| WAR ON TERRORISM - LOOKING GLASS NEWS | |
|
The Pentagon's "Second 911" |
|
|
by Michel Chossudovsky The Centre for Research on Globalisation Entered into the database on Friday, August 11th, 2006 @ 17:38:06 MST |
|
"Another [9/11] attack could create both a justification and an
opportunity to retaliate against some known targets" One essential feature of "defense" in the case of a second major
attack on America, is "offense", according to Homeland Security Secretary
Michael Chertoff: "Homeland security is one piece of a broader strategy
[which] brings the battle to the enemy."(DHS,
Transcript of complete March 2005 speech of Secr. Michael Chertoff) In the month following last year's 7/7 London bombings, Vice President Dick Cheney
is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to
be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States".
Implied in the contingency plan is the certainty that Iran would be behind a Second
9/11. This "contingency plan" uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11",
which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against
Iran, while pressure was also exerted on Tehran in relation to its (non-existent)
nuclear weapons program. What is diabolical in this decision of the US Vice President is that the justification
presented by Cheney to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in a hypothetical
terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred: The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional
and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic
targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development
sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could
not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in
the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved
in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior
Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the
implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an
unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career
by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack
on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August
2005) Are we to understand that US, British and Israeli military planners are waiting
in limbo for a Second 9/11, to extend the war beyond the borders of Lebanon,
to launch a military operation directed against Syria and Iran? Cheney's proposed "contingency plan" did not focus on preventing
a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would
be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings could immediately be activated,
prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks
on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the alleged support
of the Taliban government to the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that one
does not plan a war in three weeks: the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan
had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an
incisive review article: "At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks”
are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means
of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment
by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system.... (Keefer,
February 2006 ) In a timely statement, barely a few days following the onslaught of the bombing
of Lebanon, Vice President Cheney reiterated his warning: "The enemy that
struck on 9/11 is fractured and weakened, yet still lethal, still determined
to hit us again" (Waterloo Courier, Iowa, 19 July 2006, italics added).
"Justification and Opportunity to Retaliate against ...the State
Sponsors [of Terrorism]" In April 2006, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld launched a far-reaching
military plan to fight terrorism around the World, with a view to retaliating
in the case of a second major terrorist attack on America. "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has approved the military's most
ambitious plan yet to fight terrorism around the world and retaliate more
rapidly and decisively in the case of another major terrorist attack on the
United States, according to defense officials. The long-awaited campaign plan for the global war on terrorism, as well as
two subordinate plans also approved within the past month by Rumsfeld, are
considered the Pentagon's highest priority, according to officials familiar
with the three documents who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they
were not authorized to speak about them publicly. Details of the plans are secret, but in general they envision a significantly
expanded role for the military -- and, in particular, a growing force of elite
Special Operations troops -- in continuous operations to combat terrorism
outside of war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Developed over about three
years by the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in Tampa, the plans reflect
a beefing up of the Pentagon's involvement in domains traditionally handled
by the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department. (Washington Post,
23 April 2006) This plan is predicated on the possibility of a Second 911 and the need to
retaliate if and when the US is attacked: "A third plan sets out how the military can both disrupt and respond
to another major terrorist strike on the United States. It includes lengthy
annexes that offer a menu of options for the military to retaliate quickly
against specific terrorist groups, individuals or state sponsors depending
on who is believed to be behind an attack. Another attack could create both
a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against
some known targets, according to current and former defense officials familiar
with the plan. This plan details "what terrorists or bad guys we would hit if the gloves
came off. The gloves are not off," said one official, who asked not to
be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject. (italics added, WP
23 April 2006) The presumption of this military document, is that a Second 911 attack "which
is lacking today" would usefully create both a "justification and
an opportunity" to wage war on "some known targets [Iran and Syria]".
The announcement on August 10 by the British Home Office of a foiled large
scale terror attack to simultaneously blow up as many as ten airplanes, conveys
the impression that it is the Western World rather than the Middle East which
is under attack. Realities are twisted upside down. The disinformation campaign has gone into
full gear. The British and US media are increasingly pointing towards "preemptive
war" as an act of "self defense" against Al Qaeda and the State
sponsors of terrorism, who are allegedly preparing a Second 911. The underlying
objective, through fear and intimidation, is ultimately to build public acceptance
for the next stage of the Middle East "war on terrorism" which is
directed against Syria and Iran. ______________________ Read from Looking Glass News "Triple
Alliance": The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon The
War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil America
will attack Iran, Syria in October: Gul The
Route To Iran -- Through Lebanon? LIQUID
TERROR: Training People To Act Like Subservient Slaves Dirty
Neo-Fascist Slugs Slam-Dunk Another Terror Scam Let’s
thwart "the Big One" now MI-5
in ludicrous Heathrow terror stunt Fake
Terror Obfuscates Lebanon and Iraq Failures |
|