Are We at War or Aren't We? Some Thoughts on the Real Enemy
Your Intrepid Correspondent should warn you that we'll be dealing with some profound, military concepts here concerning the conduct of war, too complicated and exquisite even for Sun Tzu. The usual, faceless gnomes who developed them after years of research have sworn us to protect their location and identities, lest these principles fall into the hands of Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration. For this reason, we must classify this document Eyes Only. You may not get it the first time. If not, reread.
Rule One: If you are at war but don't know it--you will lose.
Rule Two: If you are at war but don't know whom you are fighting--you will lose.
Are we at war? Let's look at a few examples. The President has told us to fight "the war" at home by shopping at malls and enjoying ourselves. He has allowed the continuation of unlimited entry to the United States by people from suspect nations and ethnic persuasions. At this country's airports, he has refused to arm pilots and to concentrate on young men who appear to be Arabs. Those of us decrepit enough to remember the last war this country fought to win--World War II--understand how preposterous all this is.
A word should be said about the dreaded "ethnic profiling." When is it right and wrong? It's wrong if you do it for no reason other than your dislike of the people you are profiling. It's right--and necessary--when you do it for some other good reason. So far, all--all--the terrorist acts committed or contemplated in this country have been the work of young men with Islamic names or backgrounds. No--no--terrorist acts have been committed by Anglo-Saxon 75-year old grandmothers in wheelchairs. When such grannies start committing such crimes, we need to get nervous when they wheel up to security and examine their canes. Until then, you Arabs need to live with it, and straighten out your fellow Muslims. The problem is that for a couple of generations Americans have been reprogrammed by government religion in the public schools to feel guilty--and therefore impotent--for everything that goes wrong in the world.
Now let's look at Rule Two. Whom are we fighting? Unlike Rule One, that should be easy to figure out. Let's see, we're fighting . . . we're fighting . . . uh . . . hmm. Notice that for the first time in world history a nation is fighting a war, but it doesn't know for sure who the enemy is. Well, that's easy, we're fighting "Islamic fundamentalism." Are we? Remember the invasion of the Church of the Nativity by Palestinian thugs? A "fundamentalist" is someone who believes and implements the basic tenets of a religion, for instance, more vigorously than other believers, someone who won't compromise on doctrine.
What are the basic tenets of Islam? Among them, we are told, is a Prohibition of alcohol that would incite the envy of Carrie Nation. Yet, according to the priests at the Church of the Nativity, the Palestinian thugs who invaded and occupied it for 39 days guzzled the whiskey, champagne, vodka and cognac they found there. What kind of "Islamic Fundamentalists" are these?
According to the experts, Islam officially respects Jesus and Christianity. But the thugs who held the Church of the Nativity hostage not only trashed it, but also used pages torn from Bibles as toilet paper and defecated on the spot where tradition says Jesus was born. What would we be hearing in the media now, were Christians likewise to treat the Koran and the birthplace of the prophet? The thugs belong to the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, part of Yasser Arafat's al Fatah gang. Arafat is the man who routinely denounces terrorist acts.
Regular readers of these fulminations will recall that Arafat's thugs routinely terrorize their fellow Muslims to keep them in line--to keep their mouths shut--to create the spurious impression of a people united in support of every outrage, however bestial, his thugs commit. Is this Islamic?
Your Intrepid Correspondent is composing this before the presumably impending attack on Iraq. Are we at war with Iraq? We have been bombing Iraq for 12 years, ever since the illegal war launched by George I when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait (none of our business), after U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie, who later disappeared in the entrails of the State Department, told him he could do so. The war we typically didn't win (Saddam is still there), turned out to be George the First's excuse to mouth off almost daily about Der New Vorld Order, until wiser heads in the Trilateral Commission apparently told him to stop.
So, we've been at war with Iraq all the time, since we stopped sending Saddam military supplies to fight Iran. The forthcoming attack bequeathed by George I to George II, is simply the next phase in that endless war. But was Saddam Hussein involved in the destruction of WTC? If not, is the continuing war against him a different war, maybe related but different, from the war we are fighting against the people who hijacked those airliners and bombed New York, led by Osama bin Laden, who may be dead, and whose role in the atrocity is still unclear. There are questions about Saudi Arabia, which is supposed to be our loyal ally, but which gave the world almost all the perpetrators.
And why are we "fighting terrorism" in Afghanistan, thousands of miles away, and not fighting terrorism in Cuba, 90 miles away, which is on the State Department's own list of terrorist nations. If ever there was a terrorist nation, it's Cuba, which is up to its ojos in internal narcotics, etc.
Notice that nine months after the attack, our leaders, in command of the FBI, the CIA, etc., still can't tell us exactly whom we are fighting. The original Assassins in the Middle East, from whom derives the word hashish, which they used to get bombed, and the Thugs high on Kali who destroyed India, were criminal gangs committing ghoulish atrocities. But to fight a war, don't you need a country to fight? In a real war--not the perpetual excuse our leaders are using to impose their version of Mussolini's fascism--we could trace the outrages we have suffered to a specific country. What happened in New York would have been impossible without some geographic base. So again we ask, which country are we fighting?
To answer this question we must go back to the beginning, and the beginning is the "Soviet collapse." How do we know that the Soviets "collapsed?" We know they did because they said so.
But soon after the Soviets seized Russia in 1917 with the help of the United States, they found themselves in trouble. The Reds were fighting the Whites, the loyal Russians, for control, the economic policy was known as "War Communism," and Soviet CEO Lenin realized that he could not sustain it.
So, in 1921, Lenin elected to plead poverty. "The noble experiment is about to collapse!" he screamed. Lenin completely reorganized the Soviet economy. Now, the governing principle was called the New Economic Policy, or NEP. So-called "nepmen" were allowed to do business. Trade revived. The Party line that accompanied NEP said the Soviets were just like Americans.
The United States, which had brought the Soviets to power, came to the rescue. God alone knows how many millions poured in. Herbert Hoover, who later would be President, and would be accused by contender Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 of strangling the nation with government agencies, ran the American Relief Administration, the A.R.A., in the early Twenties in the U.S.S.R.
Armand Hammer, whose physician father was a founder of the Communist Party, U.S.A., and who wound up in Sing Sing for conducting an abortion, went to the Soviet Union, became a pet of Lenin's and made a fortune with a pencil monopoly the grateful Soviet monster granted. Hammer went on to run Occidental Petroleum and a lot more, and, until he went home to Satan, was the Soviet Union's favorite "capitalist.
The Ford Motor Company built automobile and truck factories in the Soviet Union. It is not an exaggeration to say that Ford founded the Soviet motor vehicle industry. American automobile workers, some inspired by the "noble experiment," went there to show the Soviets how to do it. When they had finished, the Soviets would not let them leave. Many died there, abandoned by Washington. For the whole story, see Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, the three-volume masterpiece by the late Antony Sutton, or go to your library and see many of your Intrepid Correspondent's magazine articles in the late American Opinion.
So, the "Soviet collapse" has happened before. It's nothing new. In fact, over the years since the beginning, the Soviet Union has threatened to "collapse" many times, and, every time, the conspirators for world government, who run the United States have poured in the necessary funds to save it. And, yes, remember that we are still definitely talking about the origin of the present "war on terror" we are "fighting" right now. Be with me next week in this space for more.
Copyright © 2002 by Alan Stang