all about. And, whether the Clooneys, the Mia Farrows, the Ryan Coslings, and their likes embrace the Bill Clintons and your JP out of blind admiration or ignorance, that’s between them and the Almighty GOD (I, too, voted for Bill Clinton twice, but I’d rather denounce him after I found out the Truth, than end up as the Rich Man in Hell begging Lazarus for some H2O through Abraham).
Now, keep in mind that there are whites who, like Keith Harmon Snow, have decided that WE ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS AND GOD’S CREATION so, they will denounce anyone, Black or white, who pussy-foot around instead of denouncing and acting to rid the world of those funding, promoting, committing, and apologizing for the GENOCIDE anywhere in the world like that of the Africans in the Congo. Them we embrace and pray that the Good Lord strengthen them and protect them. And, those like you, we pray that either you be converted to the Truth or may the Great God deal with you however he sees FIT.
Prof. Yaa-Lengi Ngemi, President of Congo Coalition and author of Genocide in the Congo.]
[18] Rebecca Hamilton, “Special Report: The Wonks Who Sold Washington on Sudan,” Reuters, July 11, 2012.
[19] Eric Reeves, “Genocide’s Victory,” Op/Ed, Boston Globe, December 8, 2007.
[20] “Fascism is only the organized political expression of the structure of the average man’s character. It is the basic emotional attitude of the suppressed man of our authoritarian machine-civilization and its mechanistic-mystical conception of life.” Wilhem Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism (Die Massenpsychologie des Faschismus), 1933.
[21] Rebecca Hamilton, Fighting for Darfur: Public Action and the Struggle to Stop Genocide, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011: p. 139.
[21-a] Five different perspectives on the ongoing crisis in the Darfur region explore the ethical and political questions behind popular calls for humanitarian intervention and regime change in Sudan. Panelists include: Co-Director of the IAC in New York, Sara Flounders; Professor of Anthropology, Dr. Elliot Fratkin; investigative journalist, Keith Harmon Snow; researcher on war crimes, Dimitri Oram; and Associate Professor of Anthropology, Enoch Page. This event on the crisis in Darfur was held on July 6, 2006 at Smith College in Massachusetts. Listen to the panel presentations reproduced on KPFA’s Guns & Butter radio show in two parts on August 16 & 23, 2006: Part one: <http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/22236>; part two: <http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/22351>.
[22] See, for example: keith harmon snow, “Oil in Darfur? Special Ops in Somalia? The New Old “Humanitarian” Warfare in Africa,” February 1, 2007; and “Merchant’s of Death: Exposing Corporate-Financed Holocaust in Africa,” Global Research, December 7, 2008.
[23] See, for example, the discussion of Nicholas Kristof’s propaganda in: keith harmon snow, “Petroleum and Empire in North Africa: Muammar Gaddafi Accused of Genocide? NATO Invasion Underway,” ConciousBeingAlliance, March 3, 2011.
[24] Personal communication, Rene Lemarchand, August 2, 2012. René Lemarchand is a French political scientist who is known for his research on ethnic conflict and genocide in Rwanda, Burundi and Darfur. He is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Florida, and has worked as a USAID consultant in Côte d’Ivoire (1992-1996) and Ghana (1997-1998).
[25] Roger Rosenblatt & Sebastio Salgado’s story, “The Last Place on Earth,” Vanity Fair, July 1993, was turned into a coffee table picture book published in December 1994.
[26] See, e.g., Ann Garrison, “South Sudan Independence? Really?” July 10, 2010; and Profile: Joseph C. Wilson, Africa Confidential, accessed December 11, 2010.
[27] Prendergast et al, Sudan: The Lost Boys: Child Soldiers and Unaccompanied Boys in Southern Sudan, Human Rights Watch, Vol. 6, No. 10, November 1994.
[28] Makau Mutua, Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.
[29] John Prendergast, Not On Our Watch: The Mission to End Genocide in Darfur and Beyond, Hyperion, 2007: p. 142-143.
[30] Director of U.S. Committee for Refugees to Present Lecture, Press Release, Smith College, March, 1999.
[31] Prior to Public Talk, Smith Professor to be Honored for Sudan Advocacy, Press Release, Smith College, October 16, 2000.
[32] While warning the reader that Mahmood Mamdani’s scholarship as regards Sudan and the Great Lakes of Africa is compromised by his formerly close relationship to Yoweri Museveni and Paul Kagame and the NRM during the bush war (1980-1986) and years after (1986-1996), the reader can find an excellent accounting of Dr. Eric Reeves’ disinformation and manipulation of mortality statistics in: Mahmood Mamdani, Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics & the War on Terror, Pantheon, 2009.
[33] AMERICA’S SUDAN POLICY: A NEW DIRECTION? JOINT HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, MARCH 28, 2001, Serial No. 107-8.
[34] “Sudan/Britain: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service,” Africa Confidential, January 2005.
[35] “Former U.S. Envoy Calls for Military Action Against Sudan,” Sudan Tribune, June 16, 2011.
[36] Eoin Butler, “Our Man in South Sudan,” The Irish Times, Saturday December 17, 2011, <http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/magazine/2011/1217/1224309123073.html>.
[37] See: USAID Photo gallery, “Sudan: Disseminating the Peace,” USAID web site, 2006, http://gemini.info.usaid.gov/photos/displayimage.php?pos=-894.
[38] “Sudan Mirror Sheds Light:” http://www.wfd.org/case-studies/sudan-mirror-sheds-light.aspx.
[39] 2009 interview with Dan Eiffe, publisher of Sudan Mirror, part 1: http://citizenshift.org/interview-dan-eiffe-publisher-sudan-mirror-nairobi-kenya; part 2: http://citizenshift.org/interview-dan-eiffe-part-2-publisher-sudan-mirror; and part 3: http://citizenshift.org/node/23679&term_tid=54.
[40] Daniel Pipes and Patrick Clawson, “Interview with Elliott Abrams: ‘Religious Freedom is More Important Today’,” Middle East Quarterly , Winter 2001.
[41] Christopher Hitchens, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, Verso, 2001.
[42] “Pseudo-operations” were developed, defined and practiced during the so-called ‘Mau Mau insurgency” by British military commander Frank Kitson, and their efficacy did not escape notice of the Pentagon. See, for example: Frank Kitson, Gangs and Counter-Gangs, London: Barrie and Rockliff, 1960; Frank Kitson, Low-Intensity Operations: Subversion, Insurgency & Peacekeeping, Faber & Faber, 1971; and Kline, Pseudo-Operations and Counter-Insurgency: Lessons from Other Countries, U.S. Army War College External Research Associates Program, June 2005.
[43] See: keith harmon snow, “The Rwanda Genocide Fabrications: Human Rights Watch, Alison Des Forges and Disinformation on Central Africa,” Dissident Voice, April 13, 2009.
[44] See, e.g., Roger Winter, “Power, not tribalism, stokes Rwanda’s slaughter,”The Globe and Mail, April 14,1994 (reprinted by the US Comrnittee for Refugees, Washington, D.C.).
[45] Roger Winter and Jeff Drumtra, “Responding to the Rwanda Crises: Declare Genocide and Other Policy Steps,” News from the U.S. Committee for Refugees, May 3, 1994–a six page USCR document “unclassified released in full” by the U.S. State Department on 8 June 2004.
[46] Roger P. Winter, “How Human Rights Groups Miss the Opportunity to do Good,” Washington Post, February 22, 1998, p. C02.
[47] Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1993-2003: Report of the Mapping Exercise documenting the most serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law committed within the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo between March 1993 and June 2003, August 2010, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/ZR/DRC_MAPPING_REPORT_FINAL_EN.pdf
[48] Philip Gourevitch, “Letter from the Congo: Continental Shift,” New Yorker, August 4, 1997.
[49] Nik Gowing, ‘Dispatches from Disaster Zones’: The reporting of Humanitarian Emergencies, Conference Paper, London, 27 and 28 May 1998.
[50] See: keith harmon snow, “Pentagon Produces Satellite Photos of 1994 Rwanda Genocide,”ConsciousBeingAlliance.com, April 6, 1994.
[51] Colum Lynch, “U.S. agents were seen with rebels in Zaire: Active participation is alleged in military overthrow of Mobutu,” Boston Globe, 8 October 1997, A2.
[52] See: A. Walter Dorn, Intelligence at UN Headquarters? The Information and Research Unit and the Intervention in Eastern Zaire 1996, Intelligence and National Security, Vol. 20, No. 3, September 2005, pp.440 – 465, <http://www.walterdorn.org/pub/31 >.
[53] Roger P. Winter, “How Human Rights Groups Miss the Opportunity to do Good,” Washington Post, February 22, 1998, p. C02.
[54] Charlayne Hunter-Gault, “Zaire in Turmoil,” PBS Newshour, May 17, 1997, <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/jan-june97/zaire_03-17.html>.
[55] Filip Reyntjens, The Great African War: Congo and Regional Geopolitics, 1996-2006, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
[56] Roger P. Winter and Jeff Drumtra, Military Deployment in Eastern Zaire Would be Misguided, USCR Press Release, 27 November 1996, <http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Urgent_Action/apic_112796.html>.
[57] Johanna McGeary, “How should we help? Humanitarian missions can’t cure political conflicts,” Time Magazine, November 25, 1996, <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,985572,00.html#ixzz22DI97Mxt>.
Related articles
- Foreign adviser to S. Sudan president flees Juba after disclosure of corruption letter (alethonews.wordpress.com)
- South Sudan pound rises after Qatari bank import deal (news.terra.com)
Two-Thirds of Planet Backs Iran Against “West”
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford | September 4, 2012
The United States and its European allies – the old imperialists and the new – tell their countries’ populations that Iran is isolated in the world, and will have to get rid of its nuclear energy infrastructure in order to be allowed back into what they call “the community of nations.” Among the power groupies that call themselves journalists in the West, Iran is routinely referred to as a “pariah” nation, lurking at the very edge of civilization and sanity. The United States, by this reasoning, is showing great wisdom and forbearance, for not having already unleashed its carrier task forces, Marine divisions, Special Forces commandos, and swarms of drones on the crazed Iranians. Instead, the U.S., in it infinite goodness, enforces a strangling economic and oil embargo, to make the Iranian nation scream.
The Iranians are lucky, Americans and Europeans are told, that the U.S. holds back its friends in Israel, who are eager to give the ayatollah’s in Tehran a lesson in how to behave. But, whatever happens at the end of this game to force Iran to give up its lawful right to own and operate the full industrial cycle of nuclear power, western audiences are assured that the “international community” will approve. After all, Iran is a global outcast. CNN and the New York Times tell us so every day.
Last week, the 120 nations of the Nonaligned Movement voted unanimously and without qualification in support of Iran’s right to produce nuclear energy, and to enrich their own uranium in the process. The Nonaligned Movement makes up about two-thirds of all the nations of the world. As a solid block of humanity, they rejected the dictates of Washington and London and Paris – the imperial powers that for centuries enslaved most of the planet – endorsing the fundamental principle that Iran has the same sovereign rights as any other nation.
Who, then, is isolated in the world – Iran, whose position is backed by two-thirds of the world’s countries, or the U.S. and Europe?
Clearly, the Americans and Europeans still believe that the only world opinion that counts, is the white world. The arrogance of the colonizer and imperialist is infinite, but their power is not – not any longer. The Nonaligned Movement vote is a global referendum, not on Iran’s lawful pursuit of its internal development policies, but on U.S. imperial bullying and criminality. Because, if Iran is within its rights, then the U.S. and the European Union are in the wrong in waging economic war, and threatening military assault, against Iran. Someone is committing a crime, and its not Iran. Two-thirds of the world says so.
The vote is all the more remarkable because the Americans and Europeans, and even the Israelis, exercise great influence over the affairs of much of what used to be called the Third World. Yet still, the former colonies and subjugated nations of the Nonaligned Movement voted unanimously, and on principle, rather than kowtow to power.
There is a lesson here. The Empire remains militarily strong and capable of great crimes. But it has lost much of its powers of coercion – without which, Empire must ultimately cease to exist.
Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.
American Jihadists and Israel’s Lone Soldiers: Come for the Perks, Stay for the War Crimes
(Margarita Korol)
By Nima Shirazi | Wide Asleep in America | August 15, 2012
In his 2011 book entitled Jihad Joe: Americans Who Go to War in the Name of Islam, author J.M Berger (purportedly in his own words) “uncovers the secret history of American jihadists.” Berger, who refers to himself as a “specialist on homegrown extremism,” tells us that these traitorous terrorists are “Muslims [who] have traveled abroad to fight in wars because of their religious beliefs.”
Please read that definition again. OK, just one more time.
Now read this from Tuesday’s New York Times:
On Tuesday, with talk rampant about the possibility of an imminent Israeli attack on Iran, Mr. [Josh] Warhit became a citizen of Israel to enlist in its army.
“Our parents were freaking out,” Mr. Warhit, now 22, recalled of that first trip [to Israel] during the war against Hezbollah. “It only made us more thirsty. I love the Jewish people. Love involves commitment. Right now we need people to commit.
“Of course it’s scary,” he added, regarding Iran, “but if you feel a commitment, that’s the thing to do.”
Warhit explains his decision to leave the country of his birth in order to join the massively American–subsidized military of a foreign state this way: “I love my family, I love my friends and I love the Jewish people. The Jewish people don’t need another Jew in suburban New York.”
Apparently, according to Warhit, what the “Jewish people” do need are more Israeli soldiers using American-bought weapons to maintain a brutal 45-year-old occupation and apartheid legal system, facilitate ethnic cleansing, impose collective punishment upon millions of civilians by way of walls, checkpoints, blockade and siege, bulldoze homes, orchards and olive groves, protect colonists in violation of international law, oppress and dominate an already devastated and dehumanized indigenous population, conduct night raids, abduct, detain, and abuse children, use sonic booms to deliberately terrorize people, wage more aggressive wars and commit more crimes against humanity with total impunity.
If that’s not terrorism then nothing is.
The article, headlined “Enlisting From Afar for the Love of Israel” and written by the Times‘ new Jerusalem Bureau Chief Jodi Rudoren, states that “Warhit, who grew up in New Rochelle, N.Y., and graduated from the University of Rochester after spending several summers in Israel, was one of 127 soldiers-to-be who landed Tuesday morning at Ben-Gurion International Airport.” The enlistees, referred to as “lone soldiers,” were given “a hero’s welcome that included a live band, balloon hats and a speech by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,” who praised them for deciding “to defend the Jewish future.”
In Jihad Joe, Berger writes, “Since 1979, American citizens have repeatedly packed their bags, left their wives and children behind, and traveled to distant lands in the name of military jihad, the armed struggle of Islam.”
Compare that to what Rudoren’s Times report tells us of the young IDF cadets who “left behind parents, girlfriends, cars and stuffed animals to become infantrymen, intelligence officers, paratroopers and pilots in a formerly foreign land.”
“Their motivation is often way higher than the average Israeli,” Colonel Shuli Ayal, who oversees the lone-soldier program, told Rudoren. “They want to make their service as meaningful as possible.”
With such zealous fervor and passionate commitment to his co-religionists and the ethnocentric, exclusivist nationalist ideology of Zionism, it is no wonder that Warhit desperately hopes to join the Givati Brigade, an IDF military unit which Rudoren innocuously writes “has been active around the Gaza Strip” over the past ten years. What she should have told her readership is that the commander of the Givati Brigade, Colonel Ilan Malka, was directly responsible for authorizing the airstrike that murdered 21 members of the Samouni family in Gaza on January 5, 2009 for which no one has been held accountable.
Soldiers in the Givati Brigade are also known to have custom t-shirts designed and printed for their units at end of training or field duty that bear such images as dead Palestinian babies, mothers weeping at their children’s graves, guns aimed at kids and destroyed mosques. These shirts glorify, celebrate, and mock the rape of Palestinian girls, the murder of Palestinian men, women (especially if they’re pregnant) and children.
An anonymous Givati soldier was recently sentenced to a mere 45 days in prison for “illegal use of a firearm,” a charge reduced from manslaughter through a plea bargain. He had willfully murdered 65 year old Ria Abu Hajaj and her 37 year old daughter Majda Hajaj, after they were ordered to evacuate their home in Juhr ad-Dik with their families during the Gaza massacre in early January 2009. They were waving white flags and moving slowly in an area in which there was no combat whatsoever when the Israeli soldier opened fire on the group of 28 Hajaj family members, which included at least 17 children. Apparently, the use of his firearm was illegal, not the execution of civilians.
Clearly, for Warhit, it’s all about the love.
The article continues, “[A]ccording to a military spokeswoman, Israel has enlisted 8,217 men and women from other countries since 2009, 1,661 of them from the United States, second only to Russia’s 1,685,” adding, “They receive a host of special benefits: three times the typical soldier’s salary, a personal day off each month, a free flight home and vouchers for holiday meals.”
How’s that for incentive? Come for the perks, stay for the war crimes.
A March 2012 article in the Jewish online journal Tablet chronicles “Aluf Stone, an organization for Diaspora-born soldiers who have served in the Israel Defense Forces” that was formed in 2008 and is affiliated with the American Veterans of Israel (which is something that apparently exists). The report quotes Aluf Stone co-founder Marc Leibowitz describing service in the Israeli military as “a specific and meaningful shared experience. Deeper than an alumni group or a fraternity, which people are fanatical about.”
Fanatical.
Leibowitz explained that most Jewish groups are wary of associating with Aluf Stone since “[n]o organization wants to be seen as if they are encouraging Americans to fight in a foreign army.” Still, the article’s writer Adam Chandler reveals, in 2011 “the group was invited by the Friends of the IDF to speak at a synagogue in New York and share their stories with an audience composed of family members of IDF soldiers from the States.”
One member of Aluf Stone told Chandler that American-born former IDF soldiers “don’t belong in U.S. veterans’ groups and networks, as they didn’t [all] serve in the American military.” Consequently, “Aluf Stone occupies an interesting middle ground in the U.S.” More accurately, perhaps, the members of Aluf Stone were actually occupying Palestine.
While it’s clear that these Jewish foreigners who join the Israeli military do so out of some sort of fervent compulsion and perceived obligation to their own religious tribe, so much so that they leave their own nation to bear arms on behalf of another, it should be noted that numerous studies have found religious ideology not to be a prime motivating factor in terrorist attacks credited to Muslims.
An unclassified study published by the Pentagon-appointed U.S. Defense Science Board on Sept. 23, 2004 determined that:
Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States.
Professor Richard Jackson of The National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies in New Zealand concurs that “terrorism is most often caused by military intervention overseas, and not religion, radicalization, insanity, ideology, poverty or such like.”
Political Science professor at the University of Chicago and founder of the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism, Robert Pape, who has conducted some of the most comprehensive research and written the most respected analysis of terrorist motivation, concluded in a 2010 study that “suicide terrorism such as that of 9/11 is particularly sensitive to foreign military occupation, and not Islamic fundamentalism or any ideology independent of this crucial circumstance.” His data reveals that “[m]ore than 95 percent of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation.”
That U.S. and Israeli policies of invasion and occupation rather than religious extremism are the guiding forces behind acts of terrorist violence is evidenced in a letter allegedly written by those responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and published in The New York Times. It stated, “This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel, the state of terrorism, and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region.”
The letter adds, “The American people are responsible for the actions of their government” and “all of the crimes that their government is committing against other people.”
Tragically, those American lone soldiers, that zealous minority of homegrown ideologues who – in J.M. Berger’s words – “travel abroad to fight in wars because of their religious beliefs,” will now be personally responsible for the actions and crimes of the Israeli government and military as well.
Context of ‘July 8-10, 1996: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu Tells Congress US Must Join Israel in ‘Democratizing’ Middle East’
History Commons
1965: Former RAND Analyst Gathers Young, Nascent Neoconservatives
Albert Wohlstetter
Albert Wohlstetter, a professor at the University of Chicago, gathers a cadre of fiery young intellectuals around him, many of whom are working and associating with the magazine publisher Irving Kristol (see 1965). Wohlstetter’s group includes Richard Perle, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Paul Wolfowitz. Wohlstetter, himself a protege of the Machiavellian academic Leo Strauss, is often considered the “intellectual godfather” of modern neoconservatism. Formerly an analyst at the RAND Corporation, Wohlstetter wielded a powerful influence on the US’s foreign policy during the heyday of the Cold War. Wohlstetter, who is believed to be one of several analysts who became a model for director Stanley Kubrick’s title character in the 1968 film Dr. Strangelove, added dramatic phrases like “fail-safe” and “second strike” capability to the US nuclear lexicon, and pushed to increase the US’s military might over what he saw as the imminent and lethal threat of Soviet nuclear strikes and the Soviet Union’s plans for global hegemony. He was such a powerful figure in his hundreds of briefings that he projected far more certainty than his facts actually supported. Though his facts and statistics were often completely wrong, he was so relentless and strident that his ideas gained more credence than they may have warranted. By 1965, he is known in some circles as a “mad genius” who is now collecting and molding young minds to follow in his footsteps. Author Craig Unger writes in 2007, “To join Team Wohlstetter, apparently, one had to embrace unquestioningly his worldviews, which eschewed old-fashioned intelligence as a basis for assessing the enemy’s intentions and military capabilities in favor of elaborate statistical models, probabilities, reasoning, systems analysis, and game theory developed at RAND.” An analyst with the Federation of Atomic Scientists will write in November 2003: “This methodology exploited to the hilt the iron law of zero margin for error.… Even a small probability of vulnerability, or a potential future vulnerability, could be presented as a virtual state of emergency.” Or as one-time Wohlstetter acolyte Jude Wanninski will later put it, “[I]f you look down the road and see a war with, say, China, twenty years off, go to war now.” Unger will observe, “It was a principle his acolytes would pursue for decades to come—with disastrous results.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 42-46]
Entity Tags: University of Chicago, Stanley Kubrick, Richard Perle, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, RAND Corporation, Leo Strauss, Albert Wohlstetter, Paul Wolfowitz, Irving Kristol, Federation of Atomic Scientists, Craig Unger, Jude Wanninski
Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence
Early 1970s: Neoconservatives Coalesce around Conservative Democratic Senator
Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson
The recently formed neoconservatives, bound together by magazine publisher Irving Kristol (see 1965), react with horror to the ascendancy of the “McGovern liberals” in the Democratic Party, and turn to conservative senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D-WA) for leadership. Jackson calls himself a “muscular Democrat”; others call him “the Senator from Boeing” for his strong support of the US defense industry. Jackson merges a strong support of labor and civil rights groups with a harsh Cold War opposition to the Soviet Union. Jackson assembles a staff of bright, young, ideologically homogeneous staffers who will later become some of the most influential and powerful neoconservatives of their generation, including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, Abram Shulsky, and Paul Wolfowitz. Jackson’s office—“the bunker,” to staffers—becomes a home for disaffected, ambitious young conservative ideologues with a missionary zeal for change. Jackson presides over the cadre in an almost fatherly fashion.
History of Two Dictators – Many of Jackson’s neoconservative disciples came of age either fighting two foreign dictators—Stalin and/or Hitler—or growing up with family members who fought against them. [Unger, 2007, pp. 35-41] Wolfowitz’s father’s family perished in the Holocaust; he will later say that what happened to European Jews during World War II “shaped a lot of my views.” [New York Times, 4/22/2002] Feith will tell the New Yorker in 2005, “[My] family got wiped out by Hitler, and… all this stuff about working things out—well, talking to Hitler to resolve the problem didn’t make any sense.” Most neoconservatives like Feith and Wolfowitz tend to look to military solutions as a first, not a last, resort. To them, compromise means appeasement, just as Britain’s Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler. Stefan Halper, a White House and State Department official in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations, will say of the neoconservatives, “It is use force first and diplomacy down the line.”
