by Scott Creighton
UPDATE: Not Dov Zakheim pointed out an interesting fact: Obama’s Sec. of Defense was not only a member of the 9/11 Commission, but he also helped craft a study back in 1998 with Philip Zelikow and former CIA Director John Deutch that dealt with what they would expect to change in America in the event of a new “Pearl Harbor” type of event:
“Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great ‘success’ or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible. Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a ‘before’ and ‘after.’”
The study was called “Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger” and it was published in the CFR’s publication, Foreign Affairs in Nov. volume 77, issue 6, pages 80-94
It starts with a section titled “IMAGINING THE TRANSFORMING EVENT”
This illustration accompanies the Belfer Center’s webpage on the study:
Ah that’s just great, isn’t it? Just fucking great.
—- original article —-
In order to justify putting full compliments of US soldiers on the ground in places like Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya, President Obama has said it would take ” a catastrophic terrorist attack that disrupted the normal functioning of the United States” for him to use the new Authorization for the Use of Military Force he himself demanded from congress just over a week ago.
Anyone else hear shades of a new “Pearl Harbor type” event in that statement or is it just me?
“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” the Crazies
The president, now on his way to start his two week vacation in Hawaii, anticipates large numbers of US casualties, numbers he says which will rival the worst of the Iraq invasion and occupation.
“In a private session at the White House, Mr. Obama explained that his refusal to redeploy large numbers of troops to the region was rooted in the grim assumption that the casualties and costs would rival the worst of the Iraq war. In such a scenario, he said, a renewed commitment could take up to $10 billion a month and leave as many as 500 troops wounded every month in addition to those killed (100 a month), a toll he deemed not commensurate to the threat (absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, that is).” New York Times
The Republican Crazies Pageant not withstanding, the vast majority of the American people (even republicans) are not quite ready to ship off their loved ones to fight wars of aggression across the Middle East and Africa on behalf of our glorious American corporations while those very same corporations back here at home are steadily buying politicians, preparing to censor the internet, mandating extremely expensive yet worthless insurance policies on us and essentially setting themselves up a nifty little fascist Shining City on the Hill for them to fully exploit at our expense.
So yeah, it looks like it might take a catalyzing event to shepherd the sheep into the pro-war pen and to shut up those of us out here who dare to question the logic of it all.
The Obamaites have been claiming that he is only doing this because the dreaded republicans are currently embarrassing him by saying he’s been too weak on ISIS™ since the Paris Attacks and the San Bernardino mass casualty events.
Peer pressure as a justification for war? Really?
That fantasy might hold up if you don’t take a step back and reflect on the war-footing President Peace Prize’s administration has been putting us on these last few weeks. When you do that, Obama’s statement about “a catastrophic terrorist attack that disrupted the normal functioning of the United States” takes on a whole different appearance.
Back on Dec. 8th, President Obama went before the American people to deliver a rare “Fireside Chat” type message after the San Bernardino event. His message was one of more war everywhere and he demanded congress provide him with the legal footing to wage it:
“First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary.”
“Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens.”
“Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists” President Obama
Then, on Dec. 9th, Obama’s Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, went before the Senate Armed Services committee to do what he does best: beg for more war. John McCain, predictably, was all for the idea and seemingly ready to ship off your sons and daughters to war.
McCain called for the US military to lead a large invasion force, backed by tens of thousands of troops drawn from allied governments and local forces, in a drive to seize control of the ISIS-held city of Raqqa and broader areas of northern Syria.
The ground campaign should be followed by a “long-term stabilization effort” based on a US “residual force,” McCain said. Thomas Gaist
Around the same time, last weekend, a group of current and former defense contractors from companies like Raytheon, BAE Systems and SAIC were heaping praises upon themselves for “driving the national debate on foreign policy…” and “pushing candidates on national security.”
Going back to that Senate Armed Forces Committee discussion with Ashton Carter, there was another, rather telling exchange between Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Selva and the perpetual warmonger, John McCain, revolving around the imposition of a no-fly zone in Syria (in the area to be broken off from the country and handed over to the Kurds):
“We have the military capacity to impose a no-fly zone. The question that we need to ask is do we have the political and policy backdrop with which to do so,” Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Selva told the Senate Armed Services Committee, pointing to the threat of “direct conflict” with Syrian forces or “a miscalculation” with the Russians should they challenge the no-fly zone.
Committee Chairman John McCain, an Arizona Republican, shot back: “I must say, it’s one of the more embarrassing statements I’ve ever heard from a uniformed military officer, that we are worried about Syria and Russia’s reaction to saving the lives of thousands and thousands of Syrians who are being barrel-bombed and massacred.” CNN
I guess that is the right question, isn’t it? Do they currently have the right “political backdrop” to justify all out “boots on the ground” invasion of multiple countries and the requisite no-fly zones to provide air power in support of them as things stand now?
I don’t think they do. The San Bernardino attack has been dutifully debunked and even the FBI now has to admit the Facebook spokesman statement about her “pledging alliance to ISIS” was total BS. So there are not connections between ISIS™ and those two patsies, no matter how many times Donald Trump or Ben Carson try to claim there was.
They need something more than that to be the basis of the “political backdrop” they covet and Obama’s recent statement to a handful of handpicked “journalists” behind closed doors makes that seem all the more obvious.
The recent revitalization of the war against the fictitious ISIS™ combined with both the new push to demonize “truthers” and Obama’s statement about needing “a catastrophic terrorist attack” in order to give the crazies that endless war of aggression everywhere, just might bode a very ill wind blowin down the pipe this holiday season.
Filed under: Uncategorized