And so it is with intelligence gathering and analysis. As a former intel analyst, I've spent many years on various missions beginning in the mid-1980s and going beyond Desert Storm taking pieces of the "global threat puzzle" and trying to fit the pieces together to discover what the "other fellow" was up to, and what he would do next.

In the past two decades I have witnessed a series of events that are extremely disturbing. Events, that if put together as pieces of a puzzle, seem to form a picture that is most disturbing-and even terrifying. Taken alone, they mean little. But taken in whole, the mosaic forms more than just a pattern-one that is planned, mission-oriented, and taking place almost as if there were a list of events that must occur to accomplish the final mission.

The "final mission" is two-fold: destruction of nation-states, and establishment of a New Age global-socialist New World Order.

For those who think this is "conspiracy theory," or simply fear-factor-fiction, let me ask this: Do you think the US Constitution is intact, and is this the same country as it was fifty years ago? If not, why not? And what and who caused the change?

Let's all play intelligence analyst. We'll do this by examining the reports, putting the pieces on the wall and seeing what kind of picture it forms. Here are the clues:

At the end of World War I, a new idea was born that national governments could not be trusted to govern their indigenous populations in an effective manner, and help maintain international peace. Instead, due to the carnage of World War I-the Great War-national governments should become subservient to a global entity. This entity was formed and became the League of Nations. However, the world and most countries were not ready for such a "super-government" and refused to get on board. The globalists were furious, but did not give up.

In 1945, when World War II ended, a private "club" called the Council on Foreign Relations, which is not part of any government agency, but instead is the American faction of the Royal Society of International Affairs in London, was instrumental in creating a new globalist organization called the United Nations. This body's mission was to slowly reduce the authority of national governments and replace them with a world council of representatives, none of which were elected, and none of which were patriotic nationalists. Their mission was to establish a world government in which other nations were simply nation states in their "New World Order."

In 1950 two wars broke out in Asia: the Korean war and the French Indochina war. During these "conflicts" the French, who attempted to retain their pre-war colony, were defeated by Ho Chi Minh's Vietminh guerrillas (by using US supplied equipment and weapons provided from the surplus stock on Okinawa left over from World War II). Meanwhile the United Nations forces intervened in an invasion of South Korea by North Korea-who was quickly reinforced by the Communist Chinese army. The French eventually lost their colony after the debacle at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. The South Koreans retained their country, but the war never ended. A truce was called in 1953, and Korea has become the longest war in American history.

The bottom line here is that the world-and the American people-were mentally conditioned that a single country (like France) could no longer win a war by itself, and the combined efforts of the UN forces in Korea barely was able to stand up against Communist aggression. (In point of fact, all UN forces' plans had to be cleared by a general at UN headquarters, who just happened to be a Russian, and all plans were relayed to the Chinese well in advance of an operation.)

But the American people-who had just won a two-ocean war against two powerful enemies-had to be convinced that we could not longer fight a war alone or stand alone. The stage was set for Vietnam.

The US forces, along with the South Vietnamese Army, and Australian allies, were forced to fight a war that they were not allowed to win. Lyndon B. Johnson and his "whiz kids" in the White House micromanaged the war to the point that generals in the field could not pursue an operation to its maximum effect, and even had to give up terrain that we took with American blood, plus stay within the confines of South Vietnam and not attack or pursue the enemy into his safe havens in Cambodia, Laos and North Vietnam. The end result was that the North signed the Paris Peace Accords simply to give President Richard Nixon (and Henry Kissinger) a means of extracting our forces from South Vietnam with "peace with honor." Two years later the North invaded the South and the rest is history. The lesson to the American people, via our media, is that we should not use our military forces abroad in any affair that might turn into a "quagmire" or "another Vietnam." The media, controlled by members of the Council on Foreign Relations and other global socialists (including their Asian and European counterparts), successfully conditioned the American psyche that we "do not want any more Vietnam style entanglements."

After Vietnam our armed forces underwent what was called a "Reduction in Force" or RIF. At the same time the "draft" was put on the back burner and a "volunteer army" was created. All of this at the height of the Cold War when Russia and China were building their forces. By the early 1980s the threat envisioned by the Pentagon was an attack on Western Europe by the Soviet Union through Germany. Known as the Fulda Gap scenario, where it was envisioned the Russians would push through with high speed armor assaults, it was theorized-and prepared for-that we would be forced to fight a fighting withdrawal through Europe while politicians decided if we would employ nuclear weapons. No one ever came up with a public answer to this threat, and in the end it never happened-yet.

There is an old military axiom that says that the military gains its best support when there is a barbarian at the gate. In other words, most people don't worry about supporting or funding the military unless they fear a threat that would affect them. By the mid 1980s a new threat was growing ever more frightening: Terrorism.

It actually gained U.S. attention during the Munich Olympics when the Black September terrorist gang of Palestinians kidnapped and killed members of the Israeli Olympic team. This was followed by many other "Arab Terrorist" attacks that often included American victims: skyjackings, an attack on a cruise ship, bombings, and kidnappings and assassinations. This new threat has been growing for over four decades and has become the current "barbarian at the gate." Don't get me wrong: it's real, it's there, and it's coming. But we have to ask how much of it was originally created or financed by our own intelligence services. We know that Osama bin Laden had CIA support in Afghanistan when the Russians occupied the country, and that Abu Nidal was a US intelligence asset. Who knows how many others?

Since the alleged "fall of the Soviet Union", the US and other western powers have undergone a political reduction in our armed forces. Beginning during the George H.W. Bush administration-up until Desert Storm when we were caught in a very vulnerable position militarily-our military has systematically been reduced in force structure, equipment destroyed or stored without proper maintenance, and numbers of personnel and equipment reduced to the point of being basically combat ineffective if committed to a major war.

In the 1990s, during the Clinton regime, when bases were being closed and Army divisions being cut, and tanks, planes and ships were being put in mothballs, a Pentagon general gave a speech to the CASQ officers command and staff class at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He said, paraphrasing, "…with the build down of our armed forces, should we become committed to a two-ocean war, or be deployed to more than two foreign campaigns, and should a national emergency occur inside the continental United States, we will be forced to call upon foreign assets to patrol our streets."

The thought of this at the time was terrifying. But during the Los Angeles riots Henry Kissinger stated that even though at that time US citizens would not stand for foreign troops on US soil, that some day we would welcome them with open arms.