Former Trotskyites – On the other hand, many neoconservatives come to the movement from the hardline, socialist left, often from organizations that supported Bolshevik revolutionary Leon Trotsky (see Late 1930s – 1950s). Trotskyites accused Stalin of betraying the purity of the Communist vision as declaimed by Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. “I can see psychologically why it would not be difficult for them to become [conservative] hard-liners,” says Harvard Sovietologist Richard Pipes, himself a hardliner whose son, Daniel Pipes, will become an influential neoconservative. “It was in reaction to the betrayal.” Many neoconservatives like Stephen Schwartz, a writer for the Weekly Standard, still consider themselves to be loyal disciples of Trotsky. Richard Perle is a Trotskyite socialist when he joins Jackson’s staff, and will always practice what author Craig Unger calls “an insistent, uncompromising, hard-line Bolshevik style” of policy and politics. Like Trotsky, Unger writes, the neoconservatives pride themselves on being skilled bureaucratic infighters, and on trusting no one except a small cadre of like-minded believers. Disagreement is betrayal, and political struggles are always a matter of life and death. [Unger, 2007, pp. 35-41]
Entity Tags: Stefan Halper, Stephen Schwartz, Richard Pipes, Richard Perle, Neville Chamberlain, Abram Shulsky, Douglas Feith, Daniel Pipes, Craig Unger, Paul Wolfowitz, Henry (“Scoop”) Jackson, Elliott Abrams, Leon Trotsky, Irving Kristol
Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence
Summer 1972 and After: Neoconservatives Work to Toughen US Policy towards Soviet Union
Neoconservatives see Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern’s floundering campaign and eventual landslide defeat (see November 7, 1972) as emblematic of, in author Craig Unger’s words, everything that is wrong with the “defeatist, isolationist policies of the liberals who had captured the Democratic Party.” If the neoconservatives had had their way, their favorite senator, Henry “Scoop” Jackson (see Early 1970s), would have won the nomination. But the Vietnam War has put hawkish Cold Warriors like Jackson in disfavor in the party, and Jackson was set aside for the disastrous McGovern candidacy. The Republicans offer little interest themselves for the neoconservatives. Richard Nixon is enamored of one of their most hated nemeses, National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, whose “realpolitik” did nothing to excite their ideological impulses. And under Nixon, the icy Cold War is slowly thawing, with summit meetings, bilateral commissions, and arms limitations agreements continually bridging the gap between the US and the neoconservatives’ implacable foe, the Soviet Union. In Nixon’s second term, the Coalition for a Democratic Majority (CDM)—populated by Democratic neoconservatives like Jackson, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Daniel Patrick Moynihan (Nixon’s domestic adviser), Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ben Wattenberg, and James Woolsey, and joined by 1968 Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey, will pressure Nixon to adopt a tough “peace through strength” policy towards the Soviet Union. Although it will take time, and the formation of countless other organizations with similar memberships and goals, this group of neoconservatives and hawkish hardliners will succeed in marginalizing Congress, demonizing their enemies, and taking over the entire foreign policy apparatus of the US government. [Unger, 2007, pp. 47-48]
Entity Tags: Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard M. Nixon, James Woolsey, Henry (“Scoop”) Jackson, Ben Wattenberg, Coalition for a Democratic Majority, Irving Kristol, George S. McGovern, Craig Unger, Henry A. Kissinger, Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Timeline Tags: US International Relations, Neoconservative Influence
August 15, 1974: Neoconservatives Begin Moving to Influence US Foreign Policies
Conservative Democratic senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D-WA) meets with President Ford as part of a discussion about the standoff with the Soviet Union over trade and emigration of Soviet Jews to Israel. Jackson—hawkish, defense-minded, and solidly pro-Israel—sees the standoff as an opportunity to undercut Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Jackson is a forerunner of what in later years will be called “neoconservatism” (see 1965), an ideology mostly espoused by a group of Democratic lawmakers and intellectuals who have abandoned their support for Rooseveltian New Deal economics and multilateralist foreign policies (see Early 1970s). Jackson and his outspoken pro-Israel aide, Richard Perle, view Kissinger as far too conciliatory and willing to negotiate with the Communist bloc. Jackson and Perle see the Soviet Union, not the Israeli-Palestine conflict, as the chief threat to US interests in the Middle East and the control of that region’s oil fields. They see a strong, powerful Israel as essential to their plans for US domination of the region. Jackson resists a proposed compromise on the number of Soviet Jews the USSR will allow to emigrate to Israel—the Soviets offer 55,000 and Jackson insists on 75,000—and many in the meeting feel that Jackson is being deliberately recalcitrant. “It made no sense to me because it was sure to be counterproductive,” Ford later writes, “but he would not bend, and the only reason is politics.” For his part, Kissinger respects Jackson’s political abilities, but to his mind, Perle is a “ruthless… little b_stard.” Kissinger knows that Republican hawks as well as the burgeoning neoconservative movement will pressure Ford to abandon Richard Nixon’s policies of moderating relations with the Soviet Union and Communist China. But, author Barry Werth writes in 2006: “what Kissinger and now Ford would chronically underestimate was the neoconservatives’ argument that the United States should not so much seek to coexist with the Soviet system as to overthrow it through direct confrontation. Or the extent to which the neoconservatives would go to exaggerate a foreign threat and stir up fear.” [Werth, 2006, pp. 77-79]
Entity Tags: Richard M. Nixon, Barry Werth, Henry A. Kissinger, Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr, Richard Perle, Henry (“Scoop”) Jackson
Timeline Tags: US International Relations, Neoconservative Influence
Early 1976: Neoconservative ‘Team B’ of Outside Intelligence Analysts Created
Richard Pipes
After George H. W. Bush becomes the head of the CIA (see November 4, 1975 and After), he decides to break with previous decisions and allow a coterie of neoconservative outsiders to pursue the allegations of Albert Wohlstetter that the CIA is seriously underestimating the threat the USSR poses to the US (see 1965), allegations pushed by hardliners on the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
Internal Opposition – Bush’s predecessor, William Colby, had steadfastly refused to countenance such a project, saying, “It is hard for me to envisage how an ad hoc ‘independent’ group of government and non-government analysts could prepare a more thorough, comprehensive assessment of Soviet strategic capabilities—even in two specific areas—than the intelligence community can prepare.” (Bush approves the experiment by notating on the authorization memo, “Let ‘er fly!”) The national intelligence officer in charge of the National Intelligence Estimate on the USSR, Howard Stoertz, will later recall: “Most of us were opposed to it because we saw it as an ideological, political foray, not an intelligence exercise. We knew the people who were pleading for it.” But Bush, on the advice of deputy national security adviser William Hyland, agrees to the exercise. Hyland says the CIA had been getting “too much flak for being too peacenik and detentish…. I encouraged [Bush] to undertake the experiment, largely because I thought a new director ought to be receptive to new views.” The neocon team of “analysts” becomes known as “Team B,” with “Team A” being the CIA’s own analytical team. It is unprecedented to allow outsiders to have so much access to highly classified CIA intelligence as Bush is granting the Team B neocons, so the entire project is conducted in secret. CIA analyst Melvin Goodman later says that President Ford’s chief of staff, Dick Cheney, is one of the driving forces behind Team B. The outside analysts “wanted to toughen up the agency’s estimates,” Goodman will say, but “Cheney wanted to drive [the CIA] so far to the right it would never say no to the generals.” [Dubose and Bernstein, 2006, pp. 208; Unger, 2007, pp. 53-55]
Political Pressure – Ford’s political fortunes help push forward the Team B experiment. Ford has been a strong proponent of detente with the Soviet Union, but his poll numbers are sagging and he is facing a strong presidential primary challenger in Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA), an avowed hardliner. Reagan is making hay challenging Ford’s foreign policy, claiming that the so-called “Ford-Kissinger” policies have allowed the Soviet Union to leap ahead of the US both militarily and geopolitically. In response, Ford has lurched to the right, banning the word “detente” from speeches and statements by White House officials, and has been responsive to calls for action from the newly reforming Committee on the Present Danger (CPD—see 1976). In combination, these political concerns give Bush the justification he wants to push forward with the Team B experiment.
Three B Teams – According to Carter administration arms control official Anne Cahn, there are actually three “B” teams. One studies Soviet low-altitude air defense capabilities, one examines Soviet intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) accuracy, and the third, chaired by Harvard Sovietologist Richard Pipes, examines Soviet strategic policy and objectives. It is Pipes’s team that becomes publicly known as “Team B.” [Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 4/1993]
Assembling the Team – Pipes fits in well with his small group of ideological hardliners. He believes that the USSR is determined to fight and win a nuclear war with the US, and he is bent on putting together an analysis that proves his contention. He asks Cold War icon Paul Nitze, the former Secretary of the Navy, to join the team. Richard Perle, a core member, has Pipes bring in Paul Wolfowitz, one of Wohlstetter’s most devout disciples. Wolfowitz immediately begins arguing for the need to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. The “incestuous closeness” of the members, as Cahn later calls it, ensures that the entire group is focused on the same goals as Wohlstetter and Pipes, with no dissension or counterarguments. Other key members include William von Cleave and Daniel Graham. The entire experiment, Cahn will write, “was concocted by conservative cold warriors determined to bury détente and the SALT process. Panel members were all hard-liners,” and many are members of the newly reconstituted “Committee on the Present Danger” (see 1976). The experiment is “leaked to the press in an unsuccessful attempt at an ‘October surprise’ [an attempt to damage the presidential hopes of Democrat Jimmy Carter—see Late November, 1976]. But most important, the Team B reports became the intellectual foundation of ‘the window of vulnerability’ and of the massive arms buildup that began toward the end of the Carter administration and accelerated under President Reagan.” Team B will formally debate its CIA adversaries, “Team A,” towards the end of the year (see November 1976). [Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 4/1993; Quarterly Journal of Speech, 5/2006; Unger, 2007, pp. 53-55]
‘Designed to be Prejudiced’ – In 2008, author J. Peter Scoblic will note, “Team B was designed to be prejudiced.” Pipes, the Soviet experts, holds a corrosive hatred of the Soviet Union, in part stemming from his personal experiences as a young Jew in Nazi-occupied Warsaw, and his belief that the Soviet system is little different from the Nazis. When asked why his team is stacked with hardline opponents of arms negotiations and diplomacy of any kind with the USSR, Pipes replies, “There is no point in another, what you might call, optimistic view.” Scoblic will write, “Team B, in short, begged the question. Its members saw the Soviet threat not as an empirical problem but as a matter of faith.” He will add, “For three months, the members of Team B pored over the CIA’s raw intelligence data—and used them to reaffirm their beliefs.” [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 93-94]
Entity Tags: Richard Perle, Richard Pipes, William Hyland, Paul Nitze, William Colby, J. Peter Scoblic, Paul Wolfowitz, George Herbert Walker Bush, ’Team A’, ’Team B’, Anne Cahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Central Intelligence Agency, Howard Stoertz
Timeline Tags: US International Relations, Neoconservative Influence
November 1976: Team B Browbeats CIA Analysts, ‘Proves’ Soviets Far Ahead of US in Military, Nuclear Capabilities
A team of young, mid-level CIA and DIA analysts, informally dubbed “Team A,” debates the neoconservative/hardline group of outside “analysts” known as “Team B” (see Early 1976) over the CIA’s estimates of Soviet military threats and intentions. The debate is a disaster for the CIA’s group. Team B uses its intellectual firepower and established reputations of members such as Richard Pipes and Paul Nitze to intimidate, overwhelm, and browbeat the younger, more inexperienced CIA analysts. “People like Nitze ate us for lunch,” recalls one member of Team A. “It was like putting Walt Whitman High versus the [NFL’s] Redskins. I watched poor GS-13s and GS-14s [middle-level analysts with modest experience and little real influence] subjected to ridicule by Pipes and Nitze. They were browbeating the poor analysts.” Howard Stoertz, the national intelligence officer who helped coordinate and guide Team A, will say in hindsight, “If I had appreciated the adversarial nature [of Team B], I would have wheeled up different guns.” Team A had prepared for a relatively congenial session of comparative analysis and lively discussion; Team B had prepared for war.
Ideology Trumps Facts – Neither Stoertz nor anyone else in the CIA appreciated how thoroughly Team B would let ideology and personalities override fact and real data. While CIA analysts are aware of how political considerations can influence the agency’s findings, the foundation of everything they do is factual—every conclusion they draw is based on whatever facts they can glean, and they are leery of extrapolating too much from a factual set. Team A is wholly unprepared for B’s assault on their reliance on facts, a line of attack the CIA analysts find incomprehensible. “In other words,” author Craig Unger will write in 2007, “facts didn’t matter.” Pipes, the leader of Team B, has argued for years that attempting to accurately assess Soviet military strength is irrelevant. Pipes says that because it is irrefutable that the USSR intends to obliterate the US, the US must immediately begin preparing for an all-out nuclear showdown, regardless of the intelligence or the diplomatic efforts of both sides. Team B is part of that preparation. [Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 4/1993; Unger, 2007, pp. 53-57] Intelligence expert John Prados, who will examine the contesting reports, later says that while the CIA analysts believe in “an objective discoverable truth,” the Team B analysts engaged in an “exercise of reasoning from conclusions” that they justify, not in factual, but in “moral and ideological terms.” According to Prados’s analysis, Team B had no real interest in finding the truth. Instead, they employed what he calls an adversarial process similar to that used in courts of law, where two sides present their arguments and a supposedly impartial judge chooses one over the other. Team B’s intent was, in essence, to present the two opposing arguments to Washington policy makers and have them, in author J. Peter Scoblic’s words, “choose whichever truth they found most convenient.” [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 98]
Attacking the Intelligence Community – The first sentence of Team B’s report is a frontal assault on the US intelligence community. That community, the report says, had “substantially misperceived the motivations behind Soviet strategic programs, and thereby tended consistently to underestimate their intensity, scope, and implicit threat.” Team B writes that the intelligence community has failed to see—or deliberately refused to see—that the entire schema of detente and arms limitations negotiations are merely elements of the Soviet push for global domination.
Fighting and Winning a Nuclear War – Team B writes that the Soviets have already achieved measurable superiority in nuclear weaponry and other military benchmarks, and will use those advantages to cow and coerce the West into doing its bidding. The Soviets worship military power “to an extent inconceivable to the average Westerner,” the report asserts. The entire Soviet plan, the report goes on to say, hinges on its willingness to fight a nuclear war, and its absolute belief that it can win such a war. Within ten years, Team B states, “the Soviets may well expect to achieve a degree of military superiority which would permit a dramatically more aggressive pursuit of their hegemonial objectives.” [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 94-95]
Lack of Facts Merely Proof of Soviets’ Success – One example that comes up during the debate is B’s assertion that the USSR has a top-secret nonacoustic antisubmarine system. While the CIA analysts struggle to point out that absolutely no evidence of this system exists, B members conclude that not only does the USSR have such a system, it has probably “deployed some operation nonacoustic systems and will deploy more in the next few years.” The absence of evidence merely proves how secretive the Soviets are, they argue. [Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 4/1993; Unger, 2007, pp. 53-57] Anne Cahn, who will serve in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in the Carter administration, later says of this assertion, “They couldn’t say that the Soviets had acoustic means of picking up American submarines, because they couldn’t find it. So they said, well maybe they have a non-acoustic means of making our submarine fleet vulnerable. But there was no evidence that they had a non-acoustic system. They’re saying, ‘we can’t find evidence that they’re doing it the way that everyone thinks they’re doing it, so they must be doing it a different way. We don’t know what that different way is, but they must be doing it.‘… [The fact that the weapon doesn’t exist] doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It just means that we haven’t found it yet.” Cahn will give another example: “I mean, they looked at radars out in Krasnoyarsk and said, ‘This is a laser beam weapon,’ when in fact it was nothing of the sort.… And if you go through most of Team B’s specific allegations about weapons systems, and you just examine them one by one, they were all wrong.… I don’t believe anything in Team B was really true.” [Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 4/1993; Common Dreams (.org), 12/7/2004; BBC, 1/14/2005]
Soviet Strike Capabilities Grossly Exaggerated – Team B also hammers home warnings about how dangerous the Soviets’ Backfire bomber is. Later—too late for Team A—the Team B contentions about the Backfire’s range and refueling capability are proven to be grossly overestimated; it is later shown that the USSR has less than half the number of Backfires that B members loudly assert exist (500 in Team B’s estimation, 235 in reality). B’s assertions of how effectively the Soviets could strike at US missile silos are similarly exaggerated, and based on flawed assessment techniques long rejected by the CIA. The only hard evidence Team B produces to back their assertions is the official Soviet training manual, which claims that their air-defense system is fully integrated and functions flawlessly. The B analysts even assert, without evidence, that the Soviets have successfully tested laser and charged particle beam (CPB) weapons. [Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 4/1993; Quarterly Journal of Speech, 5/2006 ] (The facility at Semipalatansk that is supposedly testing these laser weapons for deployment is in reality a test site for nuclear-powered rocket engines.) [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 96]
Fundamental Contradiction – One befuddling conclusion of Team B concerns the Soviets’ ability to continue building new and expensive weapons. While B acknowledges “that the Soviet Union is in severe decline,” paradoxically, its members argue that the threat from the USSR is imminent and will grow ever more so because it is a wealthy country with “a large and expanding Gross National Product.”
Allegations ‘Complete Fiction’ – The CIA lambasts Team B’s report as “complete fiction.” CIA director George H. W. Bush says that B’s approach “lends itself to manipulation for purposes other than estimative accuracy.” His successor, Admiral Stansfield Turner, will come to the same conclusion, saying, “Team B was composed of outsiders with a right-wing ideological bent. The intention was to promote competition by polarizing the teams. It failed. The CIA teams, knowing that the outsiders on B would take extreme views, tended to do the same in self-defense. When B felt frustrated over its inability to prevail, one of its members leaked much of the secret material of the proceedings to the press” (see Late November, 1976). Former CIA deputy director Ray Cline says Team B had subverted the National Intelligence Estimate on the USSR by employing “a kangaroo court of outside critics all picked from one point of view.” Secretary of State Henry Kissinger says that B’s only purpose is to subvert detente and sabotage a new arms limitation treaty between the US and the Soviet Union. [Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 4/1993; Common Dreams (.org), 12/7/2004; BBC, 1/14/2005; Quarterly Journal of Speech, 5/2006 ; Unger, 2007, pp. 53-57]
Costs of Rearmament – In 1993, after reviewing the original Team B documents, Cahn will reflect on the effect of the B exercise: “For more than a third of a century, assertions of Soviet superiority created calls for the United States to ‘rearm.’ In the 1980s, the call was heeded so thoroughly that the United States embarked on a trillion-dollar defense buildup. As a result, the country neglected its schools, cities, roads and bridges, and health care system. From the world’s greatest creditor nation, the United States became the world’s greatest debtor—in order to pay for arms to counter the threat of a nation that was collapsing.” [Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 4/1993] Former Senator Gary Hart (D-CO) will agree: “The Pro-B Team leak and public attack on the conclusions of the NIE represent but one element in a series of leaks and other statements which have been aimed as fostering a ‘worst case’ view for the public of the Soviet threat. In turn, this view of the Soviet threat is used to justify new weapons systems.” [Quarterly Journal of Speech, 5/2006 ]
Entity Tags: Howard Stoertz, Henry A. Kissinger, Stansfield Turner, Richard Pipes, J. Peter Scoblic, Ray Cline, George Herbert Walker Bush, Craig Unger, Defense Intelligence Agency, ’Team A’, Gary Hart, Anne Cahn, ’Team B’, Carter administration, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Paul Nitze, Central Intelligence Agency
Timeline Tags: US International Relations, Neoconservative Influence
Late November, 1976: Team B Breaches Security to Successfully Whip up Fears of Soviet Threat
Although the entire “Team B” intelligence analysis experiment (see Early 1976, November 1976, and November 1976) is supposed to be classified and secret, the team’s neoconservatives launch what author Craig Unger will call “a massive campaign to inflame fears of the red menace in both the general population and throughout the [foreign] policy community—thanks to strategically placed leaks to the Boston Globe and later to the New York Times.” Times reporter David Binder later says that Team B leader Richard Pipes is “jubilant” over “pok[ing] holes at the [CIA]‘s analysis” of the Soviet threat. Team B member John Vogt calls the exercise “an opportunity to even up some scores with the CIA.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 57] Team member George Keegan tells reporters, “I am unaware of a single important category in which the Soviets have not established a significant lead over the United States… [This] grave imbalance in favor of Soviet military capability had developed out of a failure over the last 15 years to adjust American strategic thinking to Soviet strategic thinking, and out of the failure of the leadership of the American intelligence community to ‘perceive the reality’ of the Soviet military buildup.” Keegan’s colleague William van Cleave agrees, saying that “overall strategic superiority exists today for the Soviet Union,” and adds, “I think it’s getting to the point that, if we can make a trade with the Soviet Union of defense establishments, I’d be heartily in favor of it.” [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 95]
Used to Escalate Defense Spending – The experiment is far more than a dry, intellectual exercise or a chance for academics to score points against the CIA. Melvin Goodman, who heads the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, will observe in 2004: “[Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld won that very intense, intense political battle that was waged in Washington in 1975 and 1976. Now, as part of that battle, Rumsfeld and others, people such as Paul Wolfowitz, wanted to get into the CIA. And their mission was to create a much more severe view of the Soviet Union, Soviet intentions, Soviet views about fighting and winning a nuclear war.” Even though Wolfowitz’s and Rumsfeld’s assertions of powerful new Soviet WMD programs are completely wrong, they use the charges to successfully push for huge escalations in military spending, a process that continues through the Ford and Reagan administrations (see 1976) [Common Dreams (.org), 12/7/2004; BBC, 1/14/2005] , and resurface in the two Bush administrations. “Finally,” Unger will write, “a band of Cold Warriors and neocon ideologues had successfully insinuated themselves in the nation’s multibillion-dollar intelligence apparatus and had managed to politicize intelligence in an effort to implement new foreign policy.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 57-58]
Kicking Over the Chessboard – Former senior CIA official Richard Lehman later says that Team B members “were leaking all over the place… putting together this inflammatory document.” Author and university professor Gordon R. Mitchell will write that B’s practice of “strategically leaking incendiary bits of intelligence to journalists, before final judgments were reached in the competitive intelligence exercise,” was another method for Team B members to promulgate their arguments without actually proving any of their points. Instead of participating in the debate, they abandoned the strictures of the exercise and leaked their unsubstantiated findings to the press to “win” the argument. [Quarterly Journal of Speech, 5/2006 ]
‘One Long Air Raid Siren’ – In 2002, defense policy reporter Fred Kaplan will sardonically label Team B the “Rumsfeld Intelligence Agency,” and write: “It was sold as an ‘exercise’ in intelligence analysis, an interesting competition—Team A (the CIA) and Team B (the critics). Yet once allowed the institutional footing, the Team B players presented their conclusions—and leaked them to friendly reporters—as the truth,” a truth, Team B alleges, the pro-detente Ford administration intends to conceal. Kaplan will continue, “The Team B report read like one long air-raid siren: The Soviets were spending practically all their GNP on the military; they were perfecting charged particle beams that could knock our warheads out of the sky; their express policy and practical goal was to fight and win a nuclear war.” Team B is flatly wrong across the board, but it still has a powerful impact on the foreign policy of the Ford administration, and gives the neoconservatives and hardliners who oppose arms control and detente a rallying point. Author Barry Werth will observe that Rumsfeld and his ideological and bureaucratic ally, White House chief of staff Dick Cheney “drove the SALT II negotiations into the sand at the Pentagon and the White House.” Ford’s primary opponent, Ronald Reagan, and the neocons’ public spokesman, Senator Henry Jackson, pillory Ford for being soft on Communism and the Soviet Union. Ford stops talking about detente with the Soviets, and breaks off discussions with the Soviets over limiting nuclear weapons. Through Team B, Rumsfeld and the neocons succeed in stalling the incipient thaw in US-Soviet relations and in weakening Ford as a presidential candidate. [Werth, 2006, pp. 341]
Entity Tags: Melvin A. Goodman, New York Times, Paul Wolfowitz, Reagan administration, Ronald Reagan, Richard Lehman, William van Cleave, John Vogt, Richard Pipes, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, Henry (“Scoop”) Jackson, Gordon R. Mitchell, Bush administration (41), Boston Globe, Barry Werth, Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr, Bush administration (43), Central Intelligence Agency, ’Team B’, David Binder, Fred Kaplan, Craig Unger, Ford administration, George Keegan, Donald Rumsfeld
Timeline Tags: US International Relations, Neoconservative Influence
1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter’s National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will “explode into genocidal fury” against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski favored a “de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran.” [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241, 251 – 256]
Entity Tags: Richard Pipes, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Nationalities Working Group
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, US International Relations, Neoconservative Influence, War in Afghanistan
Early 1981: Richard Perle Assists Reagan’s Transition Team
Richard Perle works on the Reagan administration’s transition team. He manages to “place his associates in important national security positions and in the Department of Defense.” [New York Times, 4/17/1983]
Entity Tags: Richard Perle
Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence
Early 1981 and After: Reagan Categorically Opposed to Arms Control Agreements with Soviet Union; Advisers Reflect Oppositional Agenda
In conjunction with his huge peacetime military buildup (see Early 1981 and After), President Reagan strongly opposes any sort of arms control or limitation discussions with the Soviet Union.
