Hillary Clinton Emails Reveal NATO Killed Gaddafi to Stop Libyan Creation of Gold-Backed Currency

Hillary Emails Reveal NATO Killed Gaddafi to Stop Libyan Creation of Gold-Backed Currency

Hillary’s emails truly are the gifts that keep on giving. While France led the proponents of the UN Security Council Resolution that would create a no-fly zone in Libya, it claimed that its primary concern was the protection of Libyan civilians (considering the current state of affairs alone, one must rethink the authenticity of this concern). As many “conspiracy theorists” will claim, one of the real reasons to go to Libya was Gaddafi’s planned gold dinar.

One of the 3,000 Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department on New Year’s Eve (where real news is sent to die quietly) has revealed evidence that NATO’s plot to overthrow Gaddafi was fueled by first their desire to quash the gold-backed African currency, and second the Libyan oil reserves.

The email in question was sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by her unofficial adviser Sydney Blumenthal titled “France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold”.

From Foreign Policy Journal:

The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”

Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency.

And here is the section of the email proving that NATO had ulterior motives for destroying Libya (UPDATE: The link has since been killed, but here is the web cache):

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues: 

     a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,

     b. Increase French influence in North Africa, 

     c. Improve his internal political situation in France, 

     d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the     world, 

     e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa)

Ergo as soon as French intel discovered Gaddafi’s dinar plans, they decided to spearhead the campaign against him- having accumulated enough good reasons to take over.

Sadly, Gaddafi had earlier warned Europe (in a “prophetic” phone conversations with Blair) that his fall would prompt the rise of Islamic extremism in the West. A warning that would go unheeded; what’s a few lives in France and Libya, if the larger goal lines the pockets of politicians and the elite so much better after all?

Featured image: Sheep Media

 

Butcher Netanyahu in Africa with many question marks

Butcher Netanyahu in Africa with many question marks

 

Rabid zionist Netanyahu has traveled to Liberia for a rare appearance at a summit of West African nations, prompting one member country to stay away. 

The 51st ordinary meeting of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) began in the Liberian capital Monrovia on Saturday and was to end later on Sunday.

Netanyahu was invited to address the ECOWAS meeting, the first time a non-African leader has been asked to speak to the event.

Moroccan King Mohammed VI canceled his participation at the summit in protest at Netanyahu’s presence.

Morocco’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement that the monarch “wants his first presence at an ECOWAS summit not to take place in a context of tension and controversy, and wants to avoid any confusion.”

“Over the last few days, key ECOWAS member states have decided to reduce their level of representation at the summit due to their disagreement with the invitation handed to the Israeli prime minister. Other member states also expressed their astonishment at this invitation,” it added.

Participants pose for a group photo at the 50th ordinary meeting of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in Abuja, Nigeria, December 17, 2016.

Prior to his departure, Netanyahu wrote on his Facebook page that his “visit to Liberia is another chapter in the attempt to break the automatic anti-Israel majority in the United Nations.”

“This process will take years… In the meantime, Israel is coming back to Africa in a big way,” the hardline Israeli prime minister said.

During his trip, the Israeli prime minister was to meet with a number of leaders from West African nations and sign a cooperation agreement and two memoranda of understanding between Tel Aviv and ECOWAS.

This is Netanyahu’s second trip to Africa in a year. Last July, he traveled to four countries of Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda and Ethiopia, the first visit by an Israeli prime minister to sub-Saharan Africa in 29 years.

 

The Israeli leader is scheduled to attend another summit in Togo in October that is expected to draw leaders from 25 African countries.

 

By visiting Africa, the Israeli premier seeks to convince African countries to stop voting against Israel at the United Nations where the regime is subject to constant rebuke over its settlement expansion.

Most importantly, however, Israel is trying to cash in on Africa’s arms market which has been absorbing Israeli weapons in recent years. Israeli exports to Africa totaled about $1 billion last year, about 2% of its total exports.

With insurgencies and Takfiri militancy growing across Africa, including Qaeda-affiliated al-Shabaab and Daesh-linked Boko Haram, Israeli leaders are looking to sell advanced military equipment to the continent, the New York Times wrote on the eve of Netanyahu’s visit last year

The Coup, Then and Now – The Enemies of Humanity Try to Give Trump the JFK Treatment

May 31, 2017

By Anton Chaitkin

The Coup, Then and Now – The Enemies of Humanity Try to Give Trump the JFK Treatment

The Anglo-American oligarchy began a coup against President Donald Trump after his surprise 2016 election. They were in a panic to block his announced aims of partnership with Russia, the end of permanent war, the overturn of predatory Free Trade, and the return of Glass Steagall to break Wall Street’s power. The panic turned into a frenzy on the Russian angle, as it emerged that Trump had been working with strategic advisors who were prepared to return the United States to its traditional support for national sovereignty, and drop the regime-change insanity pursued by Presidents Bush and Obama.

We have seen this kind of coup d’etat before, against the outstanding nationalist U.S. President of the second half of the 20th century, John F. Kennedy.We have lived in the shadow of that coup ever since.

Perhaps throwing some new light on those events and, most importantly, what Kennedy himself understood about them, can help us see our way now to sanity and survival.

In this report, we will focus on two leading mortal opponents of JFK, Allen Dulles and Lyman Lemnitzer, the first in the spy world, and the other in the military. Alhough they were Americans, we will situate them as they saw themselves, internationally: they were men of the London-centered power structure that ran the Cold War against President Franklin Roosevelt’s design for peace at the end of World War II, that warred on President Kennedy, and that now pushes for world war.

1. Dulles and Lemnitzer Betray President Roosevelt

In November, 1942, Allen Dulles set up shop in the Swiss capital, Bern, in collaboration with the British secret intelligence service station chief in that city, Frederick Vanden Heuvel.

Allen Dulles was the most prominent American attorney for the Morgan, Rockefeller and Harriman financial and political interests, interests closely allied to the British Crown and the City of London. He was nominally a high officer of President Roosevelt’s Office of Strategic Services (OSS) intelligence organization. But Dulles and the President were the deepest of enemies.

A month before Dulles arrived in Bern, the Roosevelt administration had used the Trading with the Enemy Act to confiscate shares in a Nazi-front banking apparatus (“Union Banking Corporation”) run from the New York offices of a core client of Allen and his brother John Foster Dulles, Brown Brothers Harriman.[1] The Harriman parent enterprise was the world’s largest private investment bank, closely connected to the Bank of England. Its attorneys, the Dulles brothers, had long acted as that bank’s intermediaries with the Hitler regime.

In Bern, Dulles and Vanden Heuvel began conferring with their Nazi contacts on how German forces would be redeployed against the Soviet Union, America’s ally against Hitler, after Britain and the United States would conclude what they hoped would be a separate peace deal with the Nazis.

The British intelligence strategist Van den Heuvel and Dulles met in February 1943 with a representative of the Nazi SS (“storm troopers”)—the section of the German regime then in charge of exterminating the Jews. The SS spokesman was a German prince from Czechoslovakia, Max Egon Hohenlohe,[2] Dulles’s friend of 20 years.

In reporting on those 1943 discussions in Bern, Hohenlohe said that Dulles told him the post-war arrangements must permit “the existence of a ‘Greater Germany’ which would include Austria and a section of Czechoslovakia. This … would be a part of ‘a cordon sanitaire against Bolshevism and pan-Slavism’ which … would be ‘the best guarantee of order and progress in Central and Eastern Europe.’” [3]

Meanwhile, President Franklin D. Roosevelt conferred with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at Casablanca, Morocco in January 1943. Roosevelt declared that “unconditional surrender” of the Nazis must be the firm policy of the Allies. FDR, using the terminology of American Civil War General Ulysses S. Grant, emphasized that German war-power must be ended completely, as opposed to London’s idea of shifting Germany into action against Russia. Churchill was shocked by Roosevelt’s stance; although he made no rebuttal, he never accepted this standpoint.

Russia had long been a target in British geopolitical wars. The British Empire abhorred the potential rise in Eurasia of national industrial powers that could challenge its global hegemony, which was based on free trade, control of financial flows, and supremacy on the seas. Most greatly feared was any alliance between Russia and the United States, two transcontinental nations whose best thinkers came to see themselves as natural allies—a relationship that took shape through the close Russian study of Alexander Hamilton’s nation-building economics in the early 19th century; American participation in building Russia’s first railroads in the 1830s; great popular support for Russia by Americans when Russia was under attack by Britain in the 1850s Crimean War; Russian Tsar Alexander II’s military backing of President Abraham Lincoln and the Union against the London-sponsored Confederacy; and the late-19th century surge of Russian industry under the guidance of Finance Minister Count Sergei Witte, a practitioner of Hamiltonian “American System” economics.

In the course of its long drive in the late 19th century to disrupt the spread of the American System in Europe, especially through pitting Germany and Russia against each other, Britain sponsored the 1905 war by its ally Japan, which destabilized Russia and led, in 1917, to upheavals that London tried to control. But the British did not succeed in controlling the Bolshevik Revolution or the subsequent policies of Lenin and Stalin in the Soviet Union; and when Russia could not be controlled through agents and allies within, the traditional British practice was to seek to weaken it by war.

British interests and their Wall Street partners had backed the rise of Hitler, largely on the logic that Hitler would make war on Russia. Britain only began really opposing Hitler when he turned his forces west, toward them, in 1940.

Once the United States joined the war against Germany, fascist Italy, and Japan at the end of 1941, Churchill worked to prolong the conflict, while Russians were dying by the millions fighting the Nazis, who had invaded in June of that year. Churchill prevented, until 1944, a direct western invasion through France to hit Germany. Churchill’s chief factional allies in this stalling tactic were General Bernard Montgomery, commander of the British Eighth Army, and Montgomery’s superior officer, General Harold Alexander, Britain’s Mediterranean commander, a high English aristocrat close to the Royal Family.

President Roosevelt was well aware of the British and Wall Street perfidy. When he returned home from Casablanca, Roosevelt explained the unconditional surrender doctrine to the American people:

[U]nless the peace that follows [this war] recognizes that the whole world is one neighborhood and does justice to the whole human race, the germs of another world war will remain as a constant threat to mankind….

In an attempt to ward off the inevitable disaster that lies ahead of them, the Axis propagandists are trying all their old tricks, in order to divide the United Nations. They seek to create the idea that if we win this war, Russia, and England, and China, and the United States are going to get into a cat-and-dog fight.

This is their final effort to turn one Nation against another, in the vain hope that they may settle with one or two at a time—that any of us may be so gullible and so forgetful as to be duped into making ‘deals’ at the expense of our allies.

To these panicky attempts—and that is the best word to use: “panicky”—to escape the consequences of their crimes, we say—all the United Nations say—that the only terms on which we shall deal with any Axis Government, or any Axis factions, are the terms proclaimed at Casablanca: “unconditional surrender.” We know, and the plain people of our enemies will eventually know, that in our uncompromising policy we mean no harm to the common people of the Axis Nations. But we do mean to impose punishment and retribution in full upon their guilty, barbaric leaders.

The Nazis must be frantic—not just panicky, but frantic if they believe that they can devise any propaganda that would turn the British and the American and the Chinese Governments and peoples against Russia—or Russia against the rest of us.

The overwhelming courage and endurance of the Russian people in withstanding and hurling back the invaders- the genius with which their great armies have been directed and led by Mr. Stalin and their military commanders—all speak for themselves.[4]

London’s stalling tactics succeeded in diverting Anglo-American military force into North Africa and across into Italy, beginning with the invasion of Sicily. Decades of geopolitical mischief would be set afoot from the British position in Italy.

Relations between the American and British allies were deeply mistrustful in July 1943, as they began moving into Sicily. On the premise that American troops were inferior in fighting quality to the British, General Alexander initially ordered U.S. General George Patton to keep his forces lagging behind those of General Montgomery, for a long slog through the island. The American liaison officer on Alexander’s staff, Gen. Clarence Huebner, angered Gen. Alexander by maneuvering to help Patton break out of the British grip and race past Montgomery towards victory in Sicily.

The too-Yankee Huebner was kicked out of Alexander’s entourage.

Enter Lyman Lemnitzer

General Lyman Lemnitzer replaced Huebner (July 25, 1943) as the U.S. liaison with the British Mediterranean commander. Lemnitzer, an American of ordinary birth and great ambition, looked up to the British aristocracy, and to High Society folks, as lords of the world’s great and important affairs. Lemnitzer had a “passion for keeping out of the limelight,” “rarely read a book,” and “could speak no foreign languages.”[5]

But Harold Alexander became his revered mentor[6] and under that British general’s sponsorship throughout his subsequent career, Lemnitzer rose to the highest American military rank.

Lemnitzer had a pathetically worshipful attitude towards the oligarchs, and what he assumed to be the magic of their secrets. His authorized biographer hints that this state of mind was reflected in the General’s pride in having risen to the highest levels of Freemasonry.[7]

General Harold Alexander was the son of the Earl of Caledon, and an aide-de-camp to King George VI. The general had been a high officer of the Masonic Grand Lodge of England, the governing body of British empire freemasonry, in which princes of the Royal Family have traditionally been Grand Masters.

Lord Alexander was a master of the Athlumney Masonic Lodge, whose initiates were usually also members of White’s—the legendary London gentlemen’s club at whose elegant bar MI6 director Stewart Menzies conducted “much of the informal business” of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) during and after World War II.[8]

For the war’s last two years, 1943-1945, Gen. Lemnitzer organized meetings for Gen. Alexander with King George VI, Winston Churchill, Harold MacMillan, and other British leaders, travelling back and forth from Gen. Alexander’s headquarters in a vast palace at Caserta, Italy, to the royal precincts of London.

Operation Sunrise

On March 1, 1945, as Allied armies were finally rushing through Germany to terminate the war against Hitler, President Roosevelt reported to Congress on his just completed meeting with Soviet Premier Josef Stalin and Churchill at Yalta on the Crimean Peninsula in the Soviet Union.

Roosevelt reiterated that Nazi unconditional surrender meant American-Soviet post-war cooperation in running the affairs of both eastern and western Europe; that “the political and economic problems of any area liberated from Nazi conquest … are a joint responsibility of all three Governments”—the USA, Britain, and the USSR. He insisted that the coming peace should be the end of the failed system of “exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balances of power”—i.e., the old British system of divide-and-rule.

But at that moment Dulles had already begun secret negotiations in Bern with German Gen. Karl Wolff,[9] head of the SS forces in Italy, for Britain and the USA to reach a separate peace with Germany, allowing the redeployment of German assets against Russia. On March 13, British commander Harold Alexander sent the American General Lemnitzer (accompanied by British General Terence Airey, an intelligence officer on Alexander’s staff) to Switzerland, to continue these talks. Dulles, Lemnitzer, Airey and Wolff now met repeatedly in Lugano, Switzerland.

These talks came to be known as Operation Sunrise. Dulles and Lemnitzer would gain great notoriety, and applause in London, for this betrayal of their Commander-in-Chief.

Roosevelt was told only what Dulles and the British wanted him to think—that the talks with Gen. Wolff were merely preliminary, to arrange a meeting with Gen. Alexander at his Caserta headquarters to negotiate a surrender.

Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov sent a letter to the American ambassador in Moscow, Averell Harriman, on March 22, protesting that the Dulles/British meetings had been occurring for two weeks behind the back of the Soviets. From Roosevelt’s reply,[10] it appears the President was not aware that actual negotiations were already under way, on the British premise that World War was to continue indefinitely—now against Russia.

The Post-Colonial World

The U.S. President had then recently stated very publicly his anti-colonial outlook for the post-war world, in contradiction to the plans of his London opponents. Roosevelt said in his press conference February 23, 1945, aboard the U.S.S. Quincy, en route home from Yalta:

I have been terribly worried about Indo-China [Vietnam and neighboring countries]. I talked to [China’s Generalissimo] Chiang Kai-shek in Cairo, Stalin in Teheran. They both agree with me. The French have been in there some hundred years….

[Chiang] said that [Indo-China] should not go back to the French, that they have been there for over 100 years and had done nothing about educating them, that for every dollar they have put in, they have taken out ten….

With the Indo-Chinese, there is a feeling that they ought to be independent but they are not ready for it. I suggested at the time, that Indo-China be set up under trusteeship—have a Frenchman, one or two Indo-Chinese, a Chinese, and a Russian because they are on the coast, and maybe a Filipino and an American—to educate them for self-government….

Stalin liked the idea. Chiang liked the idea. The British don’t like it. It might bust up their empire, because if the Indo-Chinese were to work together and eventually get their independence, the Burmese might do the same thing to England….

[Reporter’s question:] Is that Churchill’s idea on all territory out there, that he wants it back just the way they were?

The President: Yes, he is mid-Victorian on all things like that….

[Reporter’s question:] Do you remember that speech the Prime Minister made about the fact that he was not made Prime Minister of Great Britain to see the empire fall apart?

The President: Dear old Winston will never learn on that point. He has made his specialty on that point….[11]

President Roosevelt died April 12. A surrender of Nazi military forces in Italy was finally signed at Alexander’s Caserta headquarters on April 29, only eight days before the total German surrender in Europe. But a great deal of evil had been set in motion in the Swiss talks.

Roosevelt’s death before he had secured the peace was a catastrophe for America and the world. Those FDR had called the “Tories” rushed in to assert control over U.S. strategy. By tradition of family and institutions, these London/Wall Street royalists had never accepted the principles of the American Revolution. They had gained power over U.S. affairs at the dawn of the 20th century, after the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901 and the rise of such figures as President Theodore Roosevelt and President Woodrow Wilson. But the 1930s crash of their misrule had allowed FDR, with his New Deal and infrastructure development, to bring back that American devotion to progress that has inspired the world’s nationalists and modernizers. With FDR out of the way, the leading Anglo-American faction now emphasized financial-imperial aims, under the theme of “freedom” versus “communism.”

The British shut the Soviets out of the Wolff negotiations on the grounds that the Soviets must not participate in post-war arrangements in Italy or other West Europe countries, while the British did not desire the Allies to participate in arrangements in East European countries that would be occupied by Soviet forces. This was the beginning of the division of the world which became known as the Cold War. [12]

Allen Dulles and British MI6 aided many other top Nazi war criminals along with Karl Wolff to evade prosecution at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. They went out via the “ratlines” in Europe, the Mideast, and Latin America to prop up dictators and run covert armies. Among them were Klaus Barbie (the SS mass murderer in France); Reinhard Gehlen (Nazi intelligence officer who became post-war Germany’s intelligence service chief under the direct supervision of the CIA and MI6); Otto Skorzeny (head of the SS commando units, master of stay-behind covert armies and death squads in Europe, Africa and South America); and Hjalmar Schacht (Skorzeny’s father-in-law, banker, protégé of Bank of England Governor Montagu Norman and of John Foster Dulles). Schacht had coordinated the fundraising to install Hitler as Germany’s dictator, and had supervised the building of the Nazi war machine.[13]

The 14th Waffen SS Grenadier Division (1st Galician), a unit of eight thousand Ukrainian troops under Nazi command, including concentration camp guards, surrendered to General Alexander. Instead of being sent back to the USSR to be broken down, they were dispersed to Britain, to Canada, and throughout Europe for use in new underground secret armies under NATO. The direct heirs of these and other wings of the Ukrainian fascist Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) still celebrate Hitler’s war with Russia. They have considerable influence today in NATO and Washington corridors of power, which they brought to bear in rallying U.S. support for the Anglo-American coup of February 2014 that installed the present regime in Ukraine.[14]

2. Kennedy Views the Postwar Tragedy

In April 1945, as the world war drew to its heartbreaking and uncertain end, John F. Kennedy[15]became a special correspondent for Hearst Newspapers. Kennedy covered the tense conference (July 17 to August 2, 1945) at Potsdam, near Berlin, between Churchill, Stalin, and Harry Truman, Roosevelt’s successor.

Behind the scenes in Berlin, the British were pursuing the logic of Operation Sunrise. With Roosevelt dead, Churchill had commissioned a top secret military plan, Operation Unthinkable,[16] in which German armies, rather than being demobilized, were to be put back into action alongside British and American divisions for all-out war against the Soviet Union. The final Unthinkable report came back to Churchill July 11.

On July 16, the day before the Potsdam conference opened, the United States successfully tested the first atomic bomb (in New Mexico). Churchill was in on the secret, which gave even graver implications to Unthinkable. Churchill commented that the now nuclear-armed Truman was elated at Potsdam, and was “bossing” Stalin around.

Mid-conference, on July 26, Labour Party leader Clement Attlee was declared winner of the British election and replaced Churchill as Prime Minister. Unthinkable went onto the shelf—but the Soviets did not forget the intent of the British Establishment.

As Truman sailed back home from Europe, on August 6, Hiroshima, Japan was destroyed by an atomic bomb.[17]

A shadow of fear soon covered the Earth; by 1953, the United States and the Soviets would both develop hydrogen bombs capable of ending all human life.

Years later, John Kennedy indicated that by 1946, when he first ran for a seat in Congress, he was already surveying with bitterness the dark world his generation had inherited. He labored to understand what had gone wrong. How had Roosevelt’s peace policy been destroyed? He believed that Soviet Communism distorted history and violated human nature; but that America’s own mission of uplifting mankind was being buried in the fast-widening world division. JFK won a seat in Congress in 1946. Within his family, he was taking on the leading political role his brother Joseph had been expected to play before he had died in the war, and the assumption grew in Kennedy’s mind that he himself would have to lead the way out of the national policy disaster.

The problem that Kennedy would have to confront, was that the London-centered imperial system which FDR had sought to abolish, persisted after his death in the form of a global financial-looting apparatus, which controlled continents even without formal colonial governments. The preservation and expansion of this system underlay the activities of the Anglo-American secret intelligence agencies and the Atlantic military alliance structure after World War II.

The Special Operations Executive

We may observe the realities of this cryptic governance by looking into the origin of the “stay-behind” covert military-political armies that the British, with help from Dulles, Lemnitzer and some old Nazis, put in place around Europe.

The Special Operations Executive (SOE) had been formed in 1940 as Britain’s wartime agency for spying, sabotage, and assassinations within Nazi-occupied areas. SOE was run principally by two men, SOE commander Roundell Palmer, and SOE director Charles Hambro. They were exalted figures in the City of London financial center and the associated imperial apparatus.

Roundell Cecil Palmer, the 3rd Earl of Selborne, was born into imperial power as the son of the High Commissioner for South Africa,[18] the nephew and protégé of Lord Robert Cecil, and the grandson of Lord Salisbury (Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil), who had been UK Prime Minister thrice during 1885-1902. The Palmers were one of the families comprising the “Cecil Bloc,” the “great nexus of power, influence and privilege controlled by the Cecil family” which “has been all-pervasive in British life since 1886.”[19]

Roundell Palmer and his Palmer ancestors were also the hierarchical leading family in the Most Worshipful Company of Mercers—the very highest ranking of the secret society “livery” companies running the City of London Corporation. These livery groups are the core of the centuries-old apparatus for funds management, connecting the Royal Family, the London banks, and their colonial enterprises. Roundell Palmer was a director of the Union Minière du Haut Katanga corporation in the Congo, in association with the Royal Family’s own central-Africa holdings.

As Minister of Economic Warfare, Palmer selected Hambro, his City colleague, to direct SOE operations.

Sir Charles Hambro, of an old British/Scandinavian banking family, had been a powerful director of the Bank of England working with Montagu Norman to install and nurture the Hitler regime in Germany, and to found the Swiss-based Bank for International Settlements (with several Nazis on its board), through which Nazi loot and SS funds would be used for post-war objectives.

The Special Operations Executive was officially disestablished after the Nazi surrender. But Roundell Palmer insisted that its personnel, assassination capabilities, assets, and intelligence arrangements be continued underground in Western Europe, in a quasi-war against the Soviet Union.

The new “intelligence community” was managed from the Privy Council, from the permanent government apparatus that ran the Cabinet and Foreign Office, from White’s Club, and from the Mercers’ haunts and the City board rooms, regardless of elections or political parties. The very existence of MI6, the British Secret Intelligence Service, was not officially acknowledged until 1994.

The U.S. marriage to imperial Britain for the Cold War led to the 1947 National Security Act, creating the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Department. Reacting to Britain’s threat to pull its forces out of Greece, the United States declared the “Truman Doctrine” in March 1947, which committed the United States to building up an anti-Soviet presence in Europe. Marshall Plan funding for European war-recovery was also partially channeled into Cold War geopolitical intrigue, while the war-devastated Soviet Union was excluded from such assistance.

The Western European Union, NATO, and the Rise of the Dulleses

Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer’s deep British connection made him the natural choice for Defense Secretary James Forrestal to send to London in 1948 as the U.S. observer in secret talks establishing the Western European Union (WEU), a military alliance of Britain, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. Planning sessions were held at British General Montgomery’s headquarters in Fontainebleau, France.

Over the next year, a Clandestine Committee of this WEU’s military arm, the Western Union Defense Organization (WUDO), went into operation under the guidance of MI6 director Stewart Menzies.[20]

The WUDO itself was transformed into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as a result of British strategy operating on the United States as follows:

Beginning in 1948, President Harry Truman was counseled by Sir Oliver Franks, the British Ambassador. Franks had helped ram acceptance of the new Atlantic Alliance through the British government, past the national-sovereignty objections of Labour politicians. Franks had been sent to Washington to overcome the same misgivings in America. Anglophile Secretary of State Dean Acheson boasted in his memoirs that he met regularly in secret with Franks and made him a virtual member of the President’s Cabinet.

Truman soon brought in John Foster Dulles as advisor to the State Department, and Allen Dulles as the CIA’s director of covert operations. Under-Secretary of State Robert A. Lovett (Averell Harriman’s partner and client to the Dulles brothers in the Hitler-buildup) ran the U.S. negotiations for the Atlantic Alliance. Under heavy British pressure, Congress voted for the United States to join NATO in 1949. Kim Philby, a Soviet agent still working for the British, then came to Washington as Ambassador Franks’s first secretary and as the MI6 liaison with the CIA. Philby fed Soviet paranoia with accounts of evil American deeds, thus cementing the Cold War Anglo-American alliance. Sir Oliver Franks went back to London to become chairman of Lloyds Bank.

The Western Union Defense Organization clandestine structure set up under Sir Stewart Menzies persisted under NATO auspices. It managed the MI6/CIA-run secret armies with their old-Nazi and Italian fascist components, which were to infest Europe over the following decades. Gen. Lemnitzer, running back and forth between Washington and Europe in the late 1940s, was given control of the logistics for American military supplies to the Western Union/NATO apparatus.[21]

3. JFK Opens the Attack

Congressman John F. Kennedy toured the Middle East and Asia in 1951, accompanied by his younger brother Robert. Kennedy was angered to see that the United States was giving up its own Revolutionary heritage, in support of British and other imperial aims.

Among the places he visited was Iran, where Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh had just nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company to end Britain’s domination and impoverishment of the country. President Roosevelt had been in Teheran eight years earlier. FDR had commissioned the Hurley Report, supporting Iran’s use of its own resources free of imperialism, as a model for the national sovereignty to be gained by all former colonies.[22] But now Dean Acheson was coordinating with Sir Oliver Franks and a joint CIA-MI6 team, planning a coup d’etat against Mossadegh,—whose courage was then inspiring nationalist revolts by Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser and others across the rest of North Africa.

Kennedy went to Israel and Arab countries, which were embroiled in the bitter conflict brewed under British rule in the area.

After Yalta, Roosevelt had called for economic development of the desperately poor Muslim countries, based on the sovereign use of their oil resources, as the only road to regional peace.[23] But now, masses of hopeless Palestinian exiles sat in camps, and the Anglo-American Cold War alliance had buried FDR’s plans for progress.

In Vietnam, Congressman Kennedy sought out his own U.S., French and Vietnamese sources to get behind official explanations for the policies that would soon lead the United States to disaster. FDR and his Vietnamese ally Ho Chi Minh had called for that country’s independence. But in 1945, the British army had taken over Vietnam from Japan, and had given control back to the French empire. When Truman sided with the empires, Ho had turned to the Communists for support, and war again consumed the region.

Returning home, Kennedy aired a blistering radio report on the sickness of America’s alliance with its imperial opponents. Six years after the death of his Commander-in-Chief, Kennedy precisely echoed FDR’s warnings against imperialist aims.

[The post-war colonial world] is an area in which poverty and sickness and disease are rampant, in which injustice and inequality are old and ingrained, and in which the fires of nationalism so long dormant have been kindled and are now ablaze. It is an area of our world that for 100 years and more has been the source of empire for Western Europe—for England and France and Holland….

A Middle East Command operating without the cooperation and support of the Middle East countries … not only would intensify every anti-western force now active in that area, but from a military standpoint would be doomed to failure. The very sands of the desert would rise to oppose the imposition of outside control on the destinies of these proud peoples….

The true enemy of the Arab world is poverty and want…. Our intervention in behalf of England’s oil investments in Iran, directed more at the preservation of interests outside Iran than at Iran’s own development, our avowed willingness to assume an almost imperial military responsibility for the safety of the Suez, our failure to deal effectively after three years with the terrible human tragedy of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees, these are things that have failed to sit well with Arab desires and make empty the promises of the Voice of America….

In Indo-China [Vietnam] we have allied ourselves to the desperate effort of a French regime to hang onto the remnants of empire…. To check the southern drive of Communism makes sense, but not only through reliance on force of arms….

[O]ne finds too many of our representatives toadying to the shorter aims of other Western nations, with no eagerness to understand the real hopes and desires of the peoples to which they are accredited, too often aligning themselves too definitely with the “haves” and regarding the actions of the “have-nots” as not merely an effort to cure injustice, but as something sinister and subversive.

The East of today is no longer the East of Palmerston and Disraeli and Cromer…. We want, we may need, allies in ideas, in resources, even in arms, but if we would have allies, we must first of all gather to ourselves friends.[24]

Kennedy became a Senator in 1953. Meanwhile, President Eisenhower brought in John Foster Dulles as Secretary of State and Allen Dulles as Director of Central Intelligence, and began elevating Gen. Lemnitzer, the Dulles-British cohort in Operation Sunrise, to successively higher commands.

Thus, despite the better intentions President Eisenhower revealed in policies such as the Atoms for Peace initiative he made at the United Nations in December 1953, there was a dreadful continuity of British imperial control over crucial U.S. government functions, reaching from the Truman era forward into Eisenhower’s Presidency. It was personified by the Dulles brothers. The effects came quickly, around the world.

Iran’s government was overthrown in 1953 by British Intelligence and the Dulles CIA. A ghoulish dictatorship put Prime Minister Mossadegh into solitary confinement, and he later died under house arrest. The rescued British oil giant changed its name to British Petroleum. Anti-Western fury ultimately would lead to Iran’s Islamic Revolution of 1979.

In 1954, the CIA overthrew Guatemala’s President Jacobo Arbenz to reverse his nationalization of the United Fruit Company, whose plantations had kept the population in feudal backwardness. Among the charges hurled at the government was that it proposed to divert a river used by a plantation, to build a hydroelectric station. The Dulles law firm represented United Fruit, and Allen Dulles had been on the company’s board of directors. The coup helped lock Central America into poverty that bred drug-smuggling, violent insurrections, and migrations of hopeless masses north to the United States.

The French were driven out of Vietnam in 1954, despite U.S. backing. During the climactic battle at Dien Bien Phu, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles offered to nuclear-bomb the battlefield, but President Eisenhower decided against the plan. A new U.S.-backed regime was then installed in the southern half of Vietnam; warfare dragged on for years.

In 1955 (two years after the end of the Korean War), Lyman Lemnitzer became Commander of the U.S. Army forces in the Far East. He pushed for bringing tactical nuclear weapons into Korea.[25] Battlefield nuclear missiles came over in 1957; these weapons were withdrawn from Korea only in the 1990s. The North Korean Communist regime, increasingly paranoid, began developing its own nuclear weapons.

In 1956, President Eisenhower acted to curb America’s involvement in overseas colonial operations, by demanding an end to Britain’s imperial invasion of Egypt. He acted diplomatically with the Soviet Union and through economic pressure, to force Britain, France, and Israel to withdraw the troops that had invaded Egypt to seize the Suez Canal and attempt to overthrow President Nasser. Eisenhower would never move directly to break the power of the British and their American partners, but in JFK, that enemy faction now saw a new, more threatening challenger arise on the American scene.

4. Going Head to Head

Who now remembers how John Kennedy first shook up politics and became world famous?

He spoke to the U.S. Senate on July 2, 1957, on “Imperialism—the Enemy of Freedom.”[26] As Americans prepared to celebrate the July 4th anniversary of their Revolutionary War for Independence, Kennedy blasted the U.S. alliance with European imperialism to violently suppress African and Asian freedom—for U.S. actions vis-a-vis the raging war in Algeria had differed sharply from the American position on Suez.

That speech, and the reaction to it, put Kennedy in the kind of public spotlight Abraham Lincoln had stepped into when he debated Stephen Douglas over slavery, a century before. As Lincoln’s emergence had alarmed the dominant pro-slavery leaders, so now the alarm rang at White’s Club in London, at NATO command centers, and among those who considered themselves the permanent U.S. government. From that moment until his 1963 assassination, JFK was head to head with his and mankind’s enemies.

French troops, NATO-sponsored and U.S.-helicopter-equipped, bombed, burned, tortured and assassinated Arabs fighting for Algerian national independence. But Kennedy said imperial troops could never prevail over rebels representing the hopes of the native population. Imperial failure was as certain as it had been in Vietnam, into which we had “poured money and materiel … in a hopeless attempt to save for the French a land that did not want to be saved, in a war in which the enemy was both everywhere and nowhere at the same time.”

Kennedy reported that he had undertaken “an intensive study of the problem” for more than a year. He chaired the Senate Subcommittee on United Nations Affairs—and he had worked out the July 2 speech in personal cooperation with the Algerian rebel leadership. He stressed that he had long criticized U.S. policy, hitting the betrayal of our interests by both the Truman Democrats and the Dulles Republicans.

He attacked the reigning axiom that every other interest must be sacrificed to the anti-Communist Cold War. Why hadn’t this conflict ended long ago?

[We] have been told that the war was being kept alive only because of interference and meddling by Colonel Nasser … or … because of Russian and Communist meddling in Algeria. None of these explanations which seek to make outsiders the real agents of the Algerian rebellion carries much conviction any longer, … as shown [by] attempts to suppress … critical newspaper and public comment….

If we are to secure the friendship of the Arab, the African, and the Asian—and we must, despite what Mr. [Secretary of State John Foster] Dulles says about our not being in a popularity contest—we cannot hope to accomplish it … by selling them free enterprise, by describing the perils of communism or the prosperity of the United States, or limiting our dealings to military pacts. No, the strength of our appeal … lies in our traditional and deeply felt philosophy of freedom and independence for all peoples everywhere.

Kennedy inserted into this speech a remarkable historical clue. It helps us see how his “intensive study of the problem” had inspired him to revive, from the late Franklin Roosevelt, the American tradition of anti-imperial leadership. JFK spoke of “Sultan Ben Youssef, with whom President Roosevelt had conferred at the time of the Casablanca Conference.”

Back in 1943, FDR had sought out this Sultan of Morocco to assure him of U.S. support for his country’s economic development and independence from France. The meeting had deeply moved the Sultan, an FDR favorite who had stood up against the Vichy French government’s attempts to exile Morocco’s huge Jewish population to Nazi death camps. The Sultan afterwards credited FDR with having ignited his and other nationalist movements for self-rule. By 1956 he had successfully negotiated with France and Spain for Moroccan independence; one month after Kennedy’s groundbreaking speech, the Sultan took the title of King Mohammad V.

Kennedy concluded by offering a Senate resolution, calling on President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Dulles to place U.S. influence behind efforts, either through NATO “or through the good offices of the Prime Minister of Tunisia and the Sultan of Morocco,” to move toward Algerian independence and the end of the bitter war.

The Kennedy speech electrified African nationalists. A stream of African, Arab, and Asian leaders came to confer with the young Senator, whom they wanted to see elected as the next U.S President.[27]

John Foster Dulles counterattacked Kennedy on Cold War grounds, as did the New York Times, and Dean Acheson and other anti-FDR Democrats.

French imperial leaders and their scheming “stay-behind” NATO sponsors were particularly furious: JFK had pointedly made common cause with French people of good will who agreed with his standpoint, but who had been afraid to speak out against the proto-fascist hardliners running France’s government.

The most extreme hardline elements of the French army and secret services had been operational partners of British MI6 and Dulles’s faction since 1946, fighting in Indochina, and then in Algeria. By 1958 the Algerian Arab rebels provoked the most savage, Hitler-style repression, torture, and assassination by these French forces, throwing both Algeria and France into chaos.

The hardliners staged a coup in Algeria against the “weak” Paris government. Charles de Gaulle came out of retirement to solve the great national crisis. He created a new, Fifth Republic, became President, and led the country out of the disaster of futile British-aligned imperialism and permanent war. The hardliners and their British and American partners, having expected de Gaulle to hold onto the Algerian colony, cried “treason” against de Gaulle and vowed revenge. The seat of this hot fury was NATO headquarters in Paris, France.

Throughout this period, the Cold War had grown increasingly dangerous. Soviet forces crushed the Anglo-American-encouraged 1956 revolt in Hungary. The nuclear arms race intensified after the Soviets rocketed the first satellite, Sputnik, into Earth orbit in 1957. The insane strategy of “limited nuclear war” gained credence in NATO.

5. In an Age of Dread, the New Frontier

Senator Kennedy announced his Presidential candidacy on January 2, 1960. As Kennedy campaigned, President Eisenhower prepared to meet Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchov at a crucial May 16 East-West-South summit conference in Paris. President de Gaulle and India’s President Jawaharlal Nehru had planned the meeting to promote nuclear disarmament, and East-West cooperation for aid to underdeveloped countries.[28]

But two weeks before the summit, Dulles’s CIA sent a U2 spy plane on a photo mission over the USSR. It was shot down; its pilot was captured and confessed his mission on May 1, deeply embarrassing Eisenhower and collapsing the Eisenhower-Khrushchov summit meeting. Khrushchov lashed out at the United States and disinvited Eisenhower from his planned June visit to Moscow.

Kennedy meanwhile won Democratic primary elections, famously taking West Virginia May 10, on his way towards a November final-election victory. The NATO partners hastened to pre-empt any serious alteration in global arrangements.

Central Africa was their first target.

In January, 1960, Congo nationalist leader Patrice Lumumba had declared the independence of Congo from the rule of Belgium. The British were the predominant power in the Congo, exercising control through the Union Minière du Haut Katanga corporation, owner of most of Congo’s valuable minerals, including uranium.

Calling for the use of his county’s resources to bring his people out of backwardness—in other words, precisely Senator Kennedy’s program—Patrice Lumumba became Congo’s first elected Prime Minister in June 1960. In July, the British detonated war against the Congo: the British-controlled Katanga province, containing most of Congo’s mineral wealth, declared its secession from the newly independent nation.

Days later, the Democratic Party nominated Kennedy for President.

On September 14, the elected Congolese government was forcibly overthrown by Belgian military and anti-nationalist paramilitary forces sponsored by the British power center in Katanga and their CIA partners. Prime Minister Lumumba was kidnapped, escaped, and was repeatedly hemmed in by his would-be assassins.

Lemnitzer’s Special Ops

In October 1960, Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer was appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Now the two men who had betrayed President Roosevelt in Operation Sunrise sat at the top of the U.S. strategic services apparatus, Dulles at CIA and Lemnitzer at the Pentagon.

Lemnitzer had displayed what his faction viewed as his qualifications for this role back in August, when, as Army chief of staff, he announced that the Army was all ready to “restore order” in the United States after a nuclear war with the Soviet Union—to bring back normalcy just as the military does after a flood or a riot.[29]

To move a bit closer to that “orderly” nuclear war, Chairman Lemnitzer now went ahead with plans to install U.S. nuclear ballistic missiles in Turkey,[30] on the border of the Soviet Union.

Lemnitzer and Dulles meanwhile proceeded with secret arrangements for an invasion of Cuba and the overthrow of Fidel Castro. His rebel movement had taken power in Cuba in 1959, and Castro had confiscated foreign-owned properties, including the plantations of the Dulles company, United Fruit. The Russians had then given Castro military aid against an expected U.S. counterrevolution. Russian military personnel were on the island. An invasion might lead to shooting between the two great powers, both now armed with nuclear weapons a thousand times as deadly as the Hiroshima bomb, and both exploding them in open-air tests.

The American public was then widely debating the doomsday threat.

In June 1960, two veteran Washington journalists had issued a startling book about the 1945 U.S. nuclear bombings of Japan.[31] Fletcher Knebel and Charles Bailey had used newly available archival sources and had interviewed participants in the nuclear decision-making process. They showed that many relevant military and government leaders had not been allowed to know of the bomb’s development or the attack plans; and that warnings by critical scientists were brushed aside when Truman, encouraged by Churchill, had made the call. Knebel and Bailey made clear that the atomic bomb had forever changed the logic of full-scale war, because a new World War would be civilization’s suicide.

John Kennedy was elected President on November 8, 1960. He sent representatives to Africa to announce America’s renewed commitment to national sovereignty. They reported that African crowds everywhere were chanting “Kennedy! Kennedy! Kennedy!”

He would have ten weeks to plan a government, before his January 20, 1961 inauguration. In Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, hopes rose for a new U.S. role that might dispel the fearful tension.

Seeking to take office and get some kind of start without provoking open insurrection from the Anglo-American establishment, Kennedy announced that Allen Dulles would stay on at the helm of the CIA, and J. Edgar Hoover would remain at the FBI. To placate Wall Street, he made investment banker Douglas Dillon the Treasury secretary. [32] Lyman Lemnitzer’s term as Joint Chiefs chairman was to run until 1962, and by tradition it would then be extended.

But JFK also brought in people intensely loyal to his promises of a new direction. His brother Robert, who had been by his side since the 1951 anti-imperial tour, would ride shotgun as attorney general.

On January 17, three days before Kennedy’s inauguration, the British MI6 station chief in Congo, Ms. Daphne Park, reportedly gave the signal for the forces that the Anglo-Americans had assembled, and Congo head of state Patrice Lumumba was assassinated in a remote location to which he had been kidnapped. [33] The incoming U.S. President was not notified of the plan, nor was he even informed, until two months later (February 13), that the murder had even occurred.

On January 17, 1960, the day the Anglo-Americans murdered Lumumba, President Eisenhower delivered his Farewell Address. He warned:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence … by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.[34]

President John F. Kennedy’s January 20 Inaugural Address[35] called for a reversal of the slide toward nuclear war with Russia, and announced clearly the return of the American founding mission:

[M]an holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe….

He awakened in young people, especially, a passion to improve the world. Colonial-sector leaders already knew him better than most Americans, and were thrilled at the suddenly enhanced prospects for progress.

Kwame Nkrumah arrived in Washington March 8, 1961, becoming the first foreign head of state to visit President Kennedy. They began working together on overcoming political and financial roadblocks to Nkrumah’s great project: a dam on the Volta River through Ghana, to generate cheap electricity that could help industrialize West Africa.[36]

6. Regime Change

Allen Dulles now pressed upon the President the plan he and General Lemnitzer had concocted to overthrow Fidel Castro. Kennedy was told that Cuban exiles would invade and do the fighting, not U.S. troops. Dulles warned that if the plan were not approved, armed and dangerous exiles could be smoldering in Florida, directing their anger at the President. Seeing Castro as a brutal dictator close to American shores, and being as yet unsure of his own Presidential leadership, Kennedy approved the plan on April 4, 1961. He specified that U.S. warships and combat aircraft would not be allowed to support the enterprise. But Dulles and Lemnitzer planned to compel Kennedy to throw in U.S. forces when the 1,500-man invasion would inevitably falter.

Just five days before the Cuban invasion went ahead, a Dulles representative in Spain assured French generals that the United States would recognize their new regime if they would overthrow President de Gaulle and install a military dictatorship to stop Algerian independence.[37]

The invasion at Cuba’s Bay of Pigs April 17-19, collapsed quickly, a terrible embarrassment to the new President. Confronting Kennedy, Dulles, and Lemnitzer demanded that he bring in naval and air cover to save the operation, but he kept his resolve not to allow it. He took upon himself full responsibility for the plan’s failure. The word went out at the CIA and the Pentagon that Kennedy was weak-unfit-dangerous. Just in case curious Congressmen might meddle into the affair, Gen. Lemnitzer destroyed his aide’s notes of the Joint Chiefs’ discussions leading into the Bay of Pigs.[38]

On April 21, 1961, two days after Castro defeated the Cuban invasion, French generals led by former NATO Central Europe Commander Gen. Maurice Challe staged an attempted coup d’etat in France. Thousands of paratroopers were stationed not far from Paris, preparing to move on the Presidential palace. De Gaulle appealed to the French people to support him and save their country. Millions of French citizens blocked the coup plotters with strikes and other pro-government actions. Directly countering Dulles, President Kennedy contacted his French counterpart and pledged full support, including military assistance if de Gaulle wanted it.

New York Times reporter James Reston wrote that the CIA had masterminded “the rebel attack on Cuba last week, the U-2 spy plane incident a year ago, and [now] was involved in an embarrassing liaison with the anti-Gaullist officers who staged last week’s insurrection in Algiers.”

[In] the last few days, the President has looked into angry reports from Paris that the C.I.A. was in touch with the insurrectionists who tried to overthrow the de Gaulle government of France…. C.I.A. officials gave a luncheon here in Washington for Jacques Soustelle, a leader of the anti- de Gaulle movement, when M. Soustelle was … in Washington [last December.]

All this has increased the feeling in the White House that the CIA has gone beyond the bounds of an objective intelligence-gathering agency and has becomethe advocate of men and policies that have embarrassed the administration.

Reston reported that Kennedy wanted to bring in his brother Robert to replace Dulles at the CIA and clean the Agency up.[39] Claude Krief, reporting for the liberal weekly magazine L’Express, gave details on a clandestine meeting held April 12, 1961 in Madrid, of “various foreign agents, including members of the CIA and the Algiers conspirators, who disclose their plans to the CIA men.” The CIA men were said to have complained that de Gaulle’s policy was “paralyzing NATO and rendering the defense of Europe impossible,” and assured the French that if they succeeded, Washington would recognize the new government within two days.[40]

By the end of April, Kennedy made it known that he considered the CIA disloyal, that—as the Paris newspapers put it—it constituted “a reactionary state-within a state.”[41] Kennedy forced the resignation of Allen Dulles, his deputy Richard Bissell (involved in both the Cuban and Paris disasters), and Charles Cabell, the CIA’s liaison with Gen. Lemnitzer. Dulles left the CIA in November 1961, but within a month or two he was back at the center of the ruling group at the Agency, giving and receiving briefings several times a week. Those who frequented Dulles’s house in Georgetown viewed the President as a usurper-weak-dangerous.[42]

American opinion rallied behind Kennedy after he took public responsibility for the Bay of Pigs disaster. Resolving to put his own stamp on the Presidency, Kennedy announced to Congress on May 25, 1961 the dramatic goal of sending an American safely to the Moon before the end of the decade.

But with the news from Cuba, the Congo, and Paris, murder was in the air in Washington. Journalists Fletcher Knebel and Charles Bailey were working on an urgent follow-up to their 1960 book on nuclear war. Knebel interviewed Air Force Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay, who had led the firebombing of Japan, and had transmitted the orders for Hiroshima. Knebel picked up the scent of madness that permeated the Pentagon.

Knebel and Bailey now crafted an account of a future military coup d’etat against the United States President, to be called Seven Days in May. The beliefs and actions of the chief perpetrator, a fictionalized Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff named “James Matoon Scott” mirrored the real-life role of Lyman Lemnitzer. To make certain that this identification was not missed, the authors gave the fictional President the last name “Lyman.” The plotters target him as weak-unfit-dangerous, denouncing his attempt to get a nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union.

7. Shall Mankind Die?

The real chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Lyman Lemnitzer, met with President Kennedy and his National Security Council on July 20, 1961, just as the East-West crisis over Berlin threatened to explode into immediate hot war in Europe. Lemnitzer presented his plan for a surprise, preemptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, to take place in 1963. This was Churchill’s Operation Unthinkable, updated for thermonuclear use.

Lemnitzer cautioned that if all-out nuclear war were begun a year earlier, it would not be as effective in utterly annihilating Russia; he said that only by 1963 would the United States have absolute superiority in delivery systems, at which point the Soviets would possess no real ability to retaliate. The President asked Lemnitzer how long Americans would have to remain in fallout shelters after the rival country was exterminated. A Lemnitzer aide replied that about two weeks should be sufficient. Kennedy concluded the meeting by directing that “no member in attendance at the meeting disclose even the subject of the meeting.”

A memorandum with notes of this meeting was declassified only in June of 1993. Professor James Galbraith, son of JFK’s trusted strategic advisor John Kenneth Galbraith, discovered this declassified memo and immediately brought it to the attention of the public.[43] His article received virtually no attention in the corporate media.

McGeorge Bundy recalled that “In the summer of 1961 [Kennedy] went through a formal briefing on the net assessment of a general nuclear war between the two superpowers, and he expressed his own reaction to [Secretary of State] Dean Rusk as they walked from the cabinet room to the Oval Office for a private meeting on other subjects: ‘And we call ourselves the human race.’”[44]

On March 13, 1962, Joint Chiefs Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer gave Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara a plan for the United States to carry out terror attacks against its own armed forces and civilians, to be blamed on the Castro regime as “pretexts which would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba.” Known as Operation Northwoods, the plan would remain secret until declassified in the 1990s. It is now available online.[45]

The state of mind discernable behind Northwoods comes straight out of the history of the British Empire. “False flag” terror had been the British specialty in Africa, India, and Ireland, and through synthetic Muslim movements in the Mideast. During and after the Cold War, it has been the trademark of the MI6 and Special Air Services that have instructed and guided NATO strategy.

Among Lemnitzer’s proposals were these:

Bomb the U.S. base at Guantanamo, Cuba, and destroy U.S. ships—“Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base…. Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires. Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage). Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires—naphthalene. Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims…. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters…. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack.”

Lie to news media—“[After] an air/sea rescue operation … to ‘evacuate’ remaining members of the non-existent crew … [c]asualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”

Conduct terror atrocities inside the United States—“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots ….”

A military attack to “be simulated against a neighboring Caribbean nation….”

An “incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States…. [The] aircraft [used in the fake attack] … could be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area….”

“Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft….”

Make it “appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.”

Kennedy dismissed the Northwoods proposal. About a month later, Lemnitzer simply demanded that the United States stage a full-scale military invasion of Cuba, without provocation, on the presumption that the Soviets would not react.[46]

The President now ordered that Lemnitzer be ousted as chairman of the Joint Chiefs when his term expired in October 1962, six months hence. Kennedy designated General Maxwell Taylor to replace Lemnitzer as chairman at that time, and to supervise Lemnitzer as long as he remained the chief. Lemnitzer’s British sponsors intervened at this crucial stage to keep him in a position of power, as he later explained to his authorized biographer:

[In] the Spring of 1962 … [he] had been invited by his old World War II commander, retired Field Marshal Earl Alexander, to come out to his home near Windsor castle for Easter dinner. The earl was no longer the British minister of defense [as he had been in the Churchill cabinet, 1952-54], but he was still influential in government affairs, and he was a lifelong friend of Harold Macmillan, the prime minister. While the two were walking in his garden, Alexander ask the general about his retirement plans. When Lemnitzer said he was considering several offers in the private sector, Alexander asked him if he had ever thought of succeeding general [Lauris] Norstad as NATO’s supreme Allied Commander. Lemnitzer said he was surprised and replied ‘Hell no. I’ve never even thought about it. As far as I know, Larry is doing well there and I’ve never given it any consideration. Why do you ask?’ Alexander answered that Macmillan, with whom Lemnitzer had been acquainted when he served with Alexander in Italy, had asked him to bring up the subject and inquire if the general was interested. The two went on to talk about other things, and he put the conversation in the back of his mind until he returned to Washington…. The next move came from Kennedy, who talked to Lemnitzer … in June, and told him he wanted to nominate him to succeed Norstad.[47]

Kennedy saw the British proposal for Lemnitzer to command NATO military forces in Europe as a way to kick him out of the Pentagon without provoking an open revolt by his high-ranking military followers.

8. Against Pure Evil, JFK Did Not Flinch

The novel about a coup d’etat against the U.S. President, Seven Days in May,[48] came out in September 1962. Chilling real-life events made the book a best seller.

On August 22, a few days before the book’s release, a squad of assassins on motorcycles had attacked French President de Gaulle’s car with automatic weapons fire. Bullets passed very near his head, but he escaped unhurt.

General Lemnitzer stepped down as chairman of the Joint Chiefs on October 1, 1962, but his departure for Paris NATO headquarters was temporarily delayed while the hunt was on for the Algerian Secret Army would-be assassins. Lemnitzer remained at the Pentagon, in the same unofficial top-boss status among his colleagues as Allen Dulles retained within the CIA.

Thus it was amidst a struggle for the survival of lawful government that the Cuban Missile Crisis began on October 16, 1962. During those terrifying hours, Seven Days in May was the number one best seller in Washington DC, because no one viewed it as fiction.

A U.S. spy plane over Cuba took photographs showing that the Soviets had brought in ballistic missiles capable of striking the United States with nuclear weapons. The President kept the situation secret until he could reach a firm decision on what to do, to get the missiles out of Cuba without starting World War III. The sacked Joint Chiefs chairman, Lemnitzer, attended the meetings of the special “Executive Committee” (Excomm) which Kennedy had created to deliberate on the correct path to take. [49]

A battle of wills went on day after day. The President and his loyal staff wanted to give the Russians a way to back down without being crushed or humiliated. The Dulles-Lemnitzer faction wanted to bomb the missile sites, and follow that action with an all-out U.S. invasion of Cuba. They claimed that even if Russian soldiers were killed, the Russians would do nothing; and that even if the Russians struck back in Berlin (then divided East-West), the United States could easily defeat them in a nuclear conflict.

Kennedy raised the possibility that the USA might remove its missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Soviets taking theirs out of Cuba. Lemnitzer reacted angrily that the missiles in Turkey were not ours to withdraw—they belonged to NATO!

A partly fictionalized film about the Cuban Missile Crisis—13 Days, starring Kevin Costner—omits Lemnitzer from its depiction of those secret strategy meetings. Nonetheless, the film provides a sense of the Lemnitzer faction’s attempt to bully the President into a catastrophic war.

Kennedy decided to impose a naval blockade around Cuba, which could interdict any ships transporting offensive weapons. As both the United States and the Soviets continued testing nuclear weapons throughout the crisis, the entire world awaited the outcome, and the likely death of humanity.

Kennedy said that if the Soviets removed the missiles, he would pledge never to invade Cuba. He kept in touch with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchov through private channels, and sent his brother Robert to meet in strict secrecy with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin. The crisis ended with the successful offer to take the missiles out of Turkey, the removal to occur quietly six months later on.

The Manchurian Candidate, a film about a plot to take over the White House by assassination, was released to American movie theaters at the height of the 13-day missile crisis. Its director, John Frankenheimer, became very close to Robert Kennedy.[50] Frankenheimer bought the rights to Seven Days in May, the novel about a future coup d’etat in the USA, and proceeded to make it into a movie. President Kennedy and his staff gave Frankenheimer their active, eager cooperation in the film-making project. The movie is a startling reflection of the psychology of the two sides, the mortal enemies who had confronted each other within the Excomm during the missile crisis.

Lyman Lemnitzer, defeated in the Cuban Missile Crisis and sacked as Joint Chiefs’ chairman—but not incarcerated—went over to Paris as head of NATO military forces. Lemnitzer inherited a continent-wide covert apparatus of Mafia killers, Hitler Nazis and Mussolini fascists, French colonial diehards, and white mercenaries fuming about the loss of Africa. This was the “stay-behind” network he had seen constructed after World War II by the British Secret Service, with help from Dulles and logistical support by himself. It was not until October 1990 that Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti rocked the political world by revealing the existence of this covert network, which came to be called after the name for its Italian section, “Gladio.”

This was the apparatus that had repeatedly attempted to murder President de Gaulle, who finally kicked NATO and Lemnitzer out of France in 1967.

Intimidation by “Gladio” had worked a 1964 coup d’etat in Italy, forcing the government to purge ministers and parties favoring East-West cooperation. The apparatus had killed several German leaders who were seeking peaceful relations between East and West.

Its most notorious crime was the so-called Strategy of Tension, exploding bombs and murdering civilians in the name of non-existent radical groups, to foster servile obedience in the population.[51]The apparatus had carried out the 1978 “Red Brigades” kidnapping and murder of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro. This was the same “false flag” terror campaign that Lemnitzer had unsuccessfully proposed to President Kennedy for the USA. The tactic has persisted into the present age of terror and counter-terror.

In 1967, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison would prosecute CIA/MI6 asset Clay Shaw as a perpetrator of the JFK assassination, showing that Shaw was a central figure in the Italian Gladio murder apparatus.

9. What the World Lost in the American Coup

The peaceful outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis, serving the mutual interests of the United States and the Russians, was a decisive victory of Kennedy over his Anglo-American opponents. With the grateful opinion of a reprieved world at his back, he immediately pressed the advantage, acting to secure a future in which American interests were once again identified with the world’s progress and safety.

His murder one year later (November 22, 1963) ought to be recognized as the decisive act in a coup d’etat against the United States. The resultant absence of America’s unique optimism and creativity from world affairs was everywhere deeply demoralizing.

We may now be witnessing a global popular revolt against the failed system which Kennedy’s enemies imposed after his death: uncontrolled financial speculation, deindustrialization, and the devastation of permanent wars. It may now be possible, culturally and politically, for citizens to once again understand Kennedy’s traditional American viewpoint, which has otherwise been incomprehensible to generations subjected to humiliation and social degradation. We will briefly here examine how Kennedy, as the representative and leading American, acted on the world immediately after he had faced down and defeated his internal enemies in the Missile Crisis.

Kennedy’s first target was the Congo, engulfed by war and chaos since the imperial murder of Prime Minister Lumumba just before Kennedy’s Presidency had begun.

The old, hideously cruel colonial system in Africa had little support at that time outside the City of London, Wall Street, and a hard-right circle supporting the financiers. But the British royals and their continental cousins, together with their secret services and military apparatus, defined their very existence around their colonial-sector investments. The original Belgian crown colony in the Congo had long ago come under control of interlocked banking and mining interests linking British Rhodesia and Congo’s Katanga province, joined by Morgan, Rockefeller and other clients of the Dulles Brothers.[52]

The London “Katanga Lobby” steered the Congo mayhem from their castles, from White’s, and from the Worshipful Companies of the City of London. Its leaders were the Marquess of Salisbury, his cousin Lord Selborne (Roundell Palmer), Lord Clitheroe, Ulick Alexander, and Captain Charles Waterhouse, who together managed the British Royal Household, represented royal investments, ran Tanganyika Concessions and Union Minière du Haut Katanga, owned the relevant central African railroads, deployed regional mercenary gangs, and controlled the funding mechanisms for the Conservative Party.

Acting only a month after the Soviet stand-down in Cuba, President Kennedy got the rather reluctant Belgian Foreign Minister Paul Henri Spaak to issue a joint statement with him, threatening “severe economic measures” against Katanga unless secession were quickly ended. Kennedy simultaneously applied painful political pressure on the British regime that was backing the Congo’s dissolution: he decided to prevent the U.K. from acquiring an independent nuclear weapons delivery system, the Skybolt air-to-ground missile, which they had counted on acquiring from the USA The British press blasted Kennedy; Anglophile right-wingers in the Deep South attacked him for betraying the White Race. Kennedy met with Prime Minister MacMillan and forced him to accept an American nuclear-umbrella defense of Britain in place of Skybolt.

With the British reeling, Kennedy moved the United Nations to support the Congo’s national sovereignty with U.N. military forces and U.S. logistics. Within weeks, peace was restored, the Katanga secession was crushed, Katanga leader Moise Tshombe was arrested, and the Congo government asked British diplomats to leave.

A letter to the London Daily Telegraph, January 9, 1963, expressed imperial rage: “We … have witnessed three … attempts at world domination, first by Hitler, then by Stalin … and now by President Kennedy.” But this hatred was perhaps not widely shared among Britons, who were alive because the American President had followed his own judgment and had not been intimidated by anti-Russian madmen.

The Akosombo Hydroelectric Dam, the joint Ghana-U.S. great project, was then midway to completion. More broadly, Kennedy sought to employ nuclear energy as a peace-building development tool. The International Atomic Energy Agency started a panel dedicated to nuclear desalination/irrigation works as joint projects of the United States and Russia, Israel and the north African Arabs, India and Pakistan, North and South America.

Kennedy’s “Peace Speech”

After securing the Congo, Kennedy moved diplomatically for a U.S.-Soviet agreement to end nuclear weapons testing, and pushed strongly towards a broad agreement to scale back the suicidal arms race. A Test Ban Treaty among the U.S., U.S.S.R., UK and France had been another item on the Spring 1960 Paris summit agenda, which was wrecked by the U-2 spy plane incident.

JFK’s famous “Peace Speech” came on June 10, 1963 as the commencement address at American University in Washington, DC.[53] He announced that the United States would unilaterally stop testing nuclear weapons, to encourage a U.S.-Soviet accord. He said that Russia had suffered more than any other country to defeat Hitler.

He asked Americans to re-examine their own attitudes toward Russia:

… not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats. No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements—in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage…. What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave…. Our problems are man-made—therefore, they can be solved by man.

The USA and the Soviets soon entered into a treaty partially banning nuclear bomb testing, opening the way toward greater accords.

The next day after the peace speech, Kennedy reported to the American people on the fight for civil rights.[54] Again, he challenged American attitudes:

One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.

We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is the land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class or caste system, no ghettoes, no master race except with respect to Negroes?

Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its promise.

With the additional impetus of the Civil Rights Movement’s August 28, 1963 March on Washington, the occasion of the Rev. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech, the Kennedy Administration began crafting the epochal civil rights legislation that would be passed after his assassination.

In the last weeks of his life, he pressed for a joint space program with the Soviet Union; at the U.N. on September 20, he called for a joint U.S.-Soviet expedition to the Moon.[55]

On October 5, President Kennedy decided to withdraw U.S. military advisers from Vietnam to prevent an American war there. This decision was given force by his National Security Action Memorandum 263, issued October 11, 1963.[56]

Kennedy was quietly putting out peace feelers to Fidel Castro, when he was shot to death.

***

This, then, is what Senator Chuck Schumer (Dem., NY) meant January 3, 2017 when he tried to intimidate Donald Trump by calling him “really dumb” for attacking the covert agencies: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

Schumer’s brutal threat was that Trump would get the Kennedy treatment.

Since the murder of the last President to stand up decisively to the oligarchs, the United States and Britain have been led to abandon industrial progress in their own countries, and to attack the right of poor countries to industrialize as “environmentally dangerous,” and as a potential military risk if such countries were to know too much science. Governments, bribed and coerced, have surrendered economic control to financiers who are universal plunderers.

They have launched dozens of new Bay of Pigs wars–in Iraq, Libya, Syria, all over Africa and all around Russia–killing millions, producing only refugees and terrorists, even as they “preach freedom around the world.” They paid billions of dollars to buy the forcible overthrow of the elected president in Ukraine when he opted for closer relations with neighboring Russia.

Citizens’ revulsion against the Establishment swept Europe and hit the United States in the 2016 elections, in the votes cast both for Bernie Sanders and for Donald Trump. When Wikileaks exposed Hillary Clinton’s betrayal of her country—she had assured her Wall Street sponsors that they would control national policy—the frantic lie came back that Russia was somehow responsible for leaking Clinton’s secret speech, and thus Russia had meddled in the U.S. elections.

NATO—the NATO of Lord Harold Alexander and his idolizer Lyman Lemnitzer—is now stationing American and British troops in the Baltic countries on Russia’s borders, preparing for a Third World War.

It takes little imagination to think how quickly and forcibly the United States would have reacted during the Cold War, if the Soviet Union had stationed Soviet combat-ready troops just across the U.S. border in Mexico.

Kennedy acted to remove Allen Dulles and Lyman Lemnitzer. Kennedy’s murder gave their faction a victory, but not until he had left an indelible mark on human history.

President Donald Trump has fired FBI Director James Comey for his participation in the blatant coup attempt against Trump on the anti-Russian theme.

Proceeding further in the face of the coup, Trump decided to send a U.S. delegation to Beijing for the Belt and Road summit meeting on global infrastructure, to discuss the way out of strategic disaster.

China has recently raised hundreds of millions of its people out of poverty. And it has now been joined by Russia and many other like-minded nations to build the greatest set of transport, electric power and industrial projects ever seen.

John F. Kennedy’s 100th birthday is commemorated on May 29, 2017.

The United States, which brought electricity to the world in the 19th century, and brought the world to the Moon in the 20th, could best celebrate JFK’s memory by joining in our era’s great infrastructure projects—and thus rejoining the civilized world.

The author may be contacted at antonchaitkin@gmail.com.

  1. On October 24, 1942, the U.S. Alien Property Custodian issued Vesting Order 248, seizing the shares in “Union Banking Corporation” held by E. Roland Harriman (brother of Averell Harriman), Prescott Bush (father of President George H.W. Bush), three Nazi executives, and two other Harriman partners. The UBC had been created in the 1920s for a single client, Fritz Thyssen, Adolf Hitler’s chief political fundraiser. See also Anton Chaitkin and Webster Tarpley, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (Washington: Executive Intelligence Review, 1992), pp. 26-44.
  2. Prince Max Hohenlohe was loosely related to British royalty, and had holdings in Spain and Mexico, besides his estates in Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland. He longed for a return to the feudal imperial world of the Habsburgs. Back in 1938, Prince Max had helped bring the British and Nazi-German governments to the ill-fated agreement at Munich, allowing Hitler to take control of Czechoslovakia. London interests then joined Berlin in looting the subdued Czechs. The whole swindle soon blew up in World War II.
  3. Stephen Dorril, MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty’s Secret Intelligence Service (New York: The Free Press, 2000), p. 168.
  4. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Address to the White House Correspondents’ Association, February 12, 1943. Roosevelt had in mind the immense Soviet death toll, which would reach over 27 million civilians and soldiers, in fighting Hitler. This Russian sacrifice on humanity’s behalf would be brought up by President Kennedy in his famous 1963 peace speech at American University.
  5. James L. Binder, Lemnitzer: A Soldier for His Time (Washington and London: Brassey’s, 1997). This is the authorized Lemnitzer biography, written with the cooperation of the general’s family and his Anglo-American military faction.
  6. Binder, Lemnitzer, see chapter entitled “The Mentor,” pp. 106-125.
  7. Binder, Lemnitzer, pp. 9-10. “When Lemnitzer sat for formal photographs or was otherwise conscious of the camera, he almost always turned the back of his left hand toward the lens so that the ring on his third finger would show. It was his West Point class ring, but the reason he displayed it so prominently was that it also carried the Masonic emblem. The general took his masonic obligations very seriously; he joined the freemasons in 1922 when he was a young lieutenant at Fort Adams, Rhode Island, eventually became a 32nd Degree Mason, and finally attained the honorary rank of 33rd Degree. He was a member of the Masons’ Shrine, whose charitable work for orphans probably helped influence his strong interest in Korean orphanages when he was [later] Far East commander in chief. A sure way of getting the general’s attention was to identify yourself as a Mason; military members of all ranks wrote to him, addressing him as ‘brother’ and being addressed the same way in Lemnitzer’s reply.”
  8. Dorril, MI6, p. 3.
  9. Karl Wolff had been chief of personal staff to SS boss Heinrich Himmler, and later was Himmler’s intermediary with Hitler. Wolff had supervised the deportation of Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto to be exterminated. He wrote from Hitler’s headquarters to Nazi railway chief Albert Ganzenmüller on August 13, 1942, referring to shipment of victims to the Treblinka death camp: “I note with particular pleasure from your communication that a train with 5,000 members of the chosen people has been running daily for 14 days and that we are accordingly in a position to continue with this population movement at an accelerated pace…. I thank you once again for the effort and at the same time wish to ask you to continue monitoring these things. With best wishes and Heil Hitler, yours sincerely W.” Kerstin von Lingen, Allen Dulles, the OSS, and Nazi War Criminals: The Dynamics of Selective Prosecution (Cambridge University Press, 2013), p. 216.
  10. Michigan State University, “Seventeen Moments in Soviet History,” Roosevelt to Stalin, March 25, 1945:“[I have received the contents of] a letter … from Mr. Molotov regarding an investigation being made by Field Marshal Alexander into a reported possibility of obtaining the surrender of part or all of the German army in Italy. In this letter Mr. Molotov demands that, because of the non-participation therein of Soviet officers, this investigation to be undertaken in Switzerland should be stopped forthwith.“The facts of this matter I am sure have, through a misunderstanding, not been correctly presented to you. The following are the facts:“Unconfirmed information was received some days ago in Switzerland that some German officers were considering the possibility of arranging for the surrender of German troops that are opposed to Field Marshal Alexander’s British-American Armies in Italy.“Upon the receipt of this information in Washington, Field Marshal Alexander was authorized to send to Switzerland an officer or officers of his staff to ascertain the accuracy of the report and if it appeared to be of sufficient promise to arrange with any competent German officers for a conference to discuss details of the surrender with Field Marshal Alexander at his headquarters in Italy. If such a meeting could be arranged Soviet representatives would, of course, be welcome.“Information concerning this investigation to be made in Switzerland was immediately communicated to the Soviet Government. Your Government was later informed that it will be agreeable for Soviet officers to be present at Field Marshal Alexander’s meetings with German officers if and when arrangements are finally made in Berne for such a meeting at Caserta to discuss details of a surrender.“Up to the present time the attempts by our representatives to arrange a meeting with German officers have met with no success, but it still appears that such a meeting is a possibility“My Government, as you will of course understand, must give every assistance to all officers in the field in command of Allied forces who believe there is a possibility of forcing the surrender of enemy troops in their area….“There can be in such a surrender of enemy forces in the field no violation of our agreed principle of unconditional surrender and no political implications whatever….”
  11. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16589.
  12. Stuart Rosenblatt, “The British Empire’s Cold War vs. the U.S.-Russia Alliance,” Executive Intelligence Review, July 11, and August 1, 2014, provides an overview of British-guided postwar strategy.
  13. Allen Dulles justified the ratlines by stressing, in each case, how the individual Nazi in question had better manners than the typical brute, wanted to be useful to the Western cause, and had at some point been in factional conflict with Hitler—just as he himself claimed that, by the late 1930s, he had criticized the pro-Nazi policy of his brother and their law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell.
  14. “Heirs of the OUN, Grandchildren of MI6” in “British Imperial Project in Ukraine: Violent Coup, Fascist Axioms, Neo-Nazis,” Executive Intelligence Review, May 16, 2014.
  15. Navy Lieutenant John F. Kennedy had been honorably discharged on March 1, 1945, due to painful injuries sustained when a Japanese destroyer had smashed through his tiny patrol boat. For a summary account of Kennedy’s public life, see Anton Chaitkin, “John F. Kennedy vs. the Empire,” Executive Intelligence Review, August 30, 2013.
  16. Operation Unthinkable: “Russia: Threat to Western Civilization,” British War Cabinet, Joint Planning Staff—Draft and Final Reports: 22 May, 8 June, and 11 July 1945, Public Record Office, CAB 120/691/109040 /001.
  17. The decision to A-bomb Japan was reached without the approval of senior U.S. military leaders. General Dwight Eisenhower wrote:“[I]n [July] 1945 … Secretary of War Stimson … informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act…. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’…. ” [Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change: The White House Years, 1953-1956 (New York: Doubleday, 1963), pp. 312-313.]Norman Cousins, a consultant to General Douglas MacArthur in the American occupation of Japan, wrote:“MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.” [Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power (New York: W.W. Norton, 1988), pp. 65, 70-71.] Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, wrote:”It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.” [William Leahy, I Was There (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950), p. 441.]The outstanding U.S. nuclear chemist Glenn T. Seaborg was one of a group of the scientists on the bomb’s development who wrote (in their Franck Committee report):“We believe that … the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan [is] inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.” (Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 76, National Archives.) As President, John F. Kennedy would make Glenn Seaborg chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, to push for global, peaceful use of nuclear power, and against the nuclear arms race. The above quotations from Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy and the Franck committee are cited in Doug Long, “Hiroshima: Was it Necessary?” (http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm).
  18. William W. Palmer, 2nd Earl of Selborne, succeeded Alfred Milner as High Commissioner for South Africa and ran “Milner’s Kindergarten” of rising imperial rulers; they would form the Round Table strategy circle, associated with gold magnate Cecil Rhodes, the British Crown and the Rothschild family.
  19. Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, from Rhodes to Cliveden (San Pedro: Books in Focus, 1981), p. 15.
  20. Nick Must, “The Western Union Clandestine Committee: Britain and the ‘Gladio’ networks,” in Lobster magazine, 1972.
  21. Binder, Lemnitzer, pp. 162-165.
  22. Anton Chaitkin, “FDR’s Hurley Memorandum,” Executive Intelligence Review, November 30, 2012.
  23. Roosevelt press conference Feb 23, 1945, op. cit.
  24. Papers of John F. Kennedy. Presidential Papers. President’s Office Files. Special Events Through the Years. Radio report on trip to Middle and Far East, 1951.
  25. Lee Jae-Bong, “US Deployment of Nuclear Weapons in 1950s South Korea & North Korea’s Nuclear Development: Toward Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,”Japan Focus: the Asia Pacific Journal, February 17, 2009). “Commander-in-Chief of the [United Nations Command] Lyman Lemnitzer sent a telegram dated January 30, 1956 to the Department of the Army in which he suggested that it was highly desirable for the U.S.F[orces]K[orea] to possess weapons with atomic delivery capability in order to alleviate the imbalance of strength between the opposing forces in Korea…. U.S. diplomatic correspondence during the 1950s [shows that] the U.S.F.K. started deploying nuclear weapons in January 1958 at the latest. But according to a secret report written by the U.S. Pacific Command, nuclear weapons were first deployed to South Korea in 1957 and withdrawn in 1991. The Washington Post also reported in October 2006 that ‘In 1957, the United States placed nuclear-tipped Matador missiles in South Korea, to be followed in later years … by nuclear artillery…’”
  26. https://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/JFK-Speeches/United-States-Senate-Imperialism_19570702.aspx
  27. Kennedy would later meet with Guinea’s nationalist President Sékou Touré, and became his confidant. Most importantly, Kennedy opened channels of communication with Ghana’s President Kwame Nkrumah, who had lived for 10 years in FDR’s America, and returned to lead the struggle against Britain. In March 1957, Nkrumah had declared Ghana’s independence as the first black African nation to overthrow colonial rule.
  28. “De Gaulle and Nehru Hold ‘Useful’ Pre-Summit Talk,” New York Times, May 9, 1960.
  29. Binder, Lemnitzer, pp. 245-246, quotes from Mark S. Watson, Baltimore Sun, August 8, 1960: “There was no question in the minds of the public that many thousands, even millions, of civilians would die in a nuclear attack; what was not clear was how order would be restored afterward…. The chief of staff stated: ‘As proved by the handling of lesser peacetime disasters over and over again, the surest means of broad-scale relief and recovery is the nation’s military organization—organized, disciplined and of all establishments the best equipped for that urgent responsibility.’”
  30. The Turkey missiles were officially a NATO project, carried out with the support of two key NATO officials who were factionally close to Lemnitzer: Sir Evelyn Shuckburgh, a high official of the British foreign-policy establishment who was then Assistant Secretary General of NATO, stationed at NATO headquarters in Paris; and French Air Force General Maurice Challe, Commander-in-Chief of Allied Forces in Central Europe, who had led the brutal counter-insurgency against the Algerian Arabs.Shuckburgh and Challe were old imperial dance partners. Years earlier, Sir Evelyn had confided to his diary, “the Americans are not backing us anywhere. In fact, having destroyed the Dutch empire, the United States are now engaged in undermining the French and British empires as hard as they can” (quoted in Dorril, MI6, page 497). Tony Shaw, Eden, Suez and the Mass Media (London: I.B. Tauris & Co., 1966), p. 67 reports that in 1956, Gen. Challe had visited with UK Prime Minister Anthony Eden (whom he served as principal private secretary) to propose that Britain, France and Israel should jointly invade Egypt to overthrow President Nasser, and pretend it was just an Israeli defensive move. President Eisenhower forced their withdrawal from Egypt in the Suez Crisis.
  31. Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II, No High Ground (New York: Harper & Row, 1960).
  32. Kennedy chose Douglas Dillon even though he had been the pro-imperial Ambassador to France until 1957. In Kennedy’s famous 1957 speech on Algerian independence, Kennedy had named Dillon as part of the problem of the Dulles-dominated American policy.
  33. The following letter by Lord David Lea to the London Review of Books (April 11, 2013) politely reviewed Britain’s culpability, a half century after Lumumba’s assassination.“WE DID IT“[Quoting a previous letter:] ‘The question remains whether British plots to assassinate Lumumba … ever amounted to anything. At present, we do not know’…. Actually, in this particular case, I can report that we do. It so happens that I was having a cup of tea with Daphne Park—we were colleagues from opposite sides of the Lords—a few months before she died in March 2010. She had been consul and first secretary in Leopoldville, now Kinshasa, from 1959 to 1961, which in practice (this was subsequently acknowledged) meant head of MI6 there. I mentioned the uproar surrounding Lumumba’s abduction and murder, and recalled the theory that MI6 might have had something to do with it. ‘We did,’ she replied, ‘I organised it.’“We went on to discuss her contention that Lumumba would have handed over the whole lot to the Russians: the high-value Katangese uranium deposits as well as the diamonds and other important minerals largely located in the secessionist eastern state of Katanga. Against that, I put the point that I didn’t see how suspicion of Western involvement and of our motivation for Balkanising their country would be a happy augury for the new republic’s peaceful development. David Lea London SW1.” Lord Lea’s letter sparked a political row, featuring an ambiguous response from the BBC.
  34. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp
  35.  https://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/Ready-Reference/JFK-Quotations/Inaugural-Address.aspx
  36. During his ten years in the USA, Nkrumah had seen how FDR’s Tennessee Valley Authority dams had helped end backwardness in the South; he saw this could be done once Ghana was free to improve itself.
  37. Claude Krief, in L’Express, cited in William Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II (London: Zed Books, 2003), pp. 150-151.
  38. Binder, Lemnitzer, p. 273.
  39. James Reston, New York Times, April 29, 1961
  40. Krief, cited in Blum, op. cit.
  41. Thomas P. Brady, “Paris Rumors on C.I.A.,” New York Times, May 2, 1961.
  42. David Talbot, The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government (New York: 2015, Harper).
  43. The memorandum was reproduced with an article by Galbraith and his aide Heather Purcell, “Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963?” which appeared in the American Prospect, number 19, Fall 1994, pp. 88-96. The text was as follows:TOP SECRET—EYES ONLYNotes on National Security Council MeetingJuly 20, 1961General Hickey, Chairman of the Net Evaluation Subcommittee, presented the annual report of his group. General Lemnitzer stated that the assumption of this year’s study was a surprise attack in late 1963, preceded by a period of heightened tensions.After the presentation by General Hickey and by the various members of the Subcommittee, the President asked if there had ever been made an assessment of damage results to the U.S.S.R which would be incurred by a preemptive attack. General Lemnitzer stated that such studies had been made and that he would bring them over and discuss them personally with the President. In recalling General Hickey’s opening statement that these studies have been made since 1957, the President asked for an appraisal of the trend in the effectiveness of the attack. General Lemnitzer replied that he would also discuss this with the President.Since the basic assumption of this year’s presentation was an attack in late 1963, the President asked about probable effects in the winter of 1962. Mr. Dulles observed that the attack would be much less effective since there would be considerably fewer missiles involved. General Lemnitzer added a word of caution about accepting the precise findings of the Committee since these findings were based upon certain assumptions which themselves might not be valid.The President posed the question as to the period of time necessary for citizens to remain in shelters following an attack. A member of the Subcommittee replied that no specific period of time could be cited due to the variables involved, but generally speaking, a period of two weeks should be expected.The President directed that no member in attendance at the meeting disclose even the subject of the meeting. Declassified: June, 1993.
  44. Quoted by Galbraith, op. cit.
  45. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/20010430/
  46. https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/U.S.-Military-Intervention-in-Cuba-10-April-1962-Recommendation and https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/U.S.-Military-Intervention-in-Cuba-10-April-1962-Recommendation-Pg-2
  47. Binder, Lemnitzer, p. 306.
  48. Fletcher Knebel and Charles Bailey II, Seven Days in May (New York: Harper & Row, 1962).
  49. Binder, Lemnitzer, p. 309.
  50. John Frankenheimer would go on to produce campaign ads for Bobby Kennedy’s 1968 run for the Presidency. Frankenheimer was in Los Angeles with Bobby after the California primary victory made Bobby the likely next President, and was devastated by Bobby’s assassination that same night.
  51. Claudio Celani, “Strategy of Tension: The Case of Italy,” Executive Intelligence Review, 2004.
  52. In the April 1962 showdown over steel price increases, Kennedy had used the government’s full force to defeat the Anglophile Morgan and Rockefeller interests, who dominated the steel industry with an anti-industrial, speculative financial bias. JFK said, “the American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans” (https://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/Ready-Reference/Press-Conferences/News-Conference-30.aspx).
  53. https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/BWC7I4C9QUmLG9J6I8oy8w.aspx
  54. https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/LH8F_0Mzv0e6Ro1yEm74Ng.aspx
  55. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9416
  56. James K. Galbraith, “Exit Strategy,” Boston Review, October/November, 2003.

US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

Global Research, April 01, 2017
Popular Resistance 27 November 2015

>

First published in November 2015

After the catastrophic attacks of September 11 2001 monumental sorrow and a feeling of desperate and understandable anger began to permeate the American psyche. A few people at that time attempted to promote a balanced perspective by pointing out that the United States had also been responsible for causing those same feelings in people in other nations, but they produced hardly a ripple. Although Americans understand in the abstract the wisdom of people around the world empathizing with the suffering of one another, such a reminder of wrongs committed by our nation got little hearing and was soon overshadowed by an accelerated “war on terrorism.”

But we must continue our efforts to develop understanding and compassion in the world. Hopefully, this article will assist in doing that by addressing the question “How many September 11ths has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?” This theme is developed in this report which contains an estimated numbers of such deaths in 37 nations as well as brief explanations of why the U.S. is considered culpable.

The causes of wars are complex. In some instances nations other than the U.S. may have been responsible for more deaths, but if the involvement of our nation appeared to have been a necessary cause of a war or conflict it was considered responsible for the deaths in it. In other words they probably would not have taken place if the U.S. had not used the heavy hand of its power. The military and economic power of the United States was crucial.

US Military © AFP 2015/ Noorullah Shirzada / FILES

This study reveals that U.S. military forces were directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars. The Korean War also includes Chinese deaths while the Vietnam War also includes fatalities in Cambodia and Laos.

The American public probably is not aware of these numbers and knows even less about the proxy wars for which the United States is also responsible. In the latter wars there were between nine and 14 million deaths in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan.

But the victims are not just from big nations or one part of the world. The remaining deaths were in smaller ones which constitute over half the total number of nations. Virtually all parts of the world have been the target of U.S. intervention.

The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

To the families and friends of these victims it makes little difference whether the causes were U.S. military action, proxy military forces, the provision of U.S. military supplies or advisors, or other ways, such as economic pressures applied by our nation. They had to make decisions about other things such as finding lost loved ones, whether to become refugees, and how to survive.

And the pain and anger is spread even further. Some authorities estimate that there are as many as 10 wounded for each person who dies in wars. Their visible, continued suffering is a continuing reminder to their fellow countrymen.

It is essential that Americans learn more about this topic so that they can begin to understand the pain that others feel. Someone once observed that the Germans during WWII “chose not to know.” We cannot allow history to say this about our country. The question posed above was “How many September 11ths has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?” The answer is: possibly 10,000.

Comments on Gathering These Numbers

Generally speaking, the much smaller number of Americans who have died is not included in this study, not because they are not important, but because this report focuses on the impact of U.S. actions on its adversaries.

An accurate count of the number of deaths is not easy to achieve, and this collection of data was undertaken with full realization of this fact. These estimates will probably be revised later either upward or downward by the reader and the author. But undoubtedly the total will remain in the millions.

The difficulty of gathering reliable information is shown by two estimates in this context. For several years I heard statements on radio that three million Cambodians had been killed under the rule of the Khmer Rouge. However, in recent years the figure I heard was one million. Another example is that the number of persons estimated to have died in Iraq due to sanctions after the first U.S. Iraq War was over 1 million, but in more recent years, based on a more recent study, a lower estimate of around a half a million has emerged.

Often information about wars is revealed only much later when someone decides to speak out, when more secret information is revealed due to persistent efforts of a few, or after special congressional committees make reports

Both victorious and defeated nations may have their own reasons for underreporting the number of deaths. Further, in recent wars involving the United States it was not uncommon to hear statements like “we do not do body counts” and references to “collateral damage” as a euphemism for dead and wounded. Life is cheap for some, especially those who manipulate people on the battlefield as if it were a chessboard.

To say that it is difficult to get exact figures is not to say that we should not try. Effort was needed to arrive at the figures of 6six million Jews killed during WWI, but knowledge of that number now is widespread and it has fueled the determination to prevent future holocausts. That struggle continues.

The author can be contacted at jlucas511@woh.rr.com

37 VICTIM NATIONS

Afghanistan

The U.S. is responsible for between 1 and 1.8 million deaths during the war between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, by luring the Soviet Union into invading that nation. (1,2,3,4)

The Soviet Union had friendly relations its neighbor, Afghanistan, which had a secular government. The Soviets feared that if that government became fundamentalist this change could spill over into the Soviet Union.

In 1998, in an interview with the Parisian publication Le Novel Observateur, Zbigniew Brzezinski, adviser to President Carter, admitted that he had been responsible for instigating aid to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan which caused the Soviets to invade. In his own words:

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention. (5,1,6)

Brzezinski justified laying this trap, since he said it gave the Soviet Union its Vietnam and caused the breakup of the Soviet Union. “Regret what?” he said. “That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?” (7)

The CIA spent 5 to 6 billion dollars on its operation in Afghanistan in order to bleed the Soviet Union. (1,2,3) When that 10-year war ended over a million people were dead and Afghan heroin had captured 60% of the U.S. market. (4)

The U.S. has been responsible directly for about 12,000 deaths in Afghanistan many of which resulted from bombing in retaliation for the attacks on U.S. property on September 11, 2001. Subsequently U.S. troops invaded that country. (4)

Angola

An indigenous armed struggle against Portuguese rule in Angola began in 1961. In 1977 an Angolan government was recognized by the U.N., although the U.S. was one of the few nations that opposed this action. In 1986 Uncle Sam approved material assistance to UNITA, a group that was trying to overthrow the government. Even today this struggle, which has involved many nations at times, continues.

U.S. intervention was justified to the U.S. public as a reaction to the intervention of 50,000 Cuban troops in Angola. However, according to Piero Gleijeses, a history professor at Johns Hopkins University the reverse was true. The Cuban intervention came as a result of a CIA – financed covert invasion via neighboring Zaire and a drive on the Angolan capital by the U.S. ally, South Africa1,2,3). (Three estimates of deaths range from 300,000 to 750,000 (4,5,6)

Argentina: See South America: Operation Condor

Bangladesh: See Pakistan

Bolivia

Hugo Banzer was the leader of a repressive regime in Bolivia in the 1970s. The U.S. had been disturbed when a previous leader nationalized the tin mines and distributed land to Indian peasants. Later that action to benefit the poor was reversed.

Banzer, who was trained at the U.S.-operated School of the Americas in Panama and later at Fort Hood, Texas, came back from exile frequently to confer with U.S. Air Force Major Robert Lundin. In 1971 he staged a successful coup with the help of the U.S. Air Force radio system. In the first years of his dictatorship he received twice as military assistance from the U.S. as in the previous dozen years together.

A few years later the Catholic Church denounced an army massacre of striking tin workers in 1975, Banzer, assisted by information provided by the CIA, was able to target and locate leftist priests and nuns. His anti-clergy strategy, known as the Banzer Plan, was adopted by nine other Latin American dictatorships in 1977. (2) He has been accused of being responsible for 400 deaths during his tenure. (1)

Also see: See South America: Operation Condor

Brazil: See South America: Operation Condor

Cambodia

U.S. bombing of Cambodia had already been underway for several years in secret under the Johnson and Nixon administrations, but when President Nixon openly began bombing in preparation for a land assault on Cambodia it caused major protests in the U.S. against the Vietnam War.

There is little awareness today of the scope of these bombings and the human suffering involved.

Immense damage was done to the villages and cities of Cambodia, causing refugees and internal displacement of the population. This unstable situation enabled the Khmer Rouge, a small political party led by Pol Pot, to assume power. Over the years we have repeatedly heard about the Khmer Rouge’s role in the deaths of millions in Cambodia without any acknowledgement being made this mass killing was made possible by the the U.S. bombing of that nation which destabilized it by death , injuries, hunger and dislocation of its people.

So the U.S. bears responsibility not only for the deaths from the bombings but also for those resulting from the activities of the Khmer Rouge – a total of about 2.5 million people. Even when Vietnam latrer invaded Cambodia in 1979 the CIA was still supporting the Khmer Rouge. (1,2,3)

Also see Vietnam

Chad

An estimated 40,000 people in Chad were killed and as many as 200,000 tortured by a government, headed by Hissen Habre who was brought to power in June, 1982 with the help of CIA money and arms. He remained in power for eight years. (1,2)

Human Rights Watch claimed that Habre was responsible for thousands of killings. In 2001, while living in Senegal, he was almost tried for crimes committed by him in Chad. However, a court there blocked these proceedings. Then human rights people decided to pursue the case in Belgium, because some of Habre’s torture victims lived there. The U.S., in June 2003, told Belgium that it risked losing its status as host to NATO’s headquarters if it allowed such a legal proceeding to happen. So the result was that the law that allowed victims to file complaints in Belgium for atrocities committed abroad was repealed. However, two months later a new law was passed which made special provision for the continuation of the case against Habre.

Chile

The CIA intervened in Chile’s 1958 and 1964 elections. In 1970 a socialist candidate, Salvador Allende, was elected president. The CIA wanted to incite a military coup to prevent his inauguration, but the Chilean army’s chief of staff, General Rene Schneider, opposed this action. The CIA then planned, along with some people in the Chilean military, to assassinate Schneider. This plot failed and Allende took office. President Nixon was not to be dissuaded and he ordered the CIA to create a coup climate: “Make the economy scream,” he said.

What followed were guerilla warfare, arson, bombing, sabotage and terror. ITT and other U.S. corporations with Chilean holdings sponsored demonstrations and strikes. Finally, on September 11, 1973 Allende died either by suicide or by assassination. At that time Henry Kissinger, U.S. Secretary of State, said the following regarding Chile