Rostow to ACDA – As a member of the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD—see 1976), Reagan had spoken out against the SALT II arms control treaty with the USSR (see June 18, 1979-Winter 1979), calling it “fatally flawed.” He has opposed every significant arms limitation agreement since 1963, no matter whether it was negotiated by Republican or Democratic administrations. To continue his opposition, Reagan appoints Eugene Rostow to head the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA). Rostow, a fellow CPD member, is flatly opposed to any sort of arms control or disarmament agreement with the Soviet Union, and had led the CPD fight against the SALT II agreement. “Arms control thinking drives out sound thinking,” he told the Senate. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 118-120] During his confirmation hearings, Rostow tells Senate questioners that the US could certainly survive a nuclear war, and gives World War II-era Japan as an example—that nation “not only survived but flourished after a nuclear attack.” When asked if the world could survive a full nuclear attack of thousands of nuclear warheads instead of the two that Japan had weathered, Rostow says that even though the casualties might be between “ten million… and one hundred million… [t]he human race is very resilient.” [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 126] Rostow’s aide at the ACDA, Colin Gray, says that “victory is possible” in a nuclear war provided the US is prepared to fight. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 127]
Burt to State Department – Reagan names Richard Burt to head the State Department’s Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, the State Department’s primary liaison with the Defense Department. Burt, a former New York Times reporter, is one of the few journalists synpathetic to the CPD, and recently called the SALT agreement “a favor to the Russians.” Just before joining the Reagan administration, Burt called for reductions in nuclear arms controls: “Arms control has developed the same kind of mindless momentum associated with other large-scale government pursuits. Conceptual notions of limited durability, such as the doctrine of mutual assured destruction [MAD], have gained bureaucratic constituencies and have thus been prolonged beyond their usefulness. There are strong reasons for believing that arms control is unlikely to possess much utility in the coming decade.” [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 118-120; US Department of State, 2008]
Perle to Defense Department – Perhaps the most outspoken opponent of arms control is neoconservative Richard Perle, named as assistant defense secretary for international security affairs. Perle, until recently the national security adviser to Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D-WA—see Early 1970s), will quickly become, in author J. Peter Scoblic’s words, “the administration’s chief arms control obstructionist, dubbed ‘the Prince of Darkness’ by his enemies.” Perle once said: “The sense that we and the Russians could compose our differences, reduce them to treaty constraints… and then rely on compliance to produce a safer world. I don’t agree with any of that.” Now Perle is poised to act on his beliefs. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 118-120]
Vice President Bush – Although seen as a pragmatist and not a hardline conservative (see January 1981 and After), Vice President George H. W. Bush is also optimistic about the chances of the US coming out on top after a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union. During the 1980 campaign, he told a reporter: “You have a survivability of command and control, survivability of industrial potential, protection of a percentage of your citizens, and you have a capability that inflicts more damage on the opposition tham it inflicts on you. That’s the way you can have a winner.” [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 126-127]
Other Appointees – Perle’s immediate supervisor in Defense is Fred Ikle, who headed ACDA in 1973 and helped battle back part of the original SALT agreement. Ikle will be primarily responsible for the Pentagon’s “five-year plan” that envisions a “protracted nuclear war” as a viable option (see March 1982). Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger considers the standoff between the US and the Soviet Union akin to the situation between Britain and Nazi Germany in 1938, with himself and his ideological confreres as Britain’s Winston Churchill and any attempt at arms control as nothing but appeasement. Energy Secretary James B. Edwards says of a hypothetical nuclear war, “I want to come out of it number one, not number two.” Pentagon official Thomas Jones tells a reporter that the US could handily survive a nuclear exchange, and fully recover within two to four years, if the populace digs plenty of holes, cover them with wooden doors, and bury the structures under three feet of dirt. “If there are enough shovels to go around, everybody’s going to make it,” he says. Reagan’s second National Security Adviser, William Clark, will, according to Reagan official and future Secretary of State George Shultz, “categorically oppos[e] US-Soviet contacts” of any kind. Some of the administration’s more pragmatic members, such as Reagan’s first Secretary of State Alexander Haig, will have limited access to Reagan and be cut off from many policy-making processes by Reagan’s more hardline senior officials and staffers. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 118-120, 127; Air Force Magazine, 3/2008]
Entity Tags: George Herbert Walker Bush, Fred C. Ikle, Committee on the Present Danger, Colin Gray, Caspar Weinberger, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Alexander M. Haig, Jr., Eugene V. Rostow, US Department of State, William Clark, Thomas Jones, Richard Burt, Richard Perle, Reagan administration, James B. Edwards, Ronald Reagan, J. Peter Scoblic, US Department of Defense, Henry (“Scoop”) Jackson, George Shultz
Timeline Tags: US International Relations
September 1981 through November 1983: Hardliners Block INF Arms Agreement
Reagan officials reopen the stalled Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) arms limitation talks with the Soviet Union, against the advice of President Reagan’s more hardline officials (see January 1981 and After). The talks center on the Soviets’ SS-20 missile, designed to strike European targets. In return, then-President Carter had agreed to deploy US intermediate-range nuclear missiles—Pershing II’s and Tomahawks—in West Germany and Italy by 1983. According to author J. Peter Scoblic, the missiles have little real military value, as American ICBMs, submarine-based nuclear missiles, and long-range bombers could destroy Soviet targets with near-impunity. They do, however, have some political significance, mostly in helping tie European security to US security. Carter had agreed to open talks with the Soviets to get rid of the SS-20s entirely.
Hardliners Sabotage Talks – The more pragmatic Reagan officials succeed in reopening the talks; Reagan hardliners, thwarted in stopping the talks, set about sabotaging them in any way available. When arguments in favor of delays and “further study” finally fail, they pressure Reagan to offer an agreement they know the Soviets will refuse: the so-called “zero option,” which originates with Defense Department official Richard Perle (see Early 1981 and After). Perle says that the Soviets should remove all of the SS-20s, and in return, the US will not deploy its Pershings and Tomahawks—in essence, having the Soviets concede something for essentially nothing. State Department officials suggest a fallback position in case the Soviets reject Perle’s offering; in his turn, Perle appears before the Senate Armed Services Committee and compares anyone who opposes his zero-sum offering to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Adolf Hitler in 1938.
‘Walk in the Woods’ – When the Soviets reject Perle’s option, Reagan hardliners argue that the government should accept no compromise. The head of the INF negotiation team, Paul Nitze—a Cold War figure who has come out against arms control (see January 1976) but is not fully trusted by the hardline ideologues because of his history as an arms negotiator—wants a compromise. In official negotiations, he sticks to the all-or-nothing position of Perle, but opens private, informal negotiations with his Soviet counterpart, Yuli Kvitsinsky. One afternoon in 1982, Nitze and Kvitsinsky go for what later becomes known as their “walk in the woods.” Sitting together on a log during an afternoon rainstorm, the two hammer out an agreement that greatly favors the US—mandating a 67 percent reduction in Soviet SS-20s and allowing the US to deploy an equal number of Tomahawks. Not only would the Soviets have to reduce their already-deployed contingent of missiles and the US be allowed to deploy missiles, because the Tomahawks carry more independent warheads than the SS-20s, the US would have a significant advantage in firepower. The deal also sets limits on SS-20 deployments in Asia, and forbids the Soviets from developing ground-launched cruise missiles. In return, the US would agree not to deploy its Pershing missiles.
Hardliners Block Agreement – Perle and his hardline allies in the Reagan administration succeed in blocking acceptance of the Nitze-Kvitsinsky agreement. As author J. Peter Scoblic later writes, “Perle’s ideological obstructionism—concisely conveyed in his disparagement of Nitze as ‘an inverterate problem-solver’—reached fantastic heights.” Perle first tried to block Reagan from even learning the details of the agreement, and lied to Reagan, asserting falsely that the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed the agreement. Perle, in conjunction with Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, eventually convinces Reagan to stick to the “zero option.” Perle argues against pressure from key US allies such as Britain’s Margaret Thatcher, telling Reagan, “We can’t just do something; we’ve got to stand there—and stand firm.” In 1983, Perle tells Weinberger that it would be better for the US to deploy no missiles at all than to accept the agreement. Scoblic will write: “In other words, he argued that foregoing deployment in return for nothing was better than foregoing deployment in exchange for something. The position made no sense, but the Reagan team held firm to it, once again preventing the adoption of a viable arms control deal.” When the US deploys Pershing missiles in Europe in November 1983, the Soviets walk out of the talks. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 120-123]
Entity Tags: Richard Perle, Margaret Thatcher, Joint Chiefs of Staff, J. Peter Scoblic, Caspar Weinberger, Paul Nitze, Ronald Reagan, Reagan administration, Senate Armed Services Committee, US Department of State, Yuli Kvitsinsky
Timeline Tags: US International Relations
May 1982 and After: START Talks Supplant SALT Negotiations, Make No Progress
President Reagan, giving a speech at his alma mater, Eureka College, renames the US-USSR SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) negotiations START (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks). The renamed negotiations reflect profound dissension within the administration for and against arms limitation talks (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After). State Department official Richard Burt, formerly opposed to arms negotiations, wants to ramp up the SALT talks and seek reductions in warheads and launchers. Defense Department official Richard Perle, the neoconservative who is working to block another arms limitation with the Soviet Union (see September 1981 through November 1983), wants to focus on payloads and “throw weight.” The administration’s compromise between the two positions—START—“ma[kes] no sense whatsoever,” according to author J. Peter Scoblic.
Initial Proposal Unacceptable to Soviets – START’s initial position—reducing each side’s deployment to 850 nuclear missiles and 5,000 warheads, of which no more than 2,500 can be on ICBMs—sounds like a significant reduction on paper, but many experts on all sides of the nuclear arms issue worry that such an agreement, putting so many warheads on so few missiles, would actually encourage each side to consider a first strike in a crisis. Arms control proponent Paul Warnke says, “If the Russians accept Mr. Reagan’s proposal, he’ll be forced to reject it himself.” But because of the disparity in missile configurations between the US and the Soviets, such an agreement would require the Soviets to drastically reduce their nuclear arsenal by 60 percent, while the US would lose almost nothing; therefore, the Soviets would never agree to such a proposal. Scoblic will note that as an opening gambit this proposal might be successful, if the Americans were prepared to back down somewhat and give the Soviets something. But the US negotiators have no intention of backing down. The Soviets are keenly interested in the US agreeing to reduce the number of cruise missiles it has deployed, but Reagan signs a National Security Directive forbidding US negotiators from even discussing the idea until the Soviets made significant concessions on “throw weight,” essentially tying his negotiators’ hands.
Chief US Negotiator Insults Soviets – The negotiations are made more difficult by the US team’s chief negotiator, Edward Rowny. Rowny, a former national security adviser to hardline Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), does not believe in diplomacy with anyone, particularly the Soviets. According to Scoblic, Rowny believes in “telling it like it is” to his Soviet counterparts, which Scoblic calls “insulting one’s negotiating opponents.” As he has no real negotiating latitude, Rowny’s diplomacy consists of little more than insults towards his Soviet counterparts. He tells them they do not understand the issues, boasts of his own Polish (i.e. anti-Russian) heritage, even stages walkouts over the seating arrangements. Rowny feels that he is opening a new era in negotiations, but in reality, the START talks are making no progress. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 123-124]
Entity Tags: Paul Warnke, Edward Rowny, J. Peter Scoblic, Jesse Helms, Ronald Reagan, Richard Burt, Richard Perle
Timeline Tags: US International Relations
1984: Richard Perle Promotes Propaganda Campaign to Encourage Soviet Soldiers to Defect
Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle urges the CIA to promote a propaganda program urging Soviet soldiers to defect to the mujaheddin in Afghanistan. He is viewed by the CIA officers as the craziest of the many extreme right-wingers with whom they have dealt. [Crile, 2003, pp. 331-334]
Entity Tags: Richard Perle
Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence
October 11-12, 1986: Reagan, Gorbachev Almost Conclude Agreement to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons; Negotiations Founder on US Missile Defense Program
Gorbachev and Reagan
President Reagan and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev meet in Reykjavik, Iceland, for a second summit, to follow on the success of their first meeting almost a year before (see November 16-19, 1985). They base their discussion on Gorbachev’s January proposals of deep cuts in the two nations’ nuclear arsenals (see January 1986).
Elimination of All Nuclear Weapons by 1996 – Gorbachev and his negotiators begin by reiterating Gorbachev’s proposals for a 50 percent cut in all nuclear weapons, deep reductions in Soviet ICBMs, and the elimination of all European-based intermediate nuclear weapons. Reagan and his negotiators counter with a proposal for both sides to destroy half of their nuclear ballistic missiles in the next five years, and the rest to be destroyed over the next five, leaving both sides with large arsenals of cruise missiles and bomber-based weapons. Gorbachev ups the ante, proposing that all nuclear weapons be destroyed within 10 years. Reagan responds that it would be fine with him “if we eliminated all nuclear weapons,” implicitly including all tactical nuclear weapons in Europe and everywhere else. Gorbachev says, “We can do that,” and Secretary of State George Shultz says, “Let’s do it.”
Agreement Founders on SDI – The heady moment is lost when the two sides fail to reach an agreement on SDI—the Americans’ “Star Wars” missile defense system (see March 23, 1983). Gorbachev cannot accept any major reductions in nuclear weapons if the US has a viable missile defense system; Reagan is convinced that SDI would allow both sides to eliminate their nuclear weapons, and offers the SDI technology to the Soviets. Gorbachev finds Reagan’s offer naive, since there is no guarantee that future presidents would honor the deal. Reagan, in another example of his ignorance of the mechanics of the US nuclear program (see April 1981 and After), does not seem to realize that even a completely effective SDI program would not defend against Soviet cruise missiles and long-range bombers, and therefore would not end the threat of nuclear destruction for either side. Author J. Peter Scoblic will later write, “[SDI] would have convinced the Soviet Union that the United States sought a first-strike capability, since the Americans were so far ahead in cruise missile and stealth bomber technology.” Gorbachev does not ask that the US abandon SDI entirely, but simply observe the terms of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty (see May 26, 1972) and confine SDI research to the laboratory. Reagan refuses. Gorbachev says that if this is the US’s position, then they would have to “forget everything they discussed.” Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze breaks in, saying that the two nations are “so close” to making history that “if future generations read the minutes of these meetings, and saw how close we had come but how we did not use these opportunities, they would never forgive us.” But the agreement is not to be.
Participants’ Reactions – As Shultz later says, “Reykjavik was too bold for the world.” Shultz tells reporters that he is “deeply disappointed” in the results, and no longer sees “any prospect” for a third summit. Gorbachev tells reporters that Reagan’s insistence on retaining SDI had “frustrated and scuttled” the opportunity for an agreement. Gorbachev says he told Reagan that the two countries “were missing a historic chance. Never had our positions been so close together.” Reagan says as he is leaving Iceland that “though we put on the table the most far-reaching arms control proposal in history, the general secretary [Gorbachev] rejected it.” Scoblic will later write, “In the end, ironically, it was Reagan’s utopianism, hitched as it was to a missile shield, that preserved the status quo.” [Washington Post, 10/13/1986; Scoblic, 2008, pp. 140-142]
Hardline Sabotage – One element that contributes to the failure of the negotiations is the efforts to undermine the talks by hardline advisers Richard Perle and Ken Adelman, who tell Reagan that confining SDI to research facilities would destroy the program. Perle and Adelman are lying, but Reagan, not knowing any better, believes them, and insists that SDI remain in development. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-144]
Going Too Far? – Reagan’s negotiators, even the most ardent proponents of nuclear reduction, are shocked that he almost agreed to give up the US’s entire nuclear arsenal—with Shultz’s encouragement. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Francois Mitterand are horrified at the prospect, given that NATO’s nuclear arsenal in Europe is the only real counterweight to the huge Red Army so close to the borders of Western European nations. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 140-142]
Failure of Trust – The US-Soviet talks may well have foundered on an inability of either side to trust the other one to the extent necessary to implement the agreements. During the talks, Soviet aide Gyorgy Arbatov tells US negotiator Paul Nitze that the proposals would require “an exceptional level of trust.” Therefore, Arbatov says, “we cannot accept your position.” [National Security Archives, 3/12/2008]
Entity Tags: Paul Nitze, J. Peter Scoblic, Kenneth Adelman, Gyorgy Arbatov, George Shultz, Francois Mitterand, Margaret Thatcher, Richard Perle, Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev
Timeline Tags: US International Relations
1987-2004: Richard Perle Serves as Member of Defense Policy Board
Richard Perle serves as a member of the Defense Policy Board, an unpaid but influential position in the Pentagon. [Inter Press Service, 6/29/2004]
Entity Tags: Richard Perle
Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence
March 20, 1989 and After: Dick Cheney Becomes Secretary of Defense
Dick Cheney
Former Representative Dick Cheney (R-WY) becomes secretary of defense under President George H. W. Bush. [US Department of Defense, 11/24/2005] Cheney is the second choice; Bush’s first consideration, former Texas senator John Tower, lost key Senate support when details of his licentious lifestyle and possible alcoholism became known. Cheney was the choice of, among others, Vice President Dan Quayle and National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, who both feel that Bush needs someone in the position fast, and the best way to have someone move through the confirmation process is to have someone from Congress. Although Cheney never served in the military, and managed to dodge service during the Vietnam War with five student deferments, he has no skeletons in his closet like Tower’s, and he has the support of Congressional hawks. His confirmation hearings are little more than a formality.
Cheney Leaves the House, Gingrich Steps In – Cheney’s House colleague, Republican Mickey Edwards, later reflects, “The whole world we live in would be totally different if Dick Cheney had not been plucked from the House to take the place of John Tower.” Cheney was “in line to become the [GOP’s] leader in the House and ultimately the majority leader and speaker,” Edwards will say. “If that [had] happened, the whole Gingrich era wouldn’t have happened.” Edwards is referring to Newt Gingrich (R-GA), the future speaker of the House who, in authors Lou Dubose and Jake Bernstein’s own reflections, “ushered in fifteen years of rancorous, polarized politics.” While Cheney is as partisan as Gingrich, he is not the kind of confrontational, scorched-earth politician Gingrich is. According to Edwards, no one can envision Cheney moving down the same road as Gingrich will.
Successful Tenure – As the Pentagon’s civilian chief, many will reflect on Cheney’s tenure as perhaps his finest hour as a public servant. “I saw him for four years as [defense secretary]. He was one of the best executives the Department of Defense had ever seen,” later says Larry Wilkerson, who will serve in the Bush-Cheney administration as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell. “He made decisions. Contrast that with the other one I saw [Clinton Secretary of Defense Lester Aspin], who couldn’t make a decision if it slapped him in the face.” Cheney will preside over a gradual reduction in forces stationed abroad—a reduction skillfully managed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell.
Bringing Aboard the Neoconservatives – Cheney asks one of Tower’s putative hires, Paul Wolfowitz, to stay; Wolfowitz, with fellow Pentagon neoconservatives Lewis “Scooter” Libby and Zalmay Khalilzad, will draft the Pentagon’s 1992 Defense Planning Guide (DPG) (see February 18, 1992), a harshly neoconservative proposal that envisions the US as the world’s strongman, dominating every other country and locking down the Middle East oil reserves for its own use. Though the DPG is denounced by President Bush, Cheney supports it wholeheartedly, even issuing it under his own name. “He took ownership in it,” Khalilzad recalls. Cheney also brings in his aide from the Iran-Contra hearings, David Addington (see Mid-March through Early April, 1987), another neoconservative who shares Cheney’s view of almost unlimited executive power at the expense of the judicial and legislative branches. [Dubose and Bernstein, 2006, pp. 87-95]
Entity Tags: Lester Aspin, George Herbert Walker Bush, David S. Addington, Dan Quayle, Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, Jake Bernstein, Lawrence Wilkerson, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, John Tower, Newt Gingrich, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, Mickey Edwards, Lewis (“Scooter”) Libby, Lou Dubose, Paul Wolfowitz
Timeline Tags: US Military
Late March 1989 and After: Defense Secretary Cheney Advocates Enforced Regime Change in Soviet Union
When Dick Cheney becomes defense secretary (see March 20, 1989 and After), he brings into the Pentagon a core group of young, ideological staffers with largely academic (not military) backgrounds. Many of these staffers are neoconservatives who once congregated around Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson (see Early 1970s). Cheney places them in the Pentagon’s policy directorate, under the supervision of Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, himself one of Jackson’s cadre. While most administrations leave the policy directorate to perform mundane tasks, Wolfowitz and his team have no interest in such. “They focused on geostrategic issues,” one of his Pentagon aides will recall. “They considered themselves conceptual.” Wolfowitz and his team are more than willing to reevaluate the most fundamental precepts of US foreign policy in their own terms, and in Cheney they have what reporters Franklin Foer and Spencer Ackerman call “a like-minded patron.” In 1991, Wolfowitz will describe his relationship to Cheney: “Intellectually, we’re very much on similar wavelengths.”
A Different View of the Soviet Union – Cheney pairs with Wolfowitz and his neoconservatives to battle one issue in particular: the US’s dealings with the Soviet Union. Premier Mikhail Gorbachev has been in office for four years, and has built a strong reputation for himself in the West as a charismatic reformer. But Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the others see something far darker. Cheney opposes any dealings with the Soviets except on the most adversarial level (see 1983), and publicly discusses his skepticism of perestroika, Gorbachev’s restructing of the Soviet economy away from a communist paradigm. In April, Cheney tells a CNN news anchor that Gorbachev will “ultimately fail” and a leader “far more hostile” to the West will follow in his footsteps. Some of President Bush’s more “realistic” aides, including James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, and Condoleezza Rice, as well as Bush himself, have cast their lot with Gorbachev and reform; they have no use for Cheney’s public advocacy of using the USSR’s period of transitional turmoil to dismember the nation once and for all.
Cheney’s Alternative Policy – Cheney turns to the neoconservatives under Wolfowitz for an alternative strategy. They meet on Saturday mornings in the Pentagon’s E ring, where they have one maverick Sovietologist after another propound his or her views. Almost all of these Sovietologists echo Cheney and Wolfowitz’s view—the USSR is on the brink of collapse, and the US should do what it can to hasten the process and destroy its enemy for good. They assert that what the Soviet Union needs is not a reformer guiding the country back into a papered-over totalitarianism, to emerge (with the US’s help) stronger and more dangerous than before. Instead, Cheney and his cadre advocate enforced regime change in the Soviet Union. Supporting the rebellious Ukraine will undermine the legitimacy of the central Soviet government, and supporting Boris Yeltsin, the president of the Russian Republic, will strike at the heart of the Gorbachev regime. Bush and his core advisers worry about instability, but Cheney says that the destruction of the Soviet Union is worth a little short-term disruption.
Failure – Bush will not adopt the position of his defense secretary, and will continue supporting Gorbachev through the Soviet Union’s painful transition and eventual dissolution. After Cheney goes public one time too many about his feelings about Gorbachev, Baker tells Scowcroft to “[d]ump on Dick” with all deliberate speed. During the final days of the Soviet Union, Cheney will find himself alone against Bush’s senior advisers and Cabinet members in their policy discussions. [New Republic, 11/20/2003]
Entity Tags: George Herbert Walker Bush, Brent Scowcroft, Boris Yeltsin, Franklin Foer, US Department of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, James A. Baker, Henry (“Scoop”) Jackson, Condoleezza Rice, Mikhail Gorbachev, Spencer Ackerman
Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence
1991-1997: Group of Foreign Policy Analysts Recommends Interventionist Policy
Morton Abramowitz
Morton Abramowitz, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, establishes a number of blue-ribbon commissions, headed by a select group of foreign policy elite, to create a new post-Cold War foreign policy framework for the US. Some of the group’s members are Madeleine Albright, Henry Cisneros, John Deutch, Richard Holbrooke, Alice Rivlin, David Gergen, Admiral William Crowe, Leon Fuerth, as well as Richard Perle and James Schlesinger, the two token conservatives who quickly resign. The commission will issue a number of policy papers recommending the increased use of military force to intervene in the domestic conflicts of other countries. Some of the commission’s members are appointed to brief Democratic presidential candidates on the commission’s reports ahead of their release. [American Spectator, 6/1999] Abramowitz is also influential in the career of counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke, who refers to Abramowitz as his “boss and mentor” at the State Department. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 48]
Entity Tags: Richard A. Clarke, Richard Holbrooke, William Crowe Jr., Richard Perle, Morton I. Abramowitz, Madeleine Albright, Leon Fuerth, David Gergen, Henry Cisneros, John Deutch, Alice Rivlin, Arthur M. Schlesinger
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Neoconservative Influence
February 1991-1992: Cheney and Neoconservatives Dispute Decision Not to Overthrow Hussein
Many experts consider President Bush’s decision not to invade Baghdad and overthrow Saddam Hussein (see January 16, 1991 and After) as wise and prudent, avoiding putting the US in the position of becoming a hostile occupying force and, thusly, avoiding the alienation of allies around the world as well as upholding the UN mandate overseeing the conflict. However, many of the neoconservatives in Defense Secretary Dick Cheney’s office have different views. Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and Zalmay Khalilzad are among those who view the “failure” to overthrow Hussein as what author Craig Unger will call “a disastrous lost opportunity.” Unger will reflect, “Interestingly, in what critics later termed ‘Chickenhawk Groupthink,’ the moderate, pragmatic, somewhat dovish policies implemented by men with genuinely stellar [military] records—George H. W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, and Colin Powell—were under fire by men who had managed to avoid military service—Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby, and Khalilzad.” (Secretary of State James Baker tells Powell to watch out for the “kooks” working for Cheney.) In some ways, the criticism and counterproposals from Cheney and his followers amounts to another “Team B” experience similar to that of 16 years before (see Early 1976, November 1976 and November 1976). Wolfowitz, with Libby and Khalilzad, will soon write their own set of recommendations, the Defense Planning Guide (DPG) (see February 18, 1992) memo, sometimes called the “Wolfowitz doctrine.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 115-117]
Entity Tags: Paul Wolfowitz, Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell, Craig Unger, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, Saddam Hussein, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, Lewis (“Scooter”) Libby, George Herbert Walker Bush
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion
February 18, 1992: ’Wolfowitz Doctrine:’ Proposal Advocates US as World’s Lone Superpower
Paul Wolfowitz
A draft of the Defense Department’s new post-Cold War strategy, the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG), causes a split among senior department officials and is criticized by the White House. The draft, prepared by defense officials Zalmay Khalilzad and Lewis “Scooter” Libby under the supervision of Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, says that the US must become the world’s single superpower and must take aggressive action to prevent competing nations—even allies such as Germany and Japan—from challenging US economic and military supremacy. [New York Times, 5/23/1992; Rupert and Solomon, 2005, pp. 122; Scoblic, 2008, pp. 165] The views in the document will become known informally as the “Wolfowitz Doctrine.” Neoconservative Ben Wattenberg will say that its core thesis is “to guard against the emergence of hostile regional superpowers, for example, Iraq or China.” He will add: “America is No. 1. We stand for something decent and important. That’s good for us and good for the world. That’s the way we want to keep it.” [AntiWar (.com), 8/24/2001] The document hails what it calls the “less visible” victory at the end of the Cold War, which it defines as “the integration of Germany and Japan into a US-led system of collective security and the creation of a democratic ‘zone of peace.’” It also asserts the importance of US nuclear weapons: “Our nuclear forces also provide an important deterrent hedge against the possibility of a revitalized or unforeseen global threat, while at the same time helping to deter third party use of weapons of mass destruction through the threat of retaliation.” [New York Times, 3/8/1992] The document states, “We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” [New York Times, 3/8/1992] In 2007, author Craig Unger will write that deterring “potential competitors” from aspiring to a larger role means “punishing them before they can act.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 116]
US Not Interested in Long-Term Alliances – The document, which says the US cannot act as the world’s policeman, sees alliances among European nations such as Germany and France (see May 22, 1992) as a potential threat to US supremacy, and says that any future military alliances will be “ad hoc” affairs that will not last “beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished.… [T]he sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the US will be an important stabilizing factor.” [New York Times, 5/23/1992] Conspicuously absent is any reference to the United Nations, what is most important is “the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the US… the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated” or in a crisis that demands quick response. [New York Times, 3/8/1992] Unger will write of Wolfowitz’s “ad hoc assemblies:” “Translation: in the future, the United States, if it liked, would go it alone.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 116]
Preventing the Rise of Any Global Power – “[W]e endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union and Southwest Asia.” The document advocates “a unilateral US defense guarantee” to Eastern Europe, “preferably in cooperation with other NATO states,” and foresees use of American military power to preempt or punish use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, “even in conflicts that otherwise do not directly engage US interests.” [Washington Post, 3/11/1992]
Containing Post-Soviet Threats – The document says that the US’s primary goal is “to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.” It adds, “This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power.” In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, “our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve US and Western access to the region’s oil.” The document also asserts that the US will act to restrain what it calls India’s “hegemonic aspirations” in South Asia [New York Times, 5/23/1992] , and warns of potential conflicts, perhaps requiring military intervention, arising in Cuba and China. “The US may be faced with the question of whether to take military steps to prevent the development or use of weapons of mass destruction,” it states, and notes that these steps may include pre-empting an impending attack with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, “or punishing the attackers or threatening punishment of aggressors through a variety of means,” including attacks on the plants that manufacture such weapons. It advocates the construction of a new missile defense system to counter future threats from nuclear-armed nations. [New York Times, 3/8/1992]
Reflective of Cheney, Wolfowitz’s Views – Senior Pentagon officials say that while the draft has not yet been approved by either Dick Cheney or Wolfowitz, both played substantial roles in its creation and endorse its views. “This is not the piano player in the whorehouse,” one official says.
Democrats Condemn Policy Proposal – Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), an advocate of a reduction in military spending, calls the document “myopic, shallow and disappointing,” adding: “The basic thrust of the document seems to be this: We love being the sole remaining superpower in the world.” Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) attacks what he sees as the document’s emphasis on unilateral military action, and ridicules it as “literally a Pax Americana.” Pentagon officials will dispute characterizations that the policy flatly rejects any idea of multilateral military alliances. One defense official says, “What is just dead wrong is this notion of a sole superpower dominating the rest of the world.” [New York Times, 3/8/1992; Washington Post, 3/11/1992]
Abandoned, Later Resurrected – Wolfowitz’s draft will be heavily revised and much of its language dropped in a later revision (see May 22, 1992) after being leaked to the media(see March 8, 1992). Cheney and Wolfowitz’s proposals will receive much more favorable treatment from the administration of George W. Bush (see August 21, 2001).
Entity Tags: Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Ben Wattenberg, Craig Unger, Robert C. Byrd, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Bush administration (41), United Nations, Lewis (“Scooter”) Libby, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, US Department of Defense, Joseph Biden
Timeline Tags: US International Relations
March 8, 1992: Raw US World Dominance Plan Is Leaked to the Media
The Defense Planning Guidance, “a blueprint for the department’s spending priorities in the aftermath of the first Gulf War and the collapse of the Soviet Union,” is leaked to the New York Times. [New York Times, 3/8/1992; Newsday, 3/16/2003] The document causes controversy, because it hadn’t yet been “scrubbed” to replace candid language with euphemisms. [New York Times, 3/10/1992; New York Times, 3/11/1992; Observer, 4/7/2002] The document argues that the US dominates the world as sole superpower, and to maintain that role, it “must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” [New York Times, 3/8/1992; New York Times, 3/8/1992] As the Observer summarizes it, “America’s friends are potential enemies. They must be in a state of dependence and seek solutions to their problems in Washington.” [Observer, 4/7/2002] The document is mainly written by Paul Wolfowitz and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who hold relatively low posts at the time, but become deputy defense secretary and Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, respectively, under George W. Bush. [Newsday, 3/16/2003] The authors conspicuously avoid mention of collective security arrangements through the United Nations, instead suggesting the US “should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted.” [New York Times, 3/8/1992] They call for “punishing” or “threatening punishment” against regional aggressors before they act. [Harper’s, 10/2002] Interests to be defended preemptively include “access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, [and] threats to US citizens from terrorism.” The section describing US interests in the Middle East states that the “overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve US and Western access to the region’s oil…, deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect US nationals and property, and safeguard… access to international air and seaways.” [New York Times, 3/8/1992] Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) later says, “It is my opinion that [George W. Bush’s] plan for preemptive strikes was formed back at the end of the first Bush administration with that 1992 report.” [Newsday, 3/16/2003] In response to the controversy, US releases an updated version of the document in May 1992, which stresses that the US will work with the United Nations and its allies. [Washington Post, 5/24/1992; Harper’s, 10/2002]
Entity Tags: Soviet Union, Lincoln Chafee, United States, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis (“Scooter”) Libby
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, US International Relations, Neoconservative Influence
May 22, 1992: New European Military Force Announced
Germany and France announce the formation of a pan-European military force, and invite other European nations to join. The new alliance will work with NATO in individual crises when NATO’s 16 members declare an interest, but will also work independently of NATO when that organization’s interests are not involved. A new US proposal for post-Cold War foreign policy (see May 22, 1992) does not oppose such alliances, though it emphasizes the role of NATO, which is dominated by US interests and policies. [New York Times, 5/23/1992]
Entity Tags: North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Timeline Tags: US International Relations
July 1992: Think Tank Publishes Book Proposing Policy of Unilateral Interventionism in the Name of Humanitarianism
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace publishes “Self-Determination in the New World Order” by Morton H. Halperin (head of State Department policy planning under Madeleine Albright) and David Scheffer (Albright’s special envoy for war crimes issues). The book proposes a set of criteria for the US to use in responding to the independence and separatist movements that have arisen since the break-up of the Soviet Union. The authors argue that in certain circumstances, such as when civil unrest threatens to create a humanitarian crisis, “American interests and ideals” compel the US to assume “a more active role.” Interventions “will become increasingly unavoidable,” the authors write. Foreshadowing the unabashed unilateralist foreign policy adopted by the Bush administration after the September 11 attacks, they write that “the United States should seek to build a consensus within regional and international organizations for its position, but should not sacrifice its own judgment and principles if such a consensus fails to materialize.” [Review of International Affairs, 4/2000]
Entity Tags: David Scheffer, Morton H. Halperin, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Madeleine Albright
Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence
Autumn 1992: Influential Neoconservative Academic Advocates Breaking Up Middle Eastern Countries, Including Iraq
Bernard Lewis
Princeton University professor Bernard Lewis publishes an article in the influential journal Foreign Affairs called “Rethinking the Middle East.” In it, he advocates a policy he calls “Lebanonization.” He says, “[A] possibility, which could even be precipitated by [Islamic] fundamentalism, is what has late been fashionable to call ‘Lebanonization.’ Most of the states of the Middle East—Egypt is an obvious exception—are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common identity.… Then state then disintegrates—as happened in Lebanon—into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions, and parties.” Lewis, a British Jew, is well known as a longtime supporter of the Israeli right wing. Since the 1950s, he has argued that the West and Islam have been engaged in a titanic “clash of civilizations” and that the US should take a hard line against all Arab countries. Lewis is considered a highly influential figure to the neoconservative movement, and some neoconservatives such as Richard Perle and Harold Rhode consider him a mentor. In 1996, Perle and others influenced by Lewis will write a paper for right wing Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu entitled “A Clean Break” that advocates the “Lebanonization” of countries like Iraq and Syria (see July 8, 1996). Lewis will remain influential after 9/11. For instance, he will have dinner with Vice President Cheney shortly before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Some will later suspect that Cheney and others were actually implementing Lewis’s idea by invading Iraq. Chas Freeman, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, will say in May 2003, just after the invasion, “The neoconservatives’ intention in Iraq was never to truly build democracy there. Their intention was to flatten it, to remove Iraq as a regional threat to Israel.” [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 330-337]
Entity Tags: Chas Freeman, Bernard Lewis, Richard Perle, Harold Rhode, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
January 1993: Pentagon Releases Revamped ‘Wolfowitz Doctrine’ Envisoning ‘Zone of Peace’ Led by US
As Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and his staff prepare to leave the Pentagon to be replaced by President-elect Clinton’s appointees, Cheney’s senior aide Paul Wolfowitz and his staff recycle their controversial “Defense Planning Guidance” (DPG) from the year before (see February 18, 1992 and May 22, 1992) and publish them in another proposal, the “Regional Defense Strategy” (RPS). Much of the DPG’s ideas are present in this proposal as well, including the concept of a “democratic ‘zone of peace,’” defined as “a community of democratic nations bound together in a web of political, economic and security ties.” In Wolfowitz’s view, the US government must shoulder the responsibility “to build an international environment conducive to our values.” Like the DPG, this document has the quiet but firm support of Cheney. Years later, Cheney’s closest aides will point to the DPG and the RPS as the moment when Cheney’s foreign policy views coalesce into a single overarching framework. A Cheney staffer will say, “It wasn’t an epiphany, it wasn’t a sudden eureka moment; it was an evolution, but it was one that was primed by what he had done and seen in the period during the end of the Cold War.” [New Republic, 11/20/2003]
Entity Tags: Paul Wolfowitz, US Department of Defense, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney
Timeline Tags: US International Relations
October 1995: Right-Wingers Call for Israeli Prime Minister Rabin’s Death, Compare Israeli Government to Nazis
Most Israeli lawmakers and politicians distance themselves from the Jewish extremists calling for the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin over the Oslo peace accords (see September 13, 1993). However, Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu actively curries their favor (see July 1-2, 1994). On the floor of the Knesset, he often attacks Rabin (see September 21, 1993) for giving away “parts of our homeland.” After one particularly fiery speech, thousands of right-wing protesters gather in Jerusalem’s Zion Square, where they put of posters of Rabin wearing a Nazi SS uniform, display banners calling Rabin “Arafat’s Dog,” and chant, “Death to Rabin! Nazis! Judenrat!”—a particularly odious epithet referring to the “Jewish councils” that were forced by the Nazis to expedite the transfer of Jews to concentration camps. Housing Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer is horrified by the frenzy of the mob, and tells Netanyahu, who is orchestrating the demonstration, “You’d better restrain your people. Otherwise it will end in murder. They tried to kill me just now.… Your people are mad. If someone is murdered, the blood will be on your hands.… The settlers have gone crazy, and someone will be murdered here, if not today, then in another week or another month!” Netanyahu ignores the warning, and, basking in the chants of “Bibi! Bibi! Bibi!,” takes the podium, where he is optimistically introduced as the next prime minister of Israel. [Unger, 2007, pp. 139-140]
Entity Tags: Yitzhak Rabin, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, Benjamin Netanyahu
Timeline Tags: US International Relations
November 4, 1995: Israeli Prime Minister Rabin Assassinated
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin is assassinated at a rally in Tel Aviv. Over 100,000 people have gathered in Kings of Israel Square to support Rabin and the Oslo peace process (see September 13, 1993 and October 6, 1995). The rally is designed to be light-hearted, in contrast with the angry, combative rallies staged by radical conservatives to oppose the peace agreements (see October 1995). Rabin gives a short radio interview before leaving the stage at the rally, and tells listeners, “People have their personal security but they do not have doubts that the path of peace should be pursued.” Rabin’s wife Leah is asked if her husband is wearing a bulletproof vest. “Have you gone crazy?” she replies. “What are we, in Africa?… I don’t understand the ideas you journalists have.” Meanwhile, law student Yigal Amir (see September 13, 1993 and October 6, 1995) is sitting on a concrete flower planter in the parking lot. A guard notices Amir and whispers into his microphone, “For God’s sake. What’s that dark guy doing down there? Is he one of us?” When Rabin walks by Amir to go to his car, Amir pulls out a gun and fires three shots. Two hollow-point bullets strike Rabin in the chest, severing major arteries and destroying his spinal cord. The third strikes Rabin’s bodyguard in the arm. “It’s nothing!” Amir shouts. “It’s just a joke! Blanks, blanks!” Police seize Amir; the wounded bodyguard rushes Rabin to the hospital, where he is pronounced dead 90 minutes later. When the police inform Amir that Rabin has died, he tells them, “Do your work. I’ve done mine.” Turning to an officer, he adds, “Get some wine and cakes. Let’s have a toast.” Someone later goes through Rabin’s pockets and finds a bloodied piece of paper with the lyrics to a popular tune, “The Song of Peace,” copied on it. Rabin had joined in singing the song at the rally. Author Craig Unger later writes that aside from the personal tragedy of the assassination, “In part because of his legacy as a great Israeli military commander, no one in Israel was, or ever could be, a more forceful figure than Rabin in promoting the peace process. As a result, his murder was a devastating blow to the Oslo principle, the principle of land for peace.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 141-143; Knesset Homepage, 2008]
Entity Tags: Craig Unger, Yigal Amir, Yitzhak Rabin, Leah Rabin
Timeline Tags: US International Relations
May 29, 1996: Netanyahu Elected Israel’s Prime Minister; Clinton Administration Dismayed
Right-wing political leader Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu becomes Israel’s new prime minister. When the campaign to replace assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (see November 4, 1995) began in early 1996, even Netanyahu’s fellow Likud leaders did not believe he had a chance of being elected. At at least one rally after Rabin’s death, crowds chanted “Bibi’s a murderer!” accusing Netanyahu of inciting the violence that led to Rabin’s death (see October 1995 and November 4, 1995 and After). Netanyahu’s opponent, Shimon Peres, cast himself as Rabin’s successor, and the Clinton administration tacitly endorsed Peres as the best hope for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. But Netanyahu is a polished orator with a strong following among the hardline conservatives and religious fundamentalists both in Israel and the US. He also knows how to appeal to America’s more secular, cosmopolitan Jewish community. He hired Arthur Finkelstein, a prominent Republican political consultant, to run a campaign smearing Peres as a weak, ineffective leader who will betray Israel to the Arabs. Peres was befuddled by Netanyahu’s slick, US-style attack campaign and his ability to secure financial and other support among American Christian fundamentalists. The election hung in the balance when a timely spate of Hamas bombings in February and March, and a Netanyahu ad campaign blaming the attack on Peres’s supposed weakness, gave Netanyahu enough voter support for him to eke out a razor-thin margin of victory. US envoy Dennis Ross, one of the Clinton officials involved in the Oslo peace talks, later recalls that he and his colleagues were horrified at Netanyahu’s victory. “Our collective relief became a collective dread,” he will later write. [Unger, 2007, pp. 143-144]
Entity Tags: Yitzhak Rabin, Arthur Finkelstein, Benjamin Netanyahu, Clinton administration, Dennis Ross, Hamas, Shimon Peres
Timeline Tags: US International Relations
July 8-10, 1996: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu Tells Congress US Must Join Israel in ‘Democratizing’ Middle East
Newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (see May 29, 1996) flies to Washington, DC, to visit one of his strongest political supporters, neoconservative Richard Perle. Perle is the chief author of a new strategy proposal called “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Security in the Region” (see July 8, 1996). In essence, Perle’s policy proposal is an update of fellow neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz’s Defense Planning Guide (see February 18, 1992), which had so horrified Clinton and Bush officials. But Netanyahu is clearly pleased with the proposal. After meeting with Perle, Netanyahu addresses the US Congress. Quoting extensively from the proposal, he tells the lawmakers that the US must join Israel in overseeing the “democratization” of the Middle East. War might be a necessity to achieve this goal, he warns. While the “Clean Break” authors are primarily concerned with Iraq and Syria, Netanyahu takes a longer view. “The most dangerous of these regions is Iran,” he says. [Unger, 2007, pp. 145-148]
Entity Tags: Clinton administration, Bush administration (41), Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Benjamin Netanyahu
Timeline Tags: US International Relations
Late Summer 1996: Neoconservatives Push for War with Iraq, Reshaping of Middle East to Favor Israel
After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the United States (see July 8-10, 1996), US neoconservatives mount an orchestrated push for war against Iraq and an overall reshaping of the Middle East (see July 8, 1996). At first, the offensive takes place in the pages of US newspapers and magazines. William Kristol and Robert Kagan write articles for the magazines Foreign Policy and the Weekly Standard; syndicated columnists Charles Krauthammer and A. M. Rosenthal use their columns to push the idea; Zalmay Khalilzad and Paul Wolfowitz pen op-eds for the Washington Post; “Clean Break” co-author David Wurmser writes op-eds for the Wall Street Journal and publishes a book, Tyranny’s Ally, in which he proposes that the US use its military to literally redraw the map of the Middle East (see Late Summer 1996). Neoconservatives are transforming Christian evangelicals’ argument that Americans are God’s “chosen people” into secular terms, and argue in their op-eds and articles that it is, in author Craig Unger’s words, the US’s “moral duty to project that greatness throughout the world—using American military power, if necessary.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 148-149]
Entity Tags: Robert Kagan, A. M. Rosenthal, Benjamin Netanyahu, David Wurmser, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay M. Khalilzad
Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence
1997: Neoconservative Advocates Forcible, Bloody Retaking of Palestinian Land by Israel
Neoconservative Douglas Feith writes a position paper entitled “A Strategy for Israel.” Feith proposes that Israel re-occupy “the areas under Palestinian Authority control” even though “the price in blood would be high.” [Commentary, 9/1997; American Conservative, 3/24/2003; In These Times, 3/13/2007] Feith is the co-author of the 1996 position paper “A Clean Break” (see July 8, 1996), which advocates a similar aggressive posture for Israel. [In These Times, 3/13/2007]
Entity Tags: Douglas Feith
Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence
November 12, 1997: Neoconservative Advocates Backing INC in Overthrowing Hussein
David Wurmser, director of the Middle East program at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, writes an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal arguing that the US government should support Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress [INC] and work to foment “an Iraqi insurgency to depose the butcher of Baghdad.” Wurmser writes: “Washington has no choice now but to abandon the coup option and resurrect the INC. An insurgency may be able to defeat Saddam’s weak and demoralized conventional army. But one thing is clear: There is no cost-free way to depose Saddam. He is more resolute, wily and brutal than we. His strength lies in his weapons of terror; that is why he is so attached to them…. Organizing an insurgency to liberate Iraq under the INC may provoke Saddam to use these weapons on the way down. Better that, though, than current policy, which will lead him to use them on his way back up.” [Wall Street Journal, 11/12/1997]
Entity Tags: David Wurmser, Saddam Hussein, Ahmed Chalabi
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
January 26, 1998: Neoconservative Think Tank Urges US to Attack Iraq
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an influential neoconservative think tank, publishes a letter to President Clinton urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a “hazard” to “a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil.” In a foretaste of what eventually happens, the letter calls for the US to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations, and says the US should not be “crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.” The letter is signed by many who will later lead the 2003 Iraq war. 10 of the 18 signatories later join the Bush Administration, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretaries of State Richard Armitage and Robert Zoellick, Undersecretaries of State John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, presidential adviser for the Middle East Elliott Abrams, Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, and George W. Bush’s special Iraq envoy Zalmay Khalilzad. Other signatories include William Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Peter Rodman, William Schneider, Vin Weber, and James Woolsey. [Project for the New American Century, 1/26/1998; Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 3/16/2003; Unger, 2007, pp. 158] Clinton does heavily bomb Iraq in late 1998, but the bombing doesn’t last long and its long term effect is the break off of United Nations weapons inspections. [New York Times, 3/23/2003] The PNAC neoconservatives do not seriously expect Clinton to attack Iraq in any meaningful sense, author Craig Unger will observe in 2007. Instead, they are positioning themselves for the future. “This was a key moment,” one State Department official will recall. “The neocons were maneuvering to put this issue in play and box Clinton in. Now, they could draw a dichotomy. They could argue to their next candidate, ‘Clinton was weak. You must be strong.’” [Unger, 2007, pp. 158]
Entity Tags: Robert B. Zoellick, Vin Weber, William Kristol, William Jefferson (“Bill”) Clinton, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Schneider Jr., Richard Perle, William J. Bennett, Richard Armitage, Robert Kagan, Paula J. Dobriansky, Donald Rumsfeld, Craig Unger, Peter Rodman, Elliott Abrams, John R. Bolton, James Woolsey, Francis Fukuyama, Jeffrey T. Bergner, Paul Wolfowitz
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
February 19, 1998: Neoconservative Group Calls on US to Help Overthrow Hussein
The Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG), a bipartisan group made up largely of foreign policy specialists, sends an “Open Letter to the President” calling for President Clinton to use the US military to help Iraqi opposition groups overthrow Saddam Hussein and replace him with a US-friendly government. US law forbids such an operation. The group is led by, among others, former Representative Stephen Solarz (D-NY) and prominent Bush adviser Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense.
Largely Neoconservative in Makeup – Many of its co-signers will become the core of the Bush administration’s neoconservative-driven national security apparatus. These co-signers include Elliott Abrams, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Stephen Bryen, Douglas Feith, Frank Gaffney, Fred Ikle, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Bernard Lewis, Peter Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, Gary Schmitt, Max Singer, Casper Weinberger, Paul Wolfowitz, David Wurmser, and Dov Zakheim. [CNN, 2/20/1998; Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004] The CPSG is closely affiliated with both the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC—see June 3, 1997 and January 26, 1998) and the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), both of which boast Perle as a powerful and influential member. Jim Lobe of the Project Against the Present Danger later learns that the CPSG is funded in large part by a sizable grant from the right-wing Bradley Foundation, a key funding source for both the PNAC and the AEI. According to Counterpunch’s Kurt Nimmo, the plan for overthrowing Iraq later adopted by the Bush administration, and currently advocated by the CPSG, will be echoed in the PNAC’s September 2000 document, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (see September 2000). [CounterPunch, 11/19/2002]
Advocates Supporting Iraq-Based Insurgency – The letter reads in part: “Despite his defeat in the Gulf War, continuing sanctions, and the determined effort of UN inspectors to root out and destroy his weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein has been able to develop biological and chemical munitions.… This poses a danger to our friends, our allies, and to our nation.… In view of Saddam Hussein’s refusal to grant UN inspectors the right to conduct unfettered inspections of those sites where he is suspected of storing his still significant arsenal of chemical and biological munitions and his apparent determination never to relinquish his weapons of mass destruction, we call upon President Clinton to adopt and implement a plan of action designed to finally and fully resolve this utterly unacceptable threat to our most vital national interests.” The plan is almost identical to the “End Game” scenario proposed in 1993 (see November 1993) and carried out, without success, in 1995 (see March 1995). It is also virtually identical to the “Downing Plan,” released later in 1998 (see Late 1998). In 2004, then-Defense Intelligence Agency official Patrick Lang will observe, “The letter was remarkable in that it adopted some of the very formulations that would later be used by Vice President [Dick] Cheney and other current administration officials to justify the preventive war in Iraq that commenced on March 20, 2003” (see March 19, 2003). The CPSG advocates:
US support for Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress (INC—see 1992-1996) as the provisional government to replace Hussein’s dictatorship;
Funding the INC with seized Iraqi assets, designating areas in the north and south as INC-controlled zones, and lifting sanctions in those areas;
Providing any ground assault by INC forces (see October 31, 1998) with a “systematic air campaign” by US forces;
Prepositioning US ground force equipment “so that, as a last resort, we have the capacity to protect and assist the anti-Saddam forces in the northern and southern parts of Iraq”;
Bringing Hussein before an international tribunal on war crimes charges.
Carrying out these actions, Solarz says, would completely eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction that he claims Iraq owns. [Abrams et al., 2/19/1998; CNN, 2/20/1998; Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004]
Entity Tags: Richard Burt, Richard Armitage, Richard Perle, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, Paula J. Dobriansky, Peter Rosenblatt, Project for the New American Century, Richard V. Allen, Peter Rodman, Robert A. Pastor, Saddam Hussein, Robert Kagan, William Jefferson (“Bill”) Clinton, William Kristol, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William B. Clark, Sven F. Kraemer, Stephen Solarz, Roger Robinson, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Bryen, Robert C. McFarlane, Michael Ledeen, Patrick Lang, Fred C. Ikle, Dov S. Zakheim, Elliott Abrams, Frank Carlucci, Douglas Feith, Frank Gaffney, Donald Rumsfeld, Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, American Enterprise Institute, Ahmed Chalabi, Max Singer, David Wurmser, Bernard Lewis, Caspar Weinberger, Gary Schmitt, Kurt Nimmo, Leon Wienseltier, Martin Peretz, Joshua Muravchik, Frederick L. Lewis, John R. Bolton, Jeffrey T. Bergner, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, Jarvis Lynch, Jeffrey Gedmin, Jim Lobe, Iraqi National Congress
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
May 29, 1998: PNAC Calls on Republican Congressional Leaders to Assert US Interests in Persian Gulf
The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) publishes a letter addressed to Congressman Newt Gingrich and Senator Trent Lott. The letter argues that the Clinton administration has capitulated to Saddam Hussein and calls on the two legislators to lead Congress to “establish and maintain a strong US military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect [US] vital interests in the Gulf—and, if necessary, to help removed Saddam from power.” [Century, 5/29/1998]
Entity Tags: Saddam Hussein, Newt Gingrich, US Congress, Project for the New American Century, Trent Lott, Clinton administration
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
July 1998: Rumsfeld Commission Wildly Inflates Threat from Iran, North Korea
The “Team B” intelligence analysis exercise of 1975, which so disastrously overestimated the Soviet threat (see November 1976), returns in the form of the “Rumsfeld Commission,” which issues its report this month. Conservative commentators and former participants have called for a second “Team B”-style competitive intelligence analysis ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall (see 1990, 1994, and 1996). The “Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States” (see July 15, 1998), led by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is packed with conservative and neoconservative hardliners much as the original Team B cadre was; it includes some former Team B members such as former Pentagon official Paul Wolfowitz. Like the original Team B, the Rumsfeld Commission challenges CIA estimates of foreign military threats; like the original Team B, the Rumsfeld Commission wildly overestimates the impending threat from countries such as Iran and North Korea, both of which it judges will be capable of striking the US with nuclear weapons in five years or perhaps less. The original Team B findings impelled thirty years of full-bore military spending by the US to counter a Soviet threat that was fading, not growing; the Rumsfeld Commission’s equally alarmist findings impels a new push for spending on the so-called “Star Wars” ballistic missile defense system (see March 23, 1983). Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly will observe that the Rumsfeld Commission’s report “provided Congress with enough talking points to win the argument [on missile defense] both in the strategic arena and in the 20-second soundbite television debates.” Former State Department intelligence analyst Greg Thielmann will later observe, “time has proven Rumsfeld’s predictions dead wrong.” Author and professor Gordon R. Mitchell will write that the second “Team B” exercise shows “that by 1998, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had honed the art of intelligence manipulation through use of competitive intelligence analysis. Retrospective assessments revealing serious flaws in the Team B work products came long after political officials had already converted the alarmist reports into political support for favored military policies.” [Quarterly Journal of Speech, 5/2006 ]
Entity Tags: Strategic Defense Initiative, ’Team B’, Central Intelligence Agency, Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, Donald Rumsfeld, Gordon R. Mitchell, Phyllis Schlafly, Paul Wolfowitz, Greg Thielmann
Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence
February 1999: David Wurmser Urges US to Support Insurgency in Iraq
In his book, Tyranny’s Ally: America’s Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein, David Wurmser of the American Enterprise Institute urges the US to support an insurgency aimed at toppling the Bath’ist government of Saddam Hussein as part of a broader policy to defeat pan-Arabism in Iraq. In its place, the US should encourage the creation of a “loosely unified Iraqi confederal government, shaped around strong sectarian and provincial entities,” Wurmser argues. [Wurmser, 1999, pp. 136-137] What happens in Iraq is vitally important, Wurmser notes, because the country is of extreme strategic importance. “It is a key transportation route, and it is rich in both geographic endowments and human talent,” he explains. “Its location on pathways between Asia and Europe, Africa and Asia, and Europe and Africa makes it an ideal route for armies, pipelines, and trade from both the eastern Mediterranean and Asia Minor to the Persian Gulf. Iraq also has large, proven oil reserves, water, and other important resources. Its geographic centrality and abundance of natural advantages alone make the country a regionally important center.” [Wurmser, 1999, pp. 116-117]
Entity Tags: David Wurmser
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
April-May 1999: ’Realists’ Not Concerned about Neoconservative Influence on Younger Bush
Advisers and colleagues of George H. W. Bush are working alongside a stable of neoconservatives (see April-May 1999) to give Bush’s son, George W., a basic grounding in foreign policies and principles. Though much of the neoconservatives’ teachings conflict with the ideas and interpretations of the elder Bush’s more ‘realist’ advisers, they are not overly concerned about the neoconservatives’ influence on the younger Bush. “The idea that [Paul] Wolfowitz and the neocons represented a great ideological shift from [Brent] Scowcroft’s group of realists was not yet clear,” a knowledgeable State Department source will later note. “Then Wolfowitz and [Condoleezza] Rice [a colleague of Bush adviser Brent Scowcroft with as-yet unsuspected neoconservative leanings] started going down to Austin to tutor Bush in foreign policy (see August 1998). Bush’s grandiose vision emerged out of those tutorials, with Rice tutoring him in global history and Wolfowitz laying out his scheme to remake the world (see February 18, 1992). The whole view of those people was that the next president was not going to be a passive actor, but was to reshape the world to US interests. That was the message that Rice and Wolfowitz were giving to Bush. Rice was the one giving [Bush] the idea that we’re entering some sort of 1947-like transitional period in which the United States could shape the world.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 165-168]
Entity Tags: Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush
Timeline Tags: US International Relations
2000: Michael Ledeen: Leaders May Have to ‘Enter into Evil’ under Certain Circumstances
Michael Ledeen
In his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, neoconservative Michael Ledeen measures modern leaders against Machiavelli’s rules for leadership and concludes that “[e]ven after a half a millennium, Machiavelli’s advice to leaders is as contemporary as tomorrow.” [Ledeen, 2000, pp. 185] He laments that contemporary Western leaders, “like their counterparts in the rest of the world, have fallen short of Machiavelli’s standards.” [Ledeen, 2000, pp. 187] According to Ledeen, “[I]f new and more virtuous leaders do not emerge, it is only a matter of time before we are either dominated by our enemies or sink into a more profound crisis.” [Ledeen, 2000, pp. 187] Such a situation, he explains, would put the US in the “same desperate crisis that drove Machiavelli to call for a new dictator to set things aright.” He adds, “In either case, we need Machiavellian wisdom and leadership.” [Ledeen, 2000, pp. 188] Throughout the book Ledeen highlights certain qualities that he believes make strong leaders. A leader “must be prepared to fight at all times,” he writes, and must be of “manly vigor.” Women, he says, are rarely strong leaders because women generally cannot achieve virtue for they lack the “physical wherewithal and the passionate desire to achieve” military glory. To Ledeen, the ends may justify the means. In some situations, “[i]n order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.’” [Ledeen, 2000, pp. 90] According to Ledeen, the Christian god sanctions this view. Machiavelli, he notes approvingly, wrote: “I believe that the greatest good that one can do, and the most gratifying to God is that which one does for one’s country.” Ledeen thus adds: “Since it is the highest good, the defense of the country is one of those extreme situation in which a leader is justified in committing evil.” [Ledeen, 2000, pp. 117]
Entity Tags: Michael Ledeen
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
September 2000: Neoconservative Think Tank Writes ‘Blueprint’ for ‘Global Pax Americana’
The neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century writes a “blueprint” for the “creation of a ‘global Pax Americana’” (see June 3, 1997). The document, titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century, was written for the George W. Bush team even before the 2000 presidential election. It was written for future Vice President Cheney, future Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, future Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Florida Governor and Bush’s brother Jeb Bush, and Cheney’s future chief of staff Lewis Libby. [Project for the New American Century, 9/2000, pp. iv and 51]
Plans to Overthrow Iraqi Government – The report calls itself a “blueprint for maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.” The plan shows that the Bush team intends to take military control of Persian Gulf oil whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power and should retain control of the region even if there is no threat. It says: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” The report calls for the control of space through a new “US Space Forces,” the political control of the internet, the subversion of any growth in political power of even close allies, and advocates “regime change” in China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran and other countries. It also mentions that “advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool” (see February 7, 2003). [Project for the New American Century, 9/2000 ; Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 9/7/2002]
Greater Need for US Role in Persian Gulf – PNAC states further: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
‘US Space Forces,’ Control of Internet, Subversion of Allies – PNAC calls for the control of space through a new “US Space Forces,” the political control of the Internet, and the subversion of any growth in political power of even close allies, and advocates “regime change” in China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and other countries.
Bioweapons Targeting Specific Genotypes ‘Useful’ – It also mentions that “advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
‘A New Pearl Harbor’ – However, PNAC complains that thes changes are likely to take a long time, “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” [Los Angeles Times, 1/12/2003]
Bush Will Claim a ‘Humble’ Foreign Policy Stance – One month later during a presidential debate with Al Gore, Bush will assert that he wants a “humble” foreign policy in the Middle East and says he is against toppling Saddam Hussein in Iraq because it smacks of “nation building” (see October 11, 2000). Around the same time, Cheney will similarly defend Bush’s position of maintaining President Clinton’s policy not to attack Iraq, asserting that the US should not act as though “we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world, taking down governments.” [Washington Post, 1/12/2002] Author Craig Unger will later comment, “Only a few people who had read the papers put forth by the Project for a New American Century might have guessed a far more radical policy had been developed.” [Salon, 3/15/2004] A British member of Parliament will later say of the PNAC report, “This is a blueprint for US world domination—a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world.” [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 9/7/2002] Both PNAC and its strategy plan for Bush are almost virtually ignored by the media until a few weeks before the start of the Iraq war (see February-March 20, 2003).
Entity Tags: Robert Kagan, Robert Martinage, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, Robert Killebrew, Peter Rodman, Project for the New American Century, Roger Barnett, Paula J. Dobriansky, Saddam Hussein, William Jefferson (“Bill”) Clinton, Steve Forbes, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William J. Bennett, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Vin Weber, Stephen A. Cambone, Steve Rosen, Thomas Donnelly, Norman Podhoretz, Phil Meilinger, Midge Decter, Donald Kagan, Donald Rumsfeld, Dov S. Zakheim, Devon Gaffney Cross, Aaron Friedberg, Abram Shulsky, Michael Vickers, Dan Quayle, Eliot A. Cohen, Dan Goure, Alvin Bernstein, Barry Watts, David Epstein, Elliott Abrams, Frank Gaffney, John Ellis (“Jeb”) Bush, James Lasswell, Lewis (“Scooter”) Libby, Mark P. Lagon, Mackubin Owens, Francis Fukuyama, Henry S. Rowen, Gary Schmitt, Fred C. Ikle, Frederick Kagan, David Fautua, Hasam Amin, George Weigel
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, 9/11 Timeline, Neoconservative Influence
November 1, 2000: David Wurmser Urges US and Israel To ‘Strike Fatally’ Against Arab Radicalism
In an op-ed piece published by the Washington Times, David Wurmser of the American Enterprise Institute calls on the US and Israel to “broaden” the conflict in the Middle East. The US, he says, needs “to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers of radicalism in the region—the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza” —in order to “reestablish the recognition that fighting with either the United States or Israel is suicidal.” This is necessary, according to Wurmser, because the policies of the US and Israel during the last decade have strengthened Arab radicalism in the Middle East. Wurmser complains that the two countries have mistakenly identified the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and their own behavior as the primary causes of anti-Israeli and anti-American violence instead of focusing on what he claims are the real sources of resentment among Arab leaders—Israeli and American values. “Few anti-American outbursts or Arab-Israeli confrontations initially have much to do with Israel’s or America’s behavior; they have more to do with what these two countries are: free societies,” Wurmser writes. “These upheavals originate in the conditions of Arab politics, specifically in the requirements of tyrannies to seek external conflict to sustain internal repression.… A regime built on opposition to freedom will view free nations, such as the United States and Israel, as mortal threats.” The US and Israeli failure to grasp this reality, along with the Clinton administration’s reluctance to remove Saddam from power, according to Wurmser, has only empowered Arab radicalism. The answer, he argues, is to forcefully reassert US and Israeli power. [Washington Times, 11/1/2000]
Entity Tags: David Wurmser
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
Late December 2000 and Early January 2001: Bush Transition Teams Install Neoconservatives in Key Offices
The Bush team moves into Washington. Neoconservative Zalmay Khalilzad heads the Pentagon transition team, and he ensures that plenty of his friends and colleagues move into the civilian offices of the Defense Department. Four of the most influential advocates for the US overthrow of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein—Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and Abram Shulsky—are waiting to learn where they will serve in the department. But Vice President Cheney is still concerned with ensuring the placement of his own colleagues and cronies who will help him build what many will call the “imperial presidency.” Secretary of State Colin Powell, Cheney’s ideological rival, is working to install his friend and colleague Richard Armitage as deputy secretary of defense. For Cheney, Armitage would be a calamity—although Armitage is sufficiently hardline and in line with conservative foreign policy aims, he is far too centrist for Cheney and the neoconservatives. The neoconservative magazine the Weekly Standard alerts the faithful to the potential problem with an article entitled “The Long Arm of Colin Powell: Will the Next Secretary of State Also Run the Pentagon?” Powell does not get his wish; Armitage eventually becomes deputy secretary of state. Abrams will join the National Security Council; Khalilzad, Feith, and Shulksy will join the Defense Department; and Perle will head the Defense Policy Board, an independent group that advises the Pentagon. [Weekly Standard, 12/25/2000 ; Unger, 2007, pp. 115, 191-192, 204, 249]
Entity Tags: Elliott Abrams, Colin Powell, Bush administration (43), Abram Shulsky, Douglas Feith, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, Richard Armitage, US Department of Defense, Richard Perle, Weekly Standard, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, Saddam Hussein
Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence
January 2001: Neoconservative Institute Advocates Wide Use of Nuclear Weapons against Non-Nuclear Opponents
The neoconservative National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP) issues a report calling for the increased reliance upon, and the broad potential use of, nuclear weapons in conflicts by the United States. The NIPP is a think tank headed by Keith Payne, who in 1980 coauthored an article arguing that the US could win a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. (Payne wrote that American casualties would be an “acceptable” twenty million or so.) The NIPP report is written by a group of hardline conservatives and neoconservatives, including veterans of the “Team B” exercises (see November 1976). The report advocates the deployment and potential use of nuclear weapons against an array of potential enemies, from geostrategic opponents such as Russia or China, to “rogue” nations such as Iran, Iraq, or North Korea, to non-national enemies such as an array of terrorist organizations. It argues that “low-yield, precision-guided nuclear weapons” be developed “for possible use against select hardened targets such as underground biological weapons facilities,” weapons later nicknamed “bunker-busters.” Nuclear weapons, the report states, can be used not only as deterrents to other nations’ military aggression, but as a means to achieving political and military objectives even against non-nuclear adversaries. President Bush will put Payne in charge of the nation’s Nuclear Posture Review (see December 31, 2001), and, upon its completion, will name Payne assistant secretary of defense for forces policy, in essence putting him in charge of nuclear force planning. Payne’s thinking will inform later nuclear planning (see January 10, 2003 and March 2005). [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 182-183]
Entity Tags: US Department of Defense, ’Team B’, George W. Bush, Keith Payne, National Institute for Public Policy
Timeline Tags: US International Relations, Neoconservative Influence
January 22, 2001 and After: Neoconservatives Begin Push for Invasion of Iraq
An orchestrated push in the media begins to make the case for the need to invade Iraq. The San Diego Union-Tribune reprints a Weekly Standard article by William Kristol and Robert Kagan that tells readers (after comparing President Bush favorably to Ronald Reagan, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Harry Truman, and lauding Bush’s “steely determination”) that US military action “could well be necessary to bring Saddam down.” They write: “At some point, Bush could well find himself confronted by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction. During these past few years, it was relatively easy for congressional Republicans to call for arming and funding the Iraqi opposition. That remains a good idea. But the more sober of Bush’s advisers, like Robert Zoellick and Paul Wolfowitz (see February 18, 1992 and February 27, 2001), have recognized that this alone will not do the trick. Some use of American military force, both from the air and on the ground, could well be necessary to bring Saddam down, no matter how wonderfully the Iraqi opposition performs. Whether he chooses it or not, Bush may quickly be faced with the same decision his father had to make in 1990. He has in his cabinet at least one person who counseled inaction the last time [referring to Secretary of State Colin Powell]. If the crisis comes, Bush, like his father, will not be able to rely only on the judgment of the men and women around him: He will have to act from his own instincts and his own courage.” [Weekly Standard, 1/22/2001; Unger, 2007, pp. 206] In the coming weeks, an onslaught of print and television op-eds and commentaries, some from Bush administration officials, will advocate the overthrow of Hussein (see February 27, 2001, February 16, 2001, April 9, 2001, and July 30, 2001).
Entity Tags: Robert Kagan, William Kristol
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
January 30, 2001: First National Security Council Meeting Focuses on Iraq and Israel
The Bush White House holds its first National Security Council meeting. The focus is on Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. [Bamford, 2004, pp. 261] This meeting sets the tone for how President Bush intends to handle foreign affairs. Counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke wants to focus on the threat from al-Qaeda and Islamist terrorism, especially in light of the recent attack on the USS Cole (see October 12, 2000). But Bush isn’t interested in terrorism. [Unger, 2007, pp. 201]
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict to be ‘Tilted Back Towards Israel’ – Instead, Bush channels his neoconservative advisers, particularly incoming Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz (see February 18, 1992 and April-May 1999), in taking a new approach to Middle East affairs, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Referring to President Clinton’s efforts to make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, Bush declares: “Clinton overreached, and it all fell apart. That’s why we’re in trouble. If the two sides don’t want peace, there’s no way we can force them. I don’t see much we can do over there at this point. I think it’s time to pull out of the situation.… We’re going to correct the imbalance of the previous administration on the Mideast conflict. We’re going to tilt it back towards Israel.” His view is that the Israeli government, currently headed by Ariel Sharon, should be left alone to deal as it sees fit with the Palestinians. “I’m not going to go by past reputations when it comes to Sharon. I’m going to take him at face value. We’ll work on a relationship based on how things go.” Justifying his position, he recalls a recent trip he took to Israel with the Republican Jewish Coalition. “We flew over the Palestinian camps. Looked real bad down there.… I don’t see much we can do over there at this point.” Secretary of State Colin Powell, surprised by Bush’s intended policy towards the 50-year old Israeli-Palestinian conflict, objects. According to Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neil, Powell “stresse[s] that a pullback by the United States would unleash Sharon and the Israeli army.” When Powell warns the president that the “consequences of that [policy] could be dire, especially for the Palestinians,” Bush shrugs. “Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things,” he suggests. [Bamford, 2004, pp. 265-266; Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004] In this and subsequent meetings, Bush’s National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, “parrot[s]… the neocon line,” in author Craig Unger’s words, by discussing Iraq. “Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region,” she says, clearly alluding to regime change and overthrow in that nation (see March 8, 1992, Autumn 1992, July 8, 1996, Late Summer 1996, Late Summer 1996, 1997-1998, January 26, 1998, February 19, 1998, September 2000, Late December 2000 and Early January 2001, and Shortly after January 20, 2001). [Unger, 2007, pp. 201]
Possible WMD Sites in Iraq Spark Bush to Order Plans for Ground Assaults – The meeting then moves on to the subject of Iraq. Rice begins noting “that Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region.” She turns the meeting over to CIA Director George Tenet who summarizes current intelligence on Iraq. He mentions a factory that “might” be producing “either chemical or biological materials for weapons manufacture.” The evidence he provides is a picture of the factory with some truck activity, a water tower, and railroad tracks going into a building. He admits that there is “no confirming intelligence” on just what is going on at these sites. Bush orders Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Hugh Shelton to begin preparing options for the use of US ground forces in Iraq’s northern and southern no-fly zones in support of a native-based insurgency against the Hussein regime. [Bamford, 2004, pp. 267; Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004] Author Ron Suskind later sums up the discussion: “Meeting adjourned. Ten days in, and it was about Iraq. Rumsfeld had said little, Cheney nothing at all, though both men clearly had long entertained the idea of overthrowing Saddam.” Defense Intelligence Agency official Patrick Lang later writes: “If this was a decision meeting, it was strange. It ended in a presidential order to prepare contingency plans for war in Iraq.” [Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004]
Regime Change Intended from the Outset – US Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill, later recalls: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.… From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime. Day one, these things were laid and sealed.” O’Neill will say officials never questioned the logic behind this policy. No one ever asked, “Why Saddam?” and “Why now?” Instead, the issue that needed to be resolved was how this could be accomplished. “It was all about finding a way to do it,” O’Neill will explain. “That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.’” [CBS News, 1/10/2004; New York Times, 1/12/2004; Guardian, 1/12/2004; Vanity Fair, 5/2004, pp. 234] Another official who attends the meeting will later say that the tone of the meeting implied a policy much more aggressive than that of the previous administration. “The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of ground forces,” the official will tell ABC News. “That went beyond the Clinton administration’s halfhearted attempts to overthrow Hussein without force.” [ABC News, 1/13/2004] Unger later writes, “These were the policies that even the Israeli right had not dared to implement.” One senior administration official says after the meeting, “The Likudniks are really in charge now.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 201]
Funding the Iraqi National Congress – The council does more than just discuss Iraq. It makes a decision to allow the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an Iraqi opposition group, to use $4 million to fund efforts inside Iraq to compile information relating to Baghdad’s war crimes, military operations, and other internal developments. The money had been authorized by Congress in late 2004. The US has not directly funded Iraqi opposition activities inside Iraq itself since 1996. [Guardian, 2/3/2005]
White House Downplays Significance – After Paul O’Neill first provides his account of this meeting in 2004, the White House will attempt to downplay its significance. “The stated policy of my administration toward Saddam Hussein was very clear,” Bush will tell reporters during a visit to Mexico In January 2004. “Like the previous administration, we were for regime change.… And in the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with desert badger or fly-overs and fly-betweens and looks, and so we were fashioning policy along those lines.” [New York Times, 1/12/2004]
Entity Tags: Richard B. Myers, Hugh Shelton, Paul O’Neill, George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, George J. Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, Craig Unger, Iraqi National Congress
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion
March, 2001: Perle Says Hussein Has Weapons of Mass Destruction
Defense Policy Board chairman and prominent neoconservative Richard Perle tells the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “Does Saddam [Hussein] now have weapons of mass destruction? Sure he does. We know he has chemical weapons. We know he has biological weapons…. How far he’s gone on the nuclear-weapons side I don’t think we really know. My guess is it’s further than we think. It’s always further than we think, because we limit ourselves, as we think about this, to what we’re able to prove and demonstrate…. And, unless you believe that we’ve uncovered everything, you have to assume there is more than we’re able to report.” Perle fails to offer any evidence of his claims to the senators, and fails to provide evidence from UN inspectors that shows virtually all of Iraq’s WMD stockpiles and programs have long since been destroyed. [Hersh, 2004, pp. 209-210]
Entity Tags: Richard Perle, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Saddam Hussein
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
March 12, 2001: Neoconservative Journalist: US Must Develop Missile Defense System for Offensive Reasons
Neoconservative journalist Lawrence Kaplan argues that the US must withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (see May 26, 1972) and immediately begin development of a new missile defense system (see March 23, 1983 and January 29, 1991). “[M]issile defense is about preserving America’s ability to wield power abroad,” Kaplan writes. “It’s not about defense. It’s about offense. And that’s exactly why we need it.” [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 176]
Entity Tags: Lawrence F. Kaplan
Timeline Tags: US International Relations, Neoconservative Influence
May 1, 2001: Bush Says US, Allies Must Pursue New Nuclear Policies to Face Threat of Rogue Nations, Groups
President Bush gives a speech at the National Defense University outlining what he calls a “new strategic framework” for the nation’s strategic defense policy. “This afternoon, I want us to think back some 30 years to a far different time in a far different world,” he tells his listeners. “The United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a hostile rivalry.… Our deep differences were expressed in a dangerous military confrontation that resulted in thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other on hair-trigger alert. Security of both the United States and the Soviet Union was based on a grim premise: that neither side would fire nuclear weapons at each other, because doing so would mean the end of both nations.” Bush is referring to the concept of “mutual assured destruction,” or MAD, which has driven the policies of the US and the former Soviet Union since the 1950s. “We even went so far as to codify this relationship in a 1972 ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty (see May 26, 1972), based on the doctrine that our very survival would best be insured by leaving both sides completely open and vulnerable to nuclear attack,” he says.
A Different Threat – Times have now changed: “Today, the sun comes up on a vastly different world.… Today’s Russia is not yesterday’s Soviet Union.… Yet, this is still a dangerous world, a less certain, a less predictable one. More nations have nuclear weapons and still more have nuclear aspirations. Many have chemical and biological weapons. Some already have developed… ballistic missile technology.… And a number of these countries are spreading these technologies around the world. Most troubling of all, the list of these countries includes some of the world’s least-responsible states. Unlike the Cold War, today’s most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of these states, states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life.” Bush cites the example of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, who, he says, could have forced a very different outcome to the 1991 Gulf War (see January 16, 1991 and After) had he “been able to blackmail with nuclear weapons.” Hussein is an exemplar of today’s hate-driven dictators, Bush asserts: “Like Saddam Hussein, some of today’s tyrants are gripped by an implacable hatred of the United States of America. They hate our friends, they hate our values, they hate democracy and freedom and individual liberty. Many care little for the lives of their own people. In such a world, Cold War deterrence is no longer enough.”
ABM Treaty Now a Hindrance to US Security – “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,” Bush says. “Today’s world requires a new policy, a broad strategy of active non-proliferation, counter proliferation and defenses.… We need new concepts of deterrence that rely on both offensive and defensive forces. Deterrence can no longer be based solely on the threat of nuclear retaliation.… We need a new framework that allows us to build missile defenses to counter the different threats of today’s world. To do so, we must move beyond the constraints of the 30-year-old ABM Treaty. This treaty does not recognize the present, or point us to the future. It enshrines the past. No treaty that prevents us from addressing today’s threats, that prohibits us from pursuing promising technology to defend ourselves, our friends and our allies is in our interests or in the interests of world peace.… We can, and will, change the size, the composition, the character of our nuclear forces in a way that reflects the reality that the Cold War is over.” Bush is heralding his intention of withdrawing from the 1972 ABM Treaty (see December 13, 2001). Bush says of the treaty: “We should leave behind the constraints of an ABM Treaty that perpetuates a relationship based on distrust and mutual vulnerability. This Treaty ignores the fundamental breakthroughs in technology during the last 30 years. It prohibits us from exploring all options for defending against the threats that face us, our allies and other countries. That’s why we should work together to replace this Treaty with a new framework that reflects a clear and clean break from the past, and especially from the adversarial legacy of the Cold War.” [White House, 5/1/2001; CNN, 5/1/2001; Scoblic, 2008, pp. 171-172]
An Old Response to a New Threat – Author J. Peter Scoblic later calls Bush’s rationale “disingenuous.” He explains: “Conservatives had wanted to field missile defenses ever since the Soviet Union had developed ICBMs.… But somewhat paradoxically, following the collapse of the Soviet Union—and with it the likelihood of of a missile attack—conservative calls for missile defense increased” (see September 27, 1994). [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 171-172] Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace calls Bush’s proposal “tragically mistaken.” [PBS, 5/1/2001] Senator John Kerry (D-MA), an outspoken opponent of Bush’s foreign policies, says: “This is essentially a satisfy-your-base, political announcement. It serves no other purpose.” [New York Times, 5/1/2001]
Entity Tags: George W. Bush, J. Peter Scoblic, John Kerry, Saddam Hussein, Joseph Cirincione
Timeline Tags: US International Relations
August 21, 2001: PNAC Think Tank Leader States US Should Embrace Imperialist Hegemon Role
Thomas Donnelly, deputy executive director of the PNAC, explains to the Washington Post that the US should embrace its role as imperialist hegemon over the world. He says many important politicians privately agree with him. “There’s not all that many people who will talk about it openly,” he says. “It’s discomforting to a lot of Americans. So they use code phrases like ‘America is the sole superpower.’” He also says, “I think Americans have become used to running the world and would be very reluctant to give it up, if they realized there were a serious challenge to it.” [Washington Post, 8/21/2001] Such statements of policy had been publicly denounced by Bush prior to his election, and some claim that the Bush administration only changes its mind toward a more aggressive policy after 9/11. However, this claim is inconsistent with the roles of senior Bush officials such as Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz in formulating the preemptive doctrine in 1992 then pushing for it in PNAC during the Clinton administration. In the summer of 2001, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s office “sponsored a study of ancient empires—Macedonia, Rome, the Mongols—to figure out how they maintained dominance.” [New York Times, 3/5/2003]
Entity Tags: Thomas Donnelly
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline
Shortly After September 11, 2001: Perle Says Iraq ‘Has to Pay a Price for’ 9/11
According to a later account provided by CIA Director George Tenet, he bumps into Pentagon adviser Richard Perle in the White House who tells him, “Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday, they bear responsibility.” Tenet, recalling his reaction to Perle’s statement, later says, “I’ve got the manifest with me that tells me al-Qaeda did this. Nothing in my head that says there is any Iraqi involvement in this in any way shape or form and I remember thinking to myself, as I’m about to go brief the president, ‘What the hell is he talking about?’” (Note: Tenet says in his book that this incident happened on September 12; however, after Perle insists that he was not in the country that day, Tenet concedes that it may have happened a little later). [Tenet, 2007; CBS News, 4/29/2007; CNN, 4/30/2007] On September 16, 2001, Perle will hint in a CNN interview that Iraq should be punished for the 9/11 attacks (see September 16, 2001).
Entity Tags: Richard Perle, George J. Tenet
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
September 15, 2001: President Bush Tells Neoconservative Adviser that US Will Attack Iraq after Afghanistan
During a morning meeting with advisers at Camp David, President Bush indicated that he wanted to focus on attacking Afghanistan first, and then look at the issue of attacking Iraq later (see September 15, 2001). During the lunch break, he sends a message to the neoconservatives in attendance that he does not want to hear any more about Iraq that day. But one of the neoconservatives there is Richard Perle, who holds no government position but heads the Defense Policy Board advising the Pentagon. According to Vanity Fair, Perle will later claim that the morning discussion about Iraq “had planted a seed. Bush told Perle at Camp David that once Afghanistan had been dealt with, it would be Iraq’s turn.” [Vanity Fair, 5/2004]
Entity Tags: Richard Perle, George W. Bush
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence, War in Afghanistan
September 19-20, 2001: Defense Policy Board Discusses Advisability of Attacking Iraq
The Defense Policy Board (DPB) meets in secret in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon conference room on September 19 and 20 for 19 hours to discuss the option of taking military action against Iraq. [New York Times, 10/12/2001] They also discuss how they might overcome some of the diplomatic and political pressures that would likely attempt to impede a policy of regime change in Iraq. [New York Times, 10/12/2001] Among those attending the meeting are Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Princeton academic Bernard Lewis, Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi (see 1992-1996), Chalabi’s aide Francis Brooke, and the 18 members of the DPB. [New York Times, 10/12/2001; Vanity Fair, 5/2004, pp. 236; New Yorker, 6/7/2004] Defense Intelligence Agency official Patrick Lang will later call the DPB “a neocon[servative] sanctuary,” boasting such members as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former CIA Director James Woolsey, former arms control adviser Ken Adelman, former Undersecretary of Defense Fred Ikle, and former Vice President Dan Quayle. [Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004]
Powell, State Officials Not Informed of Meeting – Secretary of State Colin Powell and other State Department officials in charge of US policy toward Iraq are not invited and are not informed of the meeting. A source will later tell the New York Times that Powell was irritated about not being briefed on the meeting. [New York Times, 10/12/2001]
Chalabi, Lewis Lead Discussion – During the seminar, two of Richard Perle’s invited guests, Chalabi and Lewis, lead the discussion. Lewis says that the US must encourage democratic reformers in the Middle East, “such as my friend here, Ahmed Chalabi.” Chalabi argues that Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists and asserts that Saddam Hussein’s regime has weapons of mass destruction. [Vanity Fair, 5/2004, pp. 232; Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004] He also asserts “there’d be no resistance” to an attack by the US, “no guerrilla warfare from the Ba’athists, and [it would be] a quick matter of establishing a government.” [New Yorker, 6/7/2004]
Overthrow of Hussein Advocated – Attendees write a letter to President Bush calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein. “[E]ven if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack [of 9/11], any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism,” the letter reads. The letter is published in the Washington Times on September 20 (see September 20, 2001) in the name of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neoconservative think tank that believes the US needs to shoulder the responsibility for maintaining “peace” and “security” in the world by strengthening its global hegemony. [Project for the New American Century, 9/20/2001; Manila Times, 7/19/2003] Bush reportedly rejects the letter’s proposal, as both Vice President Dick Cheney and Powell agree that there is no evidence implicating Saddam Hussein in the 9/11 attacks. [New York Times, 10/12/2001]
Woolsey Sent to Find Evidence of Hussein’s Involvement – As a result of the meeting, Wolfowitz sends Woolsey to London to find evidence that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks and the earlier 1993 attack on the World Trade Center (see Mid-September-October 2001). [Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004]
Entity Tags: Newt Gingrich, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, Kenneth Adelman, Patrick Lang, Harold Brown, Defense Policy Board, Francis Brooke, Adm. David E. Jeremiah, Fred C. Ikle, Ahmed Chalabi, Dan Quayle, Bernard Lewis, Henry A. Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion
September 20, 2001: Neoconservative Think Tank Demands Bush Invade Iraq ‘Even if Evidence Does Not Link Iraq Directly’ to 9/11 Attacks; Also Demand Attacks against Syria, Iran, Hezbollah
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an influential neoconservative think tank, publishes a letter addressed to President Bush and signed by magazine publisher William Kristol, Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle (see September 16, 2001), and 38 other neoconservatives and hardliners. It is reprinted by Kristol’s Weekly Standard shortly thereafter. The authors threaten to brand Bush as a “wimp,” guilty of “surrender in the war on international terrorism” if he fails to carry out their demand to make “a determined effort” to overthrow Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, “even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the [9/11] attack[s].” [Project for the New American Century, 9/20/2001; Rich, 2006, pp. 28] Any failure to attack Iraq, the authors say, “will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.” Invading Iraq is not their only demand. To retain their support, the letter reads, Bush must also target the terror organization Hezbollah for eradication, and retaliate against Syria and Iran if they do not break their ties with Hezbollah. The letter calls Israel “America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism.” Conservative isolationist Pat Buchanan will later write that the real motive for this letter seems to be tied to Israel: “Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the commander in chief, nine days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror. Yet, Hezbollah had nothing to do with 9/11. What had Hezbollah done? Hezbollah had humiliated Israel by driving its army out of Lebanon. President Bush had been warned. He was to exploit the attack of 9/11 to launch a series of wars on Arab regimes, none of which had attacked us. All, however, were enemies of Israel.… The War Party [Bush administration neoconservatives] seemed desperate to get a Middle East war going before America had second thoughts.” [Project for the New American Century, 9/20/2001; American Conservative, 3/24/2003]
Entity Tags: Patrick Buchanan, William Kristol, Weekly Standard, Project for the New American Century, George W. Bush, Richard Perle
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
September 24, 2001: Neoconservative Columnists Advocate Overthrow of Hussein as Part of a ‘Larger War’ to Reestablish US ‘Dominance’ in Middle East
In an op-ed column for the neoconservative Weekly Standard, writers Thomas Donnelly and Gary Schmitt state that the US’s enemies “want to push the United States out of the Middle East. Our response must be to prevent that.” Donnelly and Schmitt, members of the Project for the New American Century think tank (PNAC—see January 26, 1998 and September 2000), say that such an effort “will require more than a vague, unfocused ‘war on terrorism.‘… Last week’s strikes represent a new and more complex phase of this war. But this is not a new war. This is a ‘theater war’ in the classic sense. Neither [O]sama bin Laden nor Saddam [Hussein] cares much about America’s role in Europe or East Asia. They want us out of their region.”
Reasserting Dominance in Middle East – The US can win this “struggle for power in the Persian Gulf” by “reasserting our role as the region’s dominant power; as the guarantor of regional security; and as the protector of Israel, moderate Arab regimes, and the economic interests of the industrialized world.” Donnelly and Schmitt trace the US’s problems in the region back to the decision not to overthrow Hussein in 1991 (see January 16, 1991 and After). “As Saddam has crawled back from defeat,” they write, “bin Laden has grown increasingly bold. Meanwhile, our regional allies have begun to hedge their bets, not only with the terrorists and Iraq, but with Iran as well.” The US should focus on routing both bin Laden and Hussein from the region, they say. It is unclear if Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, they say, though they assert that Hussein was “implicated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (see February 26, 1993 and October 2000).… But as with bin Laden, we have long known that Saddam is our enemy, and that he would strike us as hard as he could. And if we have learned anything at all from [the] past week, it is that adopting a defensive posture risks attacks with unacceptable consequences. The only reasonable course when faced with such foes is to preempt and to strike first.” Overthrowing Hussein “is the key to restoring our regional dominance and preventing our enemies from achieving their war aims.… When Bush administration officials speak of ‘ending’ regimes that participate in the war against America, they must mean Saddam Hussein’s Iraq” (see Before January 20, 2001).
Cowing Other Nations, Restoring ‘Global Credibility’ – Overthrowing the Iraqi government will also cow Iran, Syria, and other regional threats, the authors say, and “will restore the global credibility tarnished in the Clinton years. Both our friends and our enemies will be watching to see if we pass this test.” Although attacking Afghanistan is not necessary, toppling the Saddam regime will not be difficult in a military sense, and “the larger challenge will be occupying Iraq after the fighting is over.”
Surpluses Will Pay for Effort – The so-called “lockboxes”—Social Security funds and others—previously kept from being spent on other government programs are, the authors write, “yesterday’s news,” but the sharp increases in defense spending that this war effort will require will not be difficult to fund: “given the surpluses that exist, there is no impediment to such increases.” [Weekly Standard, 9/24/2001]
Entity Tags: Thomas Donnelly, Gary Schmitt, Weekly Standard, Project for the New American Century
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
September 25-26, 2001: Neoconservative Commentator Kristol Advocates Regime Change in Iraq, Slams Powell
Neoconservative commentator and publisher William Kristol writes that the US must implement “regime change where possible” throughout the Middle East, and especially in Iraq. He excoriates Secretary of State Colin Powell for being against such an aggressive policy. The next day, the Washington Times, a right-wing newspaper, prints an editorial agreeing with Kristol about the need for regime change, and adds its voice to Kristol’s in criticizing Powell. [Unger, 2007, pp. 217]
Entity Tags: Washington Times, Colin Powell, William Kristol
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
October 29, 2001: Neoconservative Scholar: ‘This Is Total War’
Michael Ledeen, speaking at an event sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), states: “No stages. This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq… this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war… our children will sing great songs about us years from now.” [Institute, 10/29/2001; Village Voice, 11/21/2001] Interestingly, several sources credit fellow AEI neoconservative Richard Perle, and not Ledeen, with the quote, including John Pilger’s book The New Rulers of the World [Pilger, 2002, pp. 10] and former State Department and USAID official William Fisher. [Informed Comment, 2/1/2005] Perle is the moderator of the AEI event where Ledeen speaks. [Institute, 10/29/2001; Village Voice, 11/21/2001]
Entity Tags: Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
November 14, 2001: Neoconservative Foreign Policy Adviser Perle Says Iraq War Should Alert Other Nations: ‘You’re Next’
Neoconservative Richard Perle, the chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, says during remarks at the Foreign Policy Research Institute that the proposed invasion of Iraq is merely the first step in a much larger military strategy that should encompass most of the Middle East and other states which, in Perle’s view, pose threats to the US. “Those who think Iraq should not be next may want to think about Syria or Iran or Sudan or Yemen or Somalia or North Korea or Lebanon or the Palestinian Authority,” Perle says. “These are all institutions, governments for the most part, that permit acts of terror to take place, that sponsor terrorists, that give them refuge, give them sanctuary, and very often much more help than that. When I recite this list, people typically say ‘Well, are we going to go to war against a dozen countries?’ And I think the answer to that is that, if we do it right with respect to one or two, we’ve got a reasonable chance of persuading the others that they should get out of the business of supporting terrorism. If we destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan, and I’m confident we will, and we then go on to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein, and we certainly could if we chose to do so, I think we would have an impressive case to make to the Syrians, the Somalis, and others. We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: ‘You’re next. You’re next unless you stop the practice of supporting terrorism.’ Given the fact that until now there has been no cost attached to supporting terror, I think there’s a reasonable prospect that looking at the costs on the one side—that is, that those regimes will be brought to an end—and the benefits on the other—they will decide to get out of the terrorist business. It seems to me a reasonable gamble in any event.” [Foreign Policy Research Institute, 11/14/2001]
Entity Tags: Defense Policy Board, US Department of Defense, Saddam Hussein, Richard Perle
Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence
November 18-19, 2001: Perle: US to ‘Absolutely’ Go After Iraq for 9/11
Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle, discussing the US’s planned reaction to the 9/11 attacks, says that Iraq is next on the US’s military strike list. CNN anchor John King asks, “Next phase Saddam Hussein?” and Perle replies, “Absolutely.” The day before, on ABC, Perle explained why the US had to make such a move: “Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein, plus his known contact with terrorists, including al-Qaeda terrorists, is simply a threat too large to continue to tolerate.” And what would the upshot of such an invasion be? Perle tells his CNN listeners, “We would be seen as liberators in Iraq.” [PBS, 4/25/2007]
Entity Tags: ABC News, Richard Perle, CNN, Al-Qaeda
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
November 20, 2001: Neoconservative: US Must Realize It Is Involved in ‘World War IV’
Neoconservative professor Eliot Cohen writes that the Afghan war is misnamed. It should be, he says, the latest salvo in “World War IV,” the US-led fight against Islamist terrorism. In agreement with other neoconservatives (see 1992, February 2002, April 3, 2003, and Spring 2007), Cohen says that World War III was the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union. Like the Cold War, this “world war” against militant Islam “is, in fact, global;… will involve a mixture of violent and nonviolent efforts;… will require mobilization of skill, expertise and resources, if not of vast numbers of soldiers;… may go on for a long time; and… has ideological roots.” Afghanistan is “just one front in World War IV,” Cohen asserts, and after the US destroys al-Qaeda and kills its leadership, including, presumably, Osama bin Laden, it must then engage in new battles. Cohen recommends that the US ally itself with secular democracies in the Muslim world, and actively target Islamic regimes that sponsor terrorism, including Iraq (which he calls “the obvious candidate,” as it “not only helped al-Qaeda, but attacked Americans directly… and developed weapons of mass destruction”). After overthrowing the Iraqi regime, he counsels the US to “mobilize in earnest.” [Wall Street Journal, 11/20/2001]
Entity Tags: Eliot A. Cohen
Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence, Domestic Propaganda, War in Afghanistan
November 29-30, 2001: Neoconservative Group Encourages Bush Administration to Invade Iraq as First Step to Dominating Middle East
Christopher DeMuth
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz arranges for Christopher DeMuth, president of the neoconservative think tank The American Enterprise Institute (AEI), to create a group to strategize about the war on terrorism. The group DeMuth creates is called Bletchley II, named after a team of strategists in World War II. The dozen members of this secret group include:
Bernard Lewis, a professor arguing that the US is facing a clash of civilizations with the Islamic world.
Fareed Zakaria, a Newsweek editor and columnist.
Mark Palmer, a former US ambassador to Hungary.
Fouad Ajami, director of the Middle Eastern Studies Program at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.
James Wilson, a professor and specialist in human morality and crime.
Ruel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA Middle East expert.
Steve Herbits, a close consultant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
According to journalist Bob Woodward, the group comes to quick agreement after just two days of discussions and a report is made from their conclusions. They agree it will take two generations for the US to defeat radical Islam. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are the keys to the problems of the Middle East, but the problems there are too intractable. Iran is similarly difficult. But Iraq is weak and vulnerable. DeMuth will later comment: “We concluded that a confrontation with Saddam [Hussein] was inevitable. He was a gathering threat – the most menacing, active, and unavoidable threat. We agreed that Saddam would have to leave the scene before the problem would be addressed.” That is the key to transform the region. Vice President Dick Cheney is reportedly pleased with their report. So is National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who finds it “very, very persuasive.” It is said to have a strong impact on President Bush as well. Woodward later notes the group’s conclusions are “straight from the neoconservative playbook.” [Woodward, 2006, pp. 83-85]
Entity Tags: Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, Steve Herbits, Paul Wolfowitz, Fareed Zakaria, Fouad Ajami, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Mark Palmer, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Bernard Lewis, Christopher DeMuth, James Wilson
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
December 7, 2001: Neoconservative Michael Ledeen Argues in Favor of Perpetual War against the Muslim World
Michael Ledeen, an avid admirer of Machiavelli, argues in a piece published by National Review Online that the US must be “imperious, ruthless, and relentless” against the Muslim world until there has been “total surrender.” Any attempt on the part of the US to be “reasonable” or “evenhanded” will only empower Islamic militants, he asserts. He writes: “We will not be sated until we have had the blood of every miserable little tyrant in the Middle East, until every leader of every cell of the terror network is dead or locked securely away, and every last drooling anti-Semitic and anti-American mullah, imam, sheikh, and ayatollah is either singing the praises of the United States of America, or pumping gasoline, for a dime a gallon, on an American military base near the Arctic Circle.” [National Review, 12/7/2001] The piece is republished in the Jewish World Review four days later. [Jewish World Review, 12/11/2001]
Entity Tags: Michael Ledeen
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
February 2002: Neoconservative: Bush Must Attack Numerous Arab Nations to Fight, Win ‘World War IV’ against Terrorism
Norman Podhoretz, the editor of the neoconservative magazine Commentary, writes a call to arms called “How to Win World War IV.” For Podhoretz, the US has already won World War III—the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Now, he asserts, it is time to win the war against Islamist terrorism. The US must embrace this war against civilizations, and President Bush must accept that it is his mission “to fight World War IV—the war against militant Islam.” To win this war, Podhoretz writes, the nations of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea must be overthrown, but also Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority. Bush must reject the “timorous counsels” of the “incorrigibly cautious Colin Powell [and] find the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated” Islamic world. The 9/11 attacks caused the US to destroy the Afghan Taliban in the process of battling al-Qaeda, Podhoretz writes: “We may willy-nilly find ourselves forced… to topple five or six or seven more tyrannies in the Islamic world (including that other sponsor of terrorism, Yasir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority). I can even [imagine] the turmoil of this war leading to some new species of an imperial mission for America, whose purpose would be to oversee the emergence of successor governments in the region more amenable to reform and modernization than the despotisms now in place.… I can also envisage the establishment of some kind of American protectorate over the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, as we more and more come to wonder why 7,000 princes should go on being permitted to exert so much leverage over us and everyone else.” A year later, conservative pundit Pat Buchanan will explain why Podhoretz wants to so drastically remake the map of the Middle East: “[O]ne nation, one leader, one party. Israel, [Ariel] Sharon, Likud.” [Commentary, 2/2002; American Conservative, 3/24/2003]
Entity Tags: George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Ariel Sharon, Likud, Patrick Buchanan, Taliban, Norman Podhoretz, Al-Qaeda
Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence
April 2002: Neoconservatives Say War against Iraq Is about Redrawing ‘Geopolitical Map of the Middle East’
According to Arnaud de Borchgrave, the editor-at-large of the Washington Times, he learns in April 2002 from neoconservatives that the planned war against Iraq is not about WMD, but about reshaping the Middle East. In a February 2004 op-ed, he writes: “WMDs were not the principal reason for going to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq; they were the pretext.… When this writer first heard from prominent neoconservatives in April 2002 that war was no longer a question of ‘if’ but ‘when,’ the casus belli had little to do with WMDs. The Bush administration, they explained, starkly and simply, had decided to redraw the geopolitical map of the Middle East. The Bush Doctrine of preemption had become the vehicle for driving axis-of-evil practitioners out of power.” [Washington Times, 2/10/2004]
Entity Tags: Arnaud de Borchgrave
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
April 23, 2002: Neoconservative: US Should ‘Pick Up Some Small, Crappy Little Country and Throw It against the Wall’
In a column for the National Review advocating the immediate overthrow of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, neoconservative Jonah Goldberg praises his fellow neoconservative Michael Ledeen and urges the US to implement what he calls the “Ledeen Doctrine,” which he paraphrases as: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small, crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” Goldberg says that he heard Ledeen make this statement in an early 1990s speech. [National Review, 4/23/2002; Unger, 2007, pp. 149]
Entity Tags: Saddam Hussein, Michael Ledeen, Jonah Goldberg
Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence
May 2002: Wilson Breaks Decade-Long Silence to Speak out against Iraq War
Former ambassador Joseph Wilson participates in the annual conference of the American Turkish Council. One of the keynote speakers is Richard Perle, the neoconservative head of the Defense Policy Board and the chief author of the 1996 position paper “A Clean Break,” which argued for the forcible redrawing of the political map of the Middle East (see July 8, 1996). In 1996, Perle had called for the overthrow of the Iraqi government. At the conference, Perle makes the same call. Wilson will later recall being deeply troubled by Perle’s “fire and brimstone” speech. The next afternoon, when Wilson is scheduled to speak, he voices his concerns over Perle’s position. Although he had journeyed to Niger to learn the truth or falsity about the Iraq-Niger uranium claims (see February 21, 2002-March 4, 2002), he has not spoken publicly about Iraq in over a decade. He does so because he urgently feels that Perle’s views need to be countered. “No decision is more important than that to send a nation’s sons and daughters to a foreign land in order to kill and perhaps die for their country,” he will write. “As a democracy, we are all participants in that decision. Not to speak out would amount to complicity in whatever decision was taken.” Wilson tells the assemblage that “if we were prepared to entertain the possibility that in coming year Iraq might be reduced to a chemical, biological, and nuclear wasteland, then we should march in lockstep to the martial music played by Perle; if not, we should think about alternatives to war.” His partner at the podium, former Turkish military commander Cevik Bir, is, Wilson will recall, “even more strident than me in his opposition to military action.” The audience, “largely American and Turkish businessmen, [largely] agreed with us,” Wilson will recall. For his part, Perle has long since departed the conference. Wilson will later write: “As I discovered while debating the issue, the prowar advocates were little inclined to listen to the views of others. They had made up their minds long ago, and now it was a matter of ramming their agenda through the decision-making process.” [Wilson, 2004, pp. 291-292]
Entity Tags: Richard Perle, American Turkish Council, Joseph C. Wilson, Cevik Bir
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Niger Uranium and Plame Outing
August 6, 2002: Prominent Neoconservative Wants to Turn Middle East into ‘Cauldron’ of Violence
On August 4, 2002, retired Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft said that if the US invades Iraq: “I think we could have an explosion in the Middle East. It could turn the whole region into a cauldron and destroy the War on Terror” (see October 16, 2001, March 2002, and August 4, 2002). On August 6, prominent neoconservative author and sometime intelligence agent Michael Ledeen, who is an informal White House adviser and a sometimes-vituperative advocate for the US invasion of Iraq, mocks Scowcroft. Writing in his weekly column for the National Review, Ledeen says: “It’s always reassuring to hear Brent Scowcroft attack one’s cherished convictions; it makes one cherish them all the more.… One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today. If we wage the war effectively, we will bring down the terror regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and either bring down the Saudi monarchy or force it to abandon its global assembly line to indoctrinate young terrorists. That’s our mission in the war against terror.” [National Review, 8/6/2002; Unger, 2007, pp. 231] Author Craig Unger will later comment: “‘Faster, please,’ became [Ledeen’s] mantra, repeated incessantly in his National Review columns. Rhapsodizing about war week after week, in the aftermath of 9/11, seemingly intoxicated by the grandiosity of his fury, Ledeen became the chief rhetorician for neoconservative visionaries who wanted to remake the Middle East.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 231]
Entity Tags: Brent Scowcroft, Michael Ledeen, Craig Unger
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
August 16, 2002: Perle: Bush’s War Rhetoric Makes Invasion Necessary
Neoconservative Richard Perle, the head of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, says that the Bush administration has expended so much time and effort in making its case for war against Iraq that it has no other choice except to invade. He says, “The failure to take on Saddam [Hussein]… would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism.” [New York Times, 8/16/2002] In 2006, author Frank Rich interprets Perle’s words, writing: “If Bush didn’t get rid of Saddam after all this saber rattling, he will look like the biggest wimp since—well, his father. If he didn’t do it soon, after all these months of swagger, he would destroy his credibility and hurt the country’s.” [Rich, 2006, pp. 62]
Entity Tags: Richard Perle, Bush administration (43), Defense Policy Board, Frank Rich, George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush, US Department of Defense
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion
September 4, 2002: Neoconservative Michael Ledeen Advocates Overthrow of Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian, and Saudi Arabian Governments
Neoconservative Michael Ledeen argues in a piece published by the Wall Street Journal that the US must not limit the next military strike to Iraq alone. Rather, according to Ledeen, the US “should instead be talking about using all our political, moral, and military genius to support a vast democratic revolution to liberate all the peoples of the Middle East from tyranny.” In addition to Iraq, he says, the governments of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia must also be overthrown. “Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/4/2002]
Entity Tags: Michael Ledeen
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
November 2002-December 2002: Abrams Leads Secretive Neocon Planning Group for Iraq Occupation
Elliott Abrams, a well-known neoconservative and former Iran-Contra figure, leads one of a dozen Bush administration working groups charged with drafting post-invasion plans. Involved in his group are adamant neoconservatives Joe Collins, a deputy assistant secretary at the Pentagon, and Robin Cleveland, a former aide to Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. His working group is supposed to draft plans for rapid humanitarian planning. But critics in the State Department complain that it involves itself in the issue of post-Saddam politics and economic reconstruction. Abrams’ group is backed by Paul Wolfowitz and the vice president’s office. An ally of Secretary of State Colin Powell tells Insight magazine, “This is a case of stealthy micromanagement by the Wolfowitz hawks—they use what bureaucratic vehicles are available to make their imprint on policy.” Additionally the group is very secretive. It refuses “to brief not only top State Department officials but also aides of Gen. Tommy Franks, the commanding officer of the US Central Command [CENTCOM], about what it is doing.” Instead it stovepipes its work to its contacts in the White House. Sources in the State Department and CIA believe that one of the group’s apparent aims is reducing the influence of the State Department, CIA and the United Nations in post-Saddam Iraq. These critics also question “why a convicted felon [Abrams], pardoned or not, is being allowed to help shape policy.” Within the Pentagon, there is also resentment of Abrams’ group. An unnamed Pentagon source says General Tommy Franks is being “left out of the loop.” A Defense official says, “CENTCOM is for the most part unaware of what Abrams is doing, but friction is developing and the military end of the equation feels that they are being mislead.” [Insight, 11/26/2002; Insight, 12/28/2002]
Entity Tags: Joe Collins, Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, American Enterprise Institute
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Iran-Contra Affair, Neoconservative Influence
November 12, 2002: Neoconservative Writer Recommends US Invade Iran First
Neoconservative Michael Ledeen recommends that the US invade Iraq—but only after invading Iran and overthrowing that nation’s government. Ledeen claims that the sporadic demonstrations by Iranian dissidents prove that the entire nation is just waiting for someone like the US to come in and get rid of the theocratic Iranian “mullahcracy” and replace it with a Western-style democracy. Ledeen writes: “This is yet another test of the courage and coherence of American leaders. President Bush has been outstanding in endorsing the calls for freedom in Iran, as has Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. It would be nice if Secretary of State Powell added his own eloquence to the chorus, especially because many Iranians fear that the State Department is still trying to cut a deal with the mullahs. I have long argued that it would be better to liberate Iran before Iraq, and events may soon give us that opportunity. Let’s hope our national security team recognizes how wonderful an opportunity it is, and therefore gives the Iranian freedom fighters the assistance they so richly deserve. Faster, please. Opportunity is knocking at our door.” [National Review, 11/12/2002]
Entity Tags: Michael Ledeen
Timeline Tags: US confrontation with Iran, Iraq under US Occupation, Neoconservative Influence
November 20, 2002: Perle: UN Won’t Find Iraqi Weapons Because They Are So Well Hidden; US Will Attack Even If No Weapons Found
Richard Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board, attends a meeting on global security with members of the British Parliament. At one point he argues that the weapons inspection team might be unable to find Saddam’s arsenal of banned weapons because they are so well hidden. According to the London Mirror, he then states that the US would “attack Iraq even if UN inspectors fail to find weapons.” [Mirror, 11/21/2002] Peter Kilfoyle, a former defense minister and Labour backbencher, tells the Mirror: “America is duping the world into believing it supports these inspections. President Bush intends to go to war even if inspectors find nothing. This make a mockery of the whole process and exposes America’s real determination to bomb Iraq.” [Mirror, 11/21/2002]
Entity Tags: Peter Kilfoyle, Richard Perle, George W. Bush
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion
January 9, 2003: US Rejects British Suggestions to Put Off Iraq War
US officials and advisers reject British suggestions—revealed the previous day—that the war be put off (see January 8, 2003). Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, says that the Bush administration is under no obligation to abandon its war plans on account of opposition from the UN Security Council. He says, “I’m assuming that we will not get a consensus on the Security Council but it may be possible to get it… It would be a great mistake to become dependent on it and take the view that we can’t act separately… That would be an abrogation of the president’s responsibility… If there’s no change in Saddam’s attitude I think there’ll be a reluctance to continue this without a clear indication that our patience will be rewarded by a UN Security Council consensus… A consensus would be a useful thing and I think we’d be willing to wait a little longer to get it but not a long time… We might be acting without a resolution from the UN authorizing it but I think the administration can make a strong case that Saddam’s defiance of a variety of resolutions passed previously could be understood to justify military action.” [Daily Telegraph, 1/10/2003] And John Negroponte, the US Ambassador to the UN, also dismisses widespread objections to US aggression, asserting that any instances of Iraqi non-cooperation will “constitute further material breach,” regardless of what the UN ultimately decides. [Associated Press, 1/9/2003; London Times, 1/10/2003]
Entity Tags: John Negroponte, Richard Perle
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion
February 2003: Prominent Neoconservatives Argue Iraq War Is Really about US World Dominance
Prominent neoconservatives William Kristol and Lawrence F. Kaplan publish the book The War Over Iraq advocating a US invasion of that country. In the book’s introduction, they assert: “We stand at the cusp of a new historical era.… This is a decisive moment.… The decision about what course to take in dealing with Iraq is particularly significant because it is so clearly about more than Iraq. It is about more even than the future of the Middle East and the war on terror. It is about what sort of role the United States intends to play in the world in the twenty-first century.” [Kristol and Kaplan, 2003, pp. vii-viii]
Entity Tags: William Kristol, Lawrence F. Kaplan
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
February 13, 2003: Neoconservative Ledeen Says Iraq Invasion Could Be ‘War to Remake the World’
At a press conference, neoconservative author and academic Michael Ledeen celebrates the imminent Iraq war, saying that now is the time for the US to “destroy [its enemies] to advance our historic mission.… I think we are going to be obliged to fight a regional war, whether we want to or not. It may turn out to be a war to remake the world.” [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 336, 367; Unger, 2007, pp. 290]
Entity Tags: Michael Ledeen
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
February 25, 2003: Neoconservative Foreign Policy Adviser Says UN Weapons Inspectors Being ‘Seriously Deceived’ by Iraqis
Neoconservative Richard Perle, the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, has a simple explanation as to why UN inspectors are not finding WMD in Iraq (see February 8, 2003): skullduggery. “UN weapons inspectors are being seriously deceived,” he declares in an essay published on the American Enterprise Institute’s Web site entitled “Take Out Saddam—It’s the Only Way.” Perle’s contentions are similar to those he has extolled in the past (see March, 2001 and November 20, 2002). This time he escalates the rhetoric even farther: “It reminds me of the way Nazis hoodwinked Red Cross officials inspecting the concentration camp at Theresienstadt in 1944.” [American Enterprise Institute, 2/25/2003; Unger, 2007, pp. 289]
Entity Tags: Richard Perle, Defense Policy Board
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
March 19, 2003: Neoconservative: ‘Iraq Is a Battle, Not a War’
Neoconservative Michael Ledeen, in an op-ed entitled “One Battle in a Wider War,” echoes the thinking of other neoconservatives when he writes that other Middle Eastern countries, specifically Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, must also be invaded by the US. “Once upon a time, it might have been possible to deal with Iraq alone, without having to face the murderous forces of the other terror masters in Tehran, Damascus, and [Riyadh], but that time has passed,” he writes. “Iraq is a battle, not a war. We have to win the war, and the only way to do that is to bring down the terror masters, and spread freedom throughout the region.” [New York Sun, 3/19/2003]
Entity Tags: Michael Ledeen
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence, Domestic Propaganda
March 27, 2003: Accused of Profiteering, Perle Resigns from Pentagon Advisory Panel Chairmanship
Embroiled in controversy over multiple conflicts of interests, Richard Perle resigns his position as chairman of the Defense Advisory Panel (DAP). [CNN, 3/28/2003] His resignation is the result of criticism of his mix of business activities as an investor, consultant, lobbyist, and political advocacy as an adviser to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In the weeks prior to his resignation, the New Yorker revealed that Perle’s venture capital firm, Trireme Partners LP, solicited funds from Saudi financiers, despite Perle’s vociferous criticisms of the Saudi government (see March 17, 2003). (Perle had notably invited a RAND Corp. analyst to give the DAP a briefing advocating the overthrow of the Saudi regime.) In the New Yorker article, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar, said, “Here he is, on the one hand, trying to make a hundred-million-dollar deal, and, on the other hand, there were elements of the appearance of blackmail—‘If we get in business, he’ll back off on Saudi Arabia’—as I have been informed by participants in the meeting.” [New Yorker, 3/17/2003; Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 5/2003; Washington Post, 7/24/2004]
Entity Tags: Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle, Bandar bin Sultan, Trireme Partners LP
Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence
December 19, 2003: Neocon Says Bush Administration Should Work for Regime Change in Iran
Neoconservative Michael Ledeen, in an op-ed piece published by the Wall Street Journal, makes numerous charges against the Iranian government, saying it supports terrorism and is on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. He asserts that the Bush administration must therefore act soon against Iran. He says Iran is the “ultimate litmus test of the seriousness of the Bush administration” and that the administration’s “ability to conduct an effective campaign against the mullahs in Tehran will determine the outcome of the war against the terror masters.” Ledeen asserts that the US does not need to invade Iran to “liberate it,” rather it only needs to support the “enthusiastically pro-American” people, as the US did the “Serbs against Slobodan Milosovic, the Filipinos against the Marcoses, the Poles against Soviet Communism.” [Wall Street Journal, 12/19/2003]
Entity Tags: Michael Ledeen, Bush administration (43)
Timeline Tags: US confrontation with Iran, Neoconservative Influence
January 24, 2004: Perle Takes Part in Rally for Iran; Denies Knowledge of Connections to MEK
Pentagon adviser Richard N. Perle speaks at a charity event whose stated purpose is to express “solidarity with Iran” and raise money for Iran earthquake victims. During the event, statements are made in support of “regime change in Iran.” The event is attended by FBI agents because of suspicions that the event has connections to the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), a militant Iranian opposition group that is included on the state department’s list terrorist organizations. The US Treasury Department will freeze the assets of the event’s prime organizer, the Iranian-American Community of Northern Virginia, two days later (see January 26, 2004). Perle tells the Washington Post that he was unaware of possible connections to MEK. [Washington Post, 1/29/2004]
Entity Tags: People’s Mujahedin of Iran, Richard Perle
Timeline Tags: US confrontation with Iran
October 28, 2005: Analysis: Libby Involved in Many Aspects of Bush Administration Foreign Policy
In light of the indictment of Lewis “Scooter” Libby (see October 28, 2005), the Center for American Progress (CAP) puts out an analysis of Libby’s role as Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, and the impact Libby has had on Bush administration policies. Libby, a powerful and influential neoconservative, “has been one of the most important men pulling the levers behind the Bush administration,” the article finds. “From the very beginning of the administration, Libby has essentially been Dick Cheney’s Dick Cheney.” But, the article goes on to note: “[w]hat few have realized at this historic moment is that for the past four and a half years, Libby has been ‘scooting’ from scandal to scandal. Libby has been at center stage for the other major national security scandals of the Bush administration, including the Iraq intelligence debacle, the secret meetings about Halliburton contracts, and doubtless others we have not heard of yet. It was Libby—along with Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and a handful of other top aides at the Pentagon and White House—who convinced the president that the US should go to war in Iraq. It was Libby who pushed Cheney to publicly argue that Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaeda and 9/11. It was also Libby who prodded former Secretary of State Colin Powell to include specious reports about an alleged meeting between 9/11 terrorist Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence official in Powell’s February 2003 speech to the United Nations” (see February 5, 2003). Libby co-authored the controversial Defense Planning Guidance document of 1988 (see February 18, 1992) that called on the US to essentially transform itself into an aggressive empire, using its military to stretch its power around the world. “This Planning Guidance document went a long way toward endearing Libby to Cheney,” the CAP article reads. There is also evidence that Libby helped steer no-bid Iraqi reconstruction contracts to Cheney’s former firm, Halliburton. The article concludes, “Given the depth of his influence in shaping the White House agenda over the past four and a half years, losing Libby today is not only a huge blow to the vice president, but to the entire Bush administration.” [Center for American Progress, 10/28/2005]
Entity Tags: Bush administration (43), US Department of Defense, Lewis (“Scooter”) Libby, Center for American Progress
Timeline Tags: Niger Uranium and Plame Outing
March 2007: Journalist Calls Neocon Policy Paper ‘A Playbook for US-Israel Foreign Policy During Bush-Cheney Era’
Craig Unger
Author and journalist Craig Unger writes that the 1996 Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies policy paper, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” (see July 8, 1996), was “the kernel of a breathtakingly radical vision for a new Middle East. By waging wars against Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, the paper asserted, Israel and the US could stabilize the region. Later, the neoconservatives argued that this policy could democratize the Middle East.” Unger’s thoughts are echoed by neoconservative Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli-American policy expert who co-signed the paper with her husband, David Wurmser, now a top Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. Mrs. Wurmser (see March 2007) calls the policy paper “the seeds of a new vision.” While many of the paper’s authors eventually became powerful advisers and officials within the Bush administration, and implemented the policies advocated in the paper in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the paper’s focus on Iran has been somewhat less noticed. Former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for whom the paper was written, has observed, “The most dangerous of these regimes [Iran, Syria, and Iraq] is Iran.” Unger writes, “Ten years later, ‘A Clean Break’ looks like nothing less than a playbook for US-Israeli foreign policy during the Bush-Cheney era. Many of the initiatives outlined in the paper have been implemented—removing Saddam [Hussein] from power, setting aside the ‘land for peace’ formula to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon—all with disastrous results.” [Vanity Fair, 3/2007]
Entity Tags: Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, David Wurmser, Craig Unger, Saddam Hussein, Bush administration (43), Hezbollah, Meyrav Wurmser, Benjamin Netanyahu, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, US International Relations, Iraq under US Occupation, Neoconservative Influence
September 24, 2007: Gingrich: Blow Up Iran’s Gas Refinery
Newt Gingrich
Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich says that the US should sabotage Iran’s gasoline refinery as part of its efforts to bring down the Iranian government. Gingrich also is harshly critical of the Bush administration for its failure to deal more strongly with Iraq, saying, “I can’t imagine why they put up with this. I mean, either General Petraeus is wrong and the military spokesman’s wrong, or the current policies we have are stunningly ineffective.” He then gives his own prescription for regime change in Iran: “We should finance the students. We should finance a Radio Free Iran. We should covertly sabotage the only gasoline refinery in the country. We should be prepared, once the gasoline refinery is down, to stop all of the gasoline tankers and communicate to the Iranian government that if they want to move equipment into Iran—into Iraq, they’re going to have to walk.” Gingrich adds, “I think we are currently so timid and our bureaucracies are so risk-avoiding—it took enormous leadership by President Reagan and by Bill Casey to reenergize the CIA in the early ‘80s. And we’ve now been through a long period of beating up the intelligence community and having lawyers say, You can’t do this, you can’t do that.” [Fox News, 9/25/2007]
Entity Tags: Newt Gingrich, Fox News
Timeline Tags: US confrontation with Iran, Neoconservative Influence
October 28, 2007: Presidential Candidate Giuliani’s Foreign Policy Adviser Says US Must Bomb Iran; Would Take ‘Five Minutes’
Neoconservative founder Norman Podhoretz, a senior foreign adviser to Republican presidential frontrunner Rudolph Giuliani, says the US has no other choice than to bomb Iran. Podhoretz says heavy and immediate strikes against Iran are necessary to prevent that country from developing nuclear weapons. “None of the alternatives to military action—negotiations, sanctions, provoking an internal insurrection—can possibly work,” Podhoretz says. “They’re all ways of evading the terrible choice we have to make which is to either let them get the bomb or to bomb them.” Podhoretz says that such strikes would be effective: “People I’ve talked to have no doubt we could set [Iran’s nuclear program] five or 10 years. There are those who believe we can get the underground facilities as well with these highly sophisticated bunker-busting munitions.” (Podhoretz does not identify the people he has “talked to.”) “I would say it would take five minutes. You’d wake up one morning and the strikes would have been ordered and carried out during the night. All the president has to do is say go.” Giuliani has echoed Podhoretz’s belligerence towards Iran; last month, Giuliani told a London audience that Iran should be given “an absolute assurance that, if they get to the point that they are going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them or we will set them back five or 10 years.” Podhoretz says he was pleasantly surprised to hear Giuliani make such assertions: “I was even surprised he went that far. I’m sure some of his political people were telling him to go slow…. I wouldn’t advise any candidate to come out and say we have to bomb—it’s not a prudent thing to say at this stage of the campaign.” Podhoretz has given President Bush much the same advice (see Spring 2007).
‘Irrational’ ‘Insanity’ – Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel blasts the “immorality and illegality” of Podhoretz’s “death wish,” and notes that such “military action would be irrational for both sides. The US military is already stretched to the breaking point. We’d witness unprecedented pandemonium in oil markets. Our troops in Iraq would be endangered.” Vanden Heuvel cites the failure to destroy Saddam Hussein’s Scud missiles during six weeks of bombings in 1991 (see January 16, 1991 and After), and the failure of the Israeli bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor (see June 7, 1981) to curb “regional [nuclear] proliferation.” She concludes, “Podhoretz and his insanity will embolden Iranian hardliners, plunge the region into even greater and darker instability and undermine our security.” [Nation, 10/28/2007]
Giuliani’s Stable of Neocons – Since July 2007, Giuliani has surrounded himself with a group of outspoken hardline and neoconservative foreign policy advisers (see Mid-July 2007).
Entity Tags: Norman Podhoretz, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush, Rudolph (“Rudy”) Giuliani
Timeline Tags: US confrontation with Iran, Neoconservative Influence
February 19, 2009: Perle Denies Any Neoconservative Influence in Bush Administration
In a speech at the Nixon Center, neoconservative guru Richard Perle (see 1965 and Early 1970s) attempts to drastically rewrite the history of the Bush administration and his role in the invasion of Iraq. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank writes that listening to Perle gave him “a sense of falling down the rabbit hole.” Milbank notes: “In real life, Perle was the ideological architect of the Iraq war and of the Bush doctrine of preemptive attack (see 1987-2004, Late December 2000 and Early January 2001, March, 2001, Shortly After September 11, 2001, September 15, 2001, September 19-20, 2001, November 14, 2001, November 14, 2001, November 18-19, 2001, May 2002, August 16, 2002, November 20, 2002, January 9, 2003, February 25, 2003, and March 27, 2003). But at yesterday’s forum of foreign policy intellectuals, he created a fantastic world in which:
Perle is not a neoconservative.
Neoconservatives do not exist.
Even if neoconservatives did exist, they certainly couldn’t be blamed for the disasters of the past eight years.” [Washington Post, 2/20/2009]
Perle had previously advanced his arguments in an article for National Interest magazine. [National Interest, 1/21/2009]
‘No Such Thing as a Neoconservative Foreign Policy’ – Perle tells the gathering, hosted by National Interest: “There is no such thing as a neoconservative foreign policy. It is a left critique of what is believed by the commentator to be a right-wing policy.” Perle has shaped the nation’s foreign policy since 1974 (see August 15, 1974, Early 1976, 1976, and Early 1981). He was a key player in the Reagan administration’s early attempts to foment a nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union (see Early 1981 and After, 1981 and Beyond, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and October 11-12, 1986). Perle denies any real involvement with the 1996 “Clean Break” document, which Milbank notes “is widely seen as the cornerstone of neoconservative foreign policy” (see July 8, 1996 and March 2007). Perle explains: “My name was on it because I signed up for the study group. I didn’t approve it. I didn’t read it.” In reality, Perle wrote the bulk of the “Clean Break” report. Perle sidesteps questions about the letters he wrote (or helped write) to Presidents Clinton and Bush demanding the overthrow of Saddam Hussein (see January 26, 1998, February 19, 1998, and September 20, 2001), saying, “I don’t have the letters in front of me.” He denies having any influence on President Bush’s National Security Strategy, which, as Milbank notes, “enshrin[ed] the neoconservative themes of preemptive war and using American power to spread freedom” (see May 1, 2001), saying: “I don’t know whether President Bush ever read any of those statements [he wrote]. My guess is he didn’t.” Instead, as Perle tells the audience: “I see a number of people here who believe and have expressed themselves abundantly that there is a neoconservative foreign policy and it was the policy that dominated the Bush administration, and they ascribe to it responsibility for the deplorable state of the world. None of that is true, of course.” Bush’s foreign policy had “no philosophical underpinnings and certainly nothing like the demonic influence of neoconservatives that is alleged.” And Perle claims that no neoconservative ever insisted that the US military should be used to spread democratic values (see 1965, Early 1970s, Summer 1972 and After, August 15, 1974, 1976, November 1976, Late November, 1976, 1977-1981, 1981 and Beyond, 1984, Late March 1989 and After, 1991-1997, March 8, 1992, July 1992, Autumn 1992, July 8, 1996, Late Summer 1996, Late Summer 1996, 1997, November 12, 1997, January 26, 1998, February 19, 1998, May 29, 1998, July 1998, February 1999, 2000, September 2000, November 1, 2000, January 2001, January 22, 2001 and After, March 12, 2001, Shortly After September 11, 2001, September 20, 2001, September 20, 2001, September 20, 2001, September 24, 2001, September 25-26, 2001, October 29, 2001, October 29, 2001, November 14, 2001, November 20, 2001, November 29-30, 2001, December 7, 2001, February 2002, April 2002, April 23, 2002, August 6, 2002, September 4, 2002, November 2002-December 2002, November 12, 2002, February 2003, February 13, 2003, March 19, 2003, December 19, 2003, March 2007, September 24, 2007, and October 28, 2007), saying, “I can’t find a single example of a neoconservative supposed to have influence over the Bush administration arguing that we should impose democracy by force.” His strident calls for forcible regime change in Iran were not what they seemed, he says: “I’ve never advocated attacking Iran. Regime change does not imply military force, at least not when I use the term” (see July 8-10, 1996, Late Summer 1996, November 14, 2001, and January 24, 2004).
Challenged by Skeptics – Former Reagan administration official Richard Burt (see Early 1981 and After and May 1982 and After), who challenged Perle during his time in Washington, takes issue with what he calls the “argument that neoconservatism maybe actually doesn’t exist.” He reminds Perle of the longtime rift between foreign policy realists and neoconservative interventionists, and argues, “You’ve got to kind of acknowledge there is a neoconservative school of thought.” Perle replies, “I don’t accept the approach, not at all.” National Interest’s Jacob Heilbrunn asks Perle to justify his current position with the title of his 2003 book An End to Evil. Perle claims: “We had a publisher who chose the title. There’s hardly an ideology in that book.” (Milbank provides an excerpt from the book that reads: “There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust. This book is a manual for victory.”) Perle blames the news media for “propagat[ing] this myth of neoconservative influence,” and says the term “neoconservative” itself is sometimes little more than an anti-Semitic slur. After the session, the moderator asks Perle how successful he has been in making his points. “I don’t know that I persuaded anyone,” he concedes. [Washington Post, 2/20/2009]
‘Richard Perle Is a Liar’ – Harvard professor Stephen Walt, a regular columnist for Foreign Policy magazine, writes flatly, “Richard Perle is a liar.” He continues: “[K]ey neoconservatives like Douglas Feith, I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and others [were] openly calling for regime change in Iraq since the late 1990s and… used their positions in the Bush administration to make the case for war after 9/11, aided by a chorus of sympathetic pundits at places like the American Enterprise Institute, and the Weekly Standard. The neocons were hardly some secret cabal or conspiracy, as they were making their case loudly and in public, and no serious scholar claims that they ‘bamboozled’ Bush and Cheney into a war. Rather, numerous accounts have documented that they had been openly pushing for war since 1998 and they continued to do so after 9/11.… The bottom line is simple: Richard Perle is lying. What is disturbing about this case is not that a former official is trying to falsify the record in such a brazen fashion; Perle is hardly the first policymaker to kick up dust about his record and he certainly won’t be the last. The real cause for concern is that there are hardly any consequences for the critical role that Perle and the neoconservatives played for their pivotal role in causing one of the great foreign policy disasters in American history. If somebody can help engineer a foolish war and remain a respected Washington insider—as is the case with Perle—what harm is likely to befall them if they lie about it later?” [Foreign Policy, 2/23/2009]
Entity Tags: Richard Perle, Jacob Heilbrunn, Lewis (“Scooter”) Libby, George W. Bush, Douglas Feith, Dana Milbank, Bush administration (43), Stephen Walt, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Burt
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
The DEA and the Massacre in the Moskitia
By GREG McCLAIN | CounterPunch | June 15, 2012
The US is once again hell bent on establishing death squads in its militarization of Central America. This is a stark reminder of the 1980s when Ronald Reagan and Ollie North were funding the contras with drug money, but now it is reinforced with lessons learned in terrorizing the people of Iraq and Afghanistan through night raids and counterinsurgency tactics. Another tactic that the current US administration has reinvigorated comes from the “War on Drugs” playbook of past administrations: by using the DEA as a front for creating and sustaining havoc, it can attempt to justify the military buildup and control the policies of the host country while manipulating the flow of drugs, all the while appeasing the tax payers back home and the folks in the host country who see the build up as necessary. Not abating by any measure the flow of narcotics into the U.S., the so-called ‘War on Drugs’ has actually increased the narcotics industry in Central America and provided a bogus rationale for the increased militarization of yet another Latin American county; this time Honduras.
On May 11th on the Rio Patuca near Ahuas, a small municipality in the Moskitia, a helicopter titled to the US State Department sprayed bullets into a pipante, a long, narrow dugout canoe, which carried sixteen locals. Four people were killed: 28-year-old Juana Jackson (six months pregnant), 48-year-old Candelaria Pratt Nelson (five months pregnant), 14-year-old Hasked Brooks Wood, and 21-year-old Emerson Martínez Henríquez. At least four more were seriously injured. The DEA confirms that its Foreign-deployed Advisory Support Team (FAST) participated in the operation supporting a Honduran National Police Tactical Response Team.
I first heard of the tragedy while in the process of preparing for a human rights delegation to Honduras coordinated by the Alliance for Global Justice and led by Karen Spring from Rights Action. The New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press have all published stories glorifying the role of the DEA in seizing a huge quantity of drugs in the incident. They not only down played the killing and injuring of innocent people (some reports even questioned if there even were casualties), but also some of the news reports stated that those shot were actually involved in drug trafficking. In typical mainstream media fashion there was over-the-top anonymous quoting of US and Honduran officials and not much fact checking.
I arrived in Honduras on May 18th for the delegation. The original itinerary focused on the struggles of the campesinas and campesinos of the Aguan Valley and their fight to win back the land stolen from them by the oligarchs with the backing of the illegitimate post-coup government of Pepe Lobo. As important as the land rights struggle is to us, it did not take long for the delegation (made up of academics, human rights and labor activists, Canadian and U.S. citizens, several with extensive experience in Honduras) to agree that the massacre in the Moskitia was of a greater urgency especially in light of the contradictory reports coming from the US State Department and the DEA.
We spent our time in Ahuas talking to the survivors of the incident and families of those slaughtered by the US supplied M-60 bullets. We also spoke to several village leaders, the Mayor of Ahuas, and to many locals in order to piece together as best we could the incident and the aftermath. What we got was a startling look into how our government conducts its military adventurism and then obfuscates in order to cover up its crimes. We also witnessed the increased militarization of the region as platoons of masked Honduran soldiers, automatic weapons slung across their chests, patrolled up and down the muddied streets of Ahuas. An older commanding officer, whose Velcro name and rank patches were blank, stated that they would be there “for as long as necessary,” another chilling echo from the Iraq/Afghanistan quagmires.
Getting to Ahuas is no easy feat. We took a small plane from La Ceiba, closer to the Western end of the Caribbean coast of Honduras, to Puerto Lempira, which is on the Laguna Catrasco in the Moskitia on the Eastern side of the country near the Nicaraguan border. Once in Puerto Lempira we hired a small lancha, a motorboat with a capacity of about 15 people, to take us across the Lagunas. It was approximately an hour and a half in the scorching midday sun before we reached the port. Once there, we loaded into a giant pickup truck fastened with wooden planks for seating, which are placed across the truck bed, for the thirty-minute bumpy ride into Ahuas.
After our boat ride across the Laguna and through the rivers, which act as highways for the local people, it became clear to us what one of the survivors had been quoted as saying in the press, and that we were later to hear first hand. The reason that the pipante had been on the river at 2 AM was because they waited until the sun had set to take the boat home in order to avoid the mid-day heat. This is significant in light of the statement by the Honduran foreign minister, Arturo Corrales. He was quoted in the New York Times (05/18/12) as saying “it was totally dark, in a place that is not a fishing spot.” He added, “It’s in the jungle. It is very hard to believe that at 2 a.m., in the jungle, the people in a boat that is beside another boat with 400 kilograms of cocaine were fishing,” the implication being that they, the victims, were drug smugglers.
The ill-fated pipante had disembarked way downstream at the mouth of the river where it runs into the Caribbean, fighting against the current in order to get to Ahuas. Those that we interviewed said that they had been on the river for 8 hours. The owners of the boat had dropped off lobstermen at the opening of the Caribbean earlier in the day and waited for the sun to begin to set before heading back to Ahuas. This is a routine that they have been undertaking daily for 25 years. As they returned, heading into the current, they picked up other passengers along the way, some heading home and some heading toward jobs or to visit relatives. Many of them slept during the journey only to be awakened by the sounds of gunfire and the burning feeling of having M-60 rounds rip through their bodies.
The details of what exactly prompted the occupants of the helicopters to fire on the pipante are murky at best. The reports from the State Dept. and the DEA have not been consistent and leave out many details, which calls into question their depiction of the events of that night. While witness and victim testimonies have been consistent, the U.S. government versions are shrouded in a haze of information that cannot be divulged, parsed statements that are obviously leading, and “facts” that do not shed light on the operation and the role of U.S. government agents in it. COFADEH (Committee of Families of the Detained and Disappeared), a Honduran human rights group, put it most succinctly in a press release days after the incident, “To keep an act of terror covered up in the midst of media confusion was always a strategy of psychological warfare, a special chapter of state terrorism. We should not accept this.” Audio recordings of communications from the helicopters that evening or surveillance video, if it exists, could potentially clarify many of these issues. The release of such recordings is something that the delegation would like to see Congress demand in any congressional investigation that it conducts. Until such data surfaces, we will never know the true motivation of those in the helicopters who pulled the trigger nor what they were truly doing on the Rio Patuca.
The events of the immediate aftermath became clearer once our delegation took the time to interview numerous witnesses to the shooting and those who rushed to the river upon hearing that loved ones had been shot at. We spoke to Hilda Rosa Lezama Kenreth, 53, laid up in the Ahuas hospital, an underfunded facility run by an evangelical church. She stated that as the shots were being fired from the helicopter she felt a pain across both of her thighs. A bullet had ripped through her left leg and cut across her right leaving huge gaping wounds. She instinctively jumped from the pipante and swam as best she could for cover in the reeds that hugged the bank of the river. She stayed there clinging to the reeds for at least two hours while going in and out of consciousness waiting for help.
Hilda’s son and daughter, Hilder and Elmina, who had been in town when they heard of the shooting, and were awaiting family members to arrive, rushed to the landing, a small sandy area where pipantes and other riverboats were moored. When they got there a helicopter was landing on an open area near were the boats were moored. Before Hilder could begin to search for his mother and brother-in-law he was approached by what he described as three large white men in uniforms who spoke to each other in English. The soldiers ordered him, in broken Spanish, to sit down while pointing guns at his and his sister’s head and chest. They asked him where gasoline was stored. He told them that there was a building nearby that had gas for the boats. They ordered him at gunpoint to take them there often hitting him in the back of the head causing him to fall. When they arrived, the tall white soldiers kicked in the door of the building and stole two 18-gallon barrels of gas. They returned to the landing and ordered Hilder to fill a boat motor with the gas. He did so and then was ordered to get in the boat. They went down river to where the massacre had occurred and Hilder saw a boat with two more tall white soldiers sitting in it. Once they got along side this boat he was further ordered to move bags from it to the boat they had arrived in. He stated that the soldiers told him in broken Spanish to “move the drugs.” Once he was finished he and the five soldiers returned to the landing with the drugs. The soldiers then moved the bags from the boat to the helicopter, not allowing Hilder to look for his mother and brother-in-law. Instead, they hit him again and handcuffed him with plastic zip ties and forced him sit until they left. Once they were gone, another villager cut the ties from his hand. He found the body of his brother-in-law and loaded it onto a boat. He then searched for his mother and was able to find Hilda in the water semi-conscious, but alive several hours after he had gotten there and was detained by the soldiers.
Another survivor, Clara Wood Rivas watched as bullets shattered her fourteen-year-old son Hasked’s skull. As she described the tragedy, she lifted her arm in the air to show the downward trajectory of the bullets, motioning her hand toward the top of her own head and passing it downward mimicking the bullets exiting Hasked’s chin. She stated that he had been shot so many times that she couldn’t recognize his face. Her son slumped over and fell into the water. Ms Wood jumped in to avoid the rain of bullets. Unable to find her son, she swam to shore. When she made it to the landing, “tall gringos” who did not speak Spanish pointed guns at her. She saw her nephew, who had come to the landing to meet her, handcuffed with zip ties and also being held at gunpoint. Through tears she told us, “I thought they were going to kill me. I passed through a war there. I’m blessed to be alive. I’ll never see my son again!”
Traveling with Clara and Hasked was Walter Wilmer, also aged 14. We were unable to meet with him in the hospital in La Ceiba. According to the preliminary report put out by COFADEH, at the time when the bullets began riddling the pipante Wilmer was asleep. He awoke to sounds of screams and blasts of gunfire. He managed to escape the boat unharmed, but the helicopter gunners aimed at him in the water, destroying his left hand. Wilmer managed to swim using only his right until he reached the bank of the river. He could still see the helicopters hovering over the river so he ran through the darkness making it to the hospital in Ahuas. He was later transferred, at great expense to his family, to the hospital in La Ceiba, but it was too late to save his hand.
Members of our delegation were able to meet with Lucio Adnan Nelson, 22, in the hospital at La Ceiba. He had been shot in the back and in his right elbow where he still has bullet fragments. Under sedation he was able to speak to us, but only briefly. Lucio jumped from the boat when it was fired upon. He felt a burning pain in his back as he clung onto a tree branch sticking out of the river. He managed to swim to shore using one hand and ran through the woods until someone found him and helped him to the hospital. Lucio’s father stated that they had to sell some of their livestock in order to pay for the transportation to La Ceiba hospital. He also stated that if his son doesn’t recover fully, which he most likely won’t, he fears that Lucio’s only option in life is to become a beggar in the street.
The AP and the New York Times have revised their reports many times since the incident. The AP in particular has given a clearer picture of the events, but the overarching bent is still on the justification of the DEA and Honduran military’s presence in the Moskitia. They continue to imply that it was simply a tragic mistake in identity, an example of collateral damage in the War on Drugs. I spoke with a Honduran lawyer who represents the interests of the people of the Moskitia. He stated that there have been several reports of US and Honduran military drug interdiction in that region. The common link to these reports is that in all of them the narcotraffickers have gotten away, but the military have seized the drugs. This raises serious questions, not just to the efficacy of the military in drug interdiction, but indeed, what truly is the US and Honduran militaries’ role in the trafficking. In the wake of the DEA’s implication in drug trafficking as related to Plan Colombia and Plan Mexico, as well as the nefarious scheme of the ATF in supplying arms to drug lords in Mexico, plus the rampant corruption of the Honduran military and police and their interrelationship to narcotraffickers, the questions linger as to the true motivations of the US military/DEA presence in Honduras.
The US’s military motivations come under sharper scrutiny when the issue of recently discovered oil reserves in the Moskitia region are brought to light. Texas based Honduras Tejas Oil and Gas Company, which is pursuing an oil and gas concession in La Moskitia, estimate that there are six to eight billion barrels of oil reserves there. Honduras Tejas has lobbying ties to Tea Party nut job Rep. Louis Ghomert (R. TX), who introduced legislation on their behalf, HR 532 (110th): Recognizing the energy and economic partnership between the United States and Honduras. Its ties to the Honduran government as well as the US State Department need to be further investigated.
Many people we spoke with, including representatives of indigenous organizations, are deeply concerned that militarization and violence generated by the “drug war” are negatively impacting their communities and are focused where there are significant natural resources, rivers with hydroelectric potential, petroleum, gold, and forests with many of these natural resources being privatized.
In light of what our delegation observed on our visit and the concerns raised, we demand:
- That the U.S Congress investigate and hold hearings about the U.S. role in the events of May 11, 2012 in La Moskitia.
- That serious and independent investigations take place exploring the role and responsibility of agents of the U.S. government in the May 11 massacre in Ahuas, be they DEA agents, private security contractors under the direction or contracted by agencies of the U.S. government or other security forces. This investigation should include identifying criminal responsibility of specific individuals.
- That the rights and decisions of indigenous communities and popular movements be respected rather than treated as drug traffickers and insurgents with complete disregard to fundamental human rights.
- That the U.S. government speak out publicly against the presence of individuals widely known to have involvement in drug trafficking and death squads within the Honduran justice system today.
- That in light of the abuses we documented, the U.S. government must withdraw all U.S. security forces including DEA and private contractors from Honduras, cease military assistance and training, and stop promoting re-militarization in Central America.
On June 6th the State Dept. was asked to provide an update on the DEA agent investigation in Honduras and on what is being done to assist the victims?
Their answer:
“DEA’s internal investigation is ongoing and should be completed in the next few weeks and we refer you to the Department of Justice for further information. A Honduran special task force conducted an initial investigation and we understand their preliminary conclusion is that the Honduran security forces were justified in firing in self-defense. The Honduran Government referred the investigation to their Attorney General’s office. The U.S. government is working closely with the Government of Honduras and offered transportation for investigators and additional assistance.
All Honduran citizens are eligible to receive care through the Honduran public health system.”
After four weeks of inadequate care in Honduran hospitals where horror stories are common, such as the lack of sutures for routine stitching procedures let alone for major surgery, The International Red Cross and UNICEF have agreed to intervene and pay for the surgeries of Walter Wilmer and Lucio Nelson at La Ceiba Hospital. Meanwhile, the other survivors are left in the care of an inefficient underfunded healthcare system, while the family members of the deceased have not even received so much as an official apology from U.S. or Honduran government officials.
With the ever escalating US military presence in Honduras, we can expect the events described above to become commonplace, just as the horror stories that have come out of Iraq and Afghanistan are never ending. Can drone attacks be far behind?
Greg McClain was a member of the Human Rights Delegation to Ahuas, La Moskitia, Honduras.
Related articles
- Uniformed US soldiers involved in killing of six Honduran civilians (alethonews.wordpress.com)
- DEA Agents Helped Kill Two Pregnant Women in Honduras Last Week (reason.com)
Do Americans “Need to Know” We’ve All But Declared War on Iran?
By Scott Shackford | Reason | June 7, 2012
While lawmakers work themselves up into a tizzy that the White House might be leaking classified information to make President Barack Obama look good (and wouldn’t it just be the living end if true, given Obama’s habit of prosecuting leakers?), Sen. John Kerry asks whether it’s appropriate for the media to actually let the public know what’s going on. Via Politico:
Sen. John Kerry on Wednesday questioned whether The New York Times should have published explosive stories last week about President Obama ordering cyberattacks against Iran’s nuclear program.
“I personally think there is a serious question whether or not that served our interest and whether the public had to know,” Kerry, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, told reporters. “To me it was such a nitty-gritty fundamental national security issue. And I don’t see how the public interest is well served by it. I do see how other interests outside the United States are well served by it.” …
Earlier, Kerry said he was “disturbed” by the leaking of classified information cited in the Times story, saying it endangers U.S. national security and “begs retaliation” from America’s enemies. The chairman said he couldn’t understand how an American citizen could leak classified information that could potentially put the country at risk.
It’s not the act itself that “begs retaliation,” you see, it’s the reporting of it. The fact that there could be blowback for targeting a foreign nation’s nuclear program with a computer virus doesn’t mean you possibly shouldn’t do it. It means you should make sure you don’t tell your own public. After all, how would Iran ever conclude that the United States and Israel could be working together to design a virus to shut down their nuclear ambitions? Anybody could be the culprit! Anybody at all! They would never have figured it out had The New York Times kept their big traps shut.
Or, perhaps, they might have gotten a clue from this 2010 story from The Guardian that suggests Israel was responsible for it and that Stuxnet was pretty obviously designed to target Iran. Or maybe this story from Forbes.com from 2010 that talks about the suspicions and various theories that the United States and Israel were the sources of the virus. Or perhaps this lengthy Vanity Fair investigative report from from last year that says, “[T]here is vanishingly little doubt that the United States played a role in creating the worm.” The fact is, The New York Times story merely revealed the truth that anybody who followed computer security news already suspected, and Iran doesn’t seem like the kind of nation that needs a metaphorical smoking gun before casting blame.
More to the point, launching the virus itself could ultimately give Iran (or others, because Stuxnet, like every other government venture, immediately got out of hand and ended up in places where it wasn’t meant to be) the tools to bring about that blowback Kerry is so worried about. Via The Christian Science Monitor:
Although Stuxnet is estimated to have eventually destroyed as many as 1,000 high-speed Iranian gas centrifuges designed to enrich uranium, its importance was far larger than that, [German cybersecurity expert Ralph] Langner warned. It demonstrated that a cyberweapon could physically destroy critical infrastructure, and that process could also work in reverse.
“One important difference between a cyber offensive weapon and some kind of advanced bomb, for example, is that when the bomb blows up you can’t examine or reverse-engineer it,” says Joel Brenner, a former national counterintelligence executive in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
“Once you find the malware, on the other hand, once you find the code, you can see how it was done,” he says. “So we are going to see more operations of this kind – and the US’s critical infrastructure is undoubtedly going to be targeted. I still don’t think that the owners and operators of most of that infrastructure understand the gravity of this threat.”
The possibility that Stuxnet could come back to haunt us does seem to meet a certain “need to know” threshold. The New York Times Managing Editor Dean Baquet responded to Kerry via Politico:
“Our job is to report issues in the public interest, and this piece certainly meets that standard,” Dean Baquet, the Times managing editor, said in a statement to POLITICO. “As always with sensitive stories, we described the piece to the government before publication. No one suggested we not publish. There was a request to omit some highly technical details. We complied with the request after concluding it was not a significant part of the piece.”
Well, that ought to add more ammo to those who believe the White House is actually causing the leaks.
NYT: How Can We Be No. 1 if Pentagon Budget Is Cut by 1/12th?
By Peter Hart – FAIR – 06/04/2012
Part of the 2011 Congressional debt reduction deal called for automatic cuts to social spending and military budgets over the next 10 years. The idea was that a deal to avoid these cuts would be struck, because Republicans wouldn’t want to cut the Pentagon, and Democrats would try to protect safety net programs.
That didn’t happen, so these so-called “sequestration” cuts are prompting some alarm bells in the corporate media–ringing loudly at the mere thought of cutting the military budget.
The New York Times (6/4/12) sounded the alarm today in a piece by Jonathan Weisman that framed things like this:
On January 2, national security is set to receive a heavy blow if Congress fails to intervene. That is when a 10-year, $600 billion, across-the-board spending cut is to hit the Pentagon, equal to roughly 8 percent of its current budget.
Wow, this isn’t even about the military budget–it’s the very security of our nation.
The piece is, as the headline suggests (“Some Lawmakers Look for Way Out as Defense Cuts Near”), written from the point of view of lawmakers who can’t stomach the idea of military cuts. The most important is Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham. But, the Times explains, he’s not the only one:
The dire warnings are not coming from Mr. Graham alone. They are coming at least as loudly from Leon E. Panetta, the secretary of defense.
So not only hawkish Republicans are worried about Pentagon cuts. So is, you know, the head of the Pentagon.
Weisman tries to give some sense of Graham’s strategy for putting off the military cuts:
Mr. Graham’s intention is to separate defense from the larger deficit issue by aiming his arguments high and low. The high argument is about American greatness.
“The debate on the debt is an opportunity to send the world a signal that we are going to remain the strongest military force in the world,” he said. “We’re saying, ‘We’re going to keep it, and we’re going to make it the No. 1 priority of a broke nation.'”
That might be the “high” argument, but it’s worth mentioning that, even with the cuts we’re talking about, the U.S. will be spending more on its military than anyone else. Enormously more. As in: more than the next 11 countries combined.
Pieces like this one often fail to include any budget context at all. This one actually does include such a perspective–but only so the reporter can try to rebut it himself:
On its face, the automatic cuts do not sound that bad. If they are put into effect, military spending would decline to its 2007 level, said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow for defense budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. But really it is worse than that. The law exempts war costs and allows the administration to wall off personnel levels and military pay, about a third of the Pentagon budget. That means everything else–operations and maintenance, research and development, procurement, fuel, military construction–would face immediate cuts as deep as 13 percent, Mr. Harrison said.
Follow that: The cuts would actually bring the Pentagon to 2007 funding levels, but it’s worse than that… because the cuts would be distributed unevenly. What?
I wrote a piece about this for Extra!, and this part of it includes all the information one needs to rebut this sky-is-falling reporting:
The proposed “draconian” cuts would force the Pentagon to make do with a budget equivalent to what it spent in 2007 (Project on Defense Alternatives, 10/11/11). Military analyst Winslow Wheeler (Center for Defense Information, 8/24/11) points out an annual base budget of this size–$472 billion–is $70 billion more than was spent in 2000, and would still constitute “more than twice the defense spending of China, Russia, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Cuba and any other potential adversary–combined.”
And the proposed cuts are often reported as raw numbers–$800 billion or $1 trillion in total cuts over the next decade. As economist Dean Baker has noted (CEPR, 8/4/11), coverage should explain that over this period the military is scheduled to spend close to $8 trillion.
Claims of catastrophic consequences from military cuts might also have been tempered by reminders that the Pentagon budget declined by close to 25 percent from 1989 to 1994–a historical context missing from most reports.
In other words, the cuts are real, but should be appreciated in the context of massive increases in military spending over the previous decade.
The other point of that Extra! piece: Stories worrying about supposedly debilitating cuts to military spending are a dime a dozen, and usually consist of getting Leon Panetta to complain about them publicly. But good luck finding many stories about what’s going to happen thanks to $600 billion in social spending cuts. Reporters don’t seem all that interested in that.
Related articles
- The Nearly $1 Trillion National Security Budget (alethonews.wordpress.com)
Featured Video
Seyed M. Marandi: Toward Total War in the Middle East
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Geopolitics behind the War in Yemen (I)
By Mahdi Darius NAZEMROAYA | Strategic Culture Foundation | 30.03.2015
The United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia became very uneasy when the Yemenese or Yemenite movement of the Houthi or Ansarallah (meaning the supporters of God in Arabic) gained control of Yemen’s capital, Sanaa/Sana, in September 2014. The US-supported Yemenite President Abd-Rabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi was humiliatingly forced to share power with the Houthis and the coalition of northern Yemenese tribes that had helped them enter Sana. Al-Hadi declared that negotiations for a Yemeni national unity government would take place and his allies the US and Saudi Arabia tried to use a new national dialogue and mediated talks to co-opt and pacify the Houthis.
The truth has been turned on its head about the war in Yemen. The war and ousting of President Abd-Rabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi in Yemen are not the results of «Houthi coup» in Yemen. It is the opposite. Al-Hadi was ousted, because with Saudi and US support he tried to backtrack on the power sharing agreements he had made and return Yemen to authoritarian rule. The ousting of President Al-Hadi by the Houthis and their political allies was an unexpected reaction to the takeover Al-Hadi was planning with Washington and the House of Saudi. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- HE SAVED LIVES. NOW HE FACES PRISON.
- Israeli lobby seeks to bind US fate to ‘Israel’: Araghchi
- Pakistan-Iran talks secure LNG shipment to Islamabad through Hormuz
- Black Sea grain crisis puts global wheat supplies under pressure
- IRGC air defenses destroy another US MQ-1 drone over Strait of Hormuz
- Imran Khan’s entire immediate family detained in Pakistan ahead of mass protest demanding his release
- EU nation detains former presidential frontrunner
- Leaked: Britain’s Sham Conviction Of Hashim Thaci
- Seyed M. Marandi: U.S. Strike Imminent – Toward Total War in the Middle East
- Russia Voted Under Fire. Washington Is Loading the Tankers.
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli Attacks in Gaza Kill at Least Seven Palestinians Over Three Days, including Woman and Child
- Trump’s militarization of Washington DC as he pursues Israel’s war against Iran
- Why Israel Fears This Searing New Documentary
- Huckabee aide solicited cash gifts from Israelis
- This isn’t sci-fi, AI is already killing people
- ‘The Most Brutal Thing’: Investigation Reveals Execution of Elderly Woman in Rafah
- Inside Israel’s ‘soft’ ethnic cleansing plan for Gaza through the eyes of its victims
- New online database tracks pro-Israel political donations in the United States
- Israeli president pardons soldier convicted for killing wounded Palestinian
- Singer Ed Sheeran says his ‘heart broken’ by Gaza devastation, addresses Macklemore controversy
- No Tricks Zone
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
Aletho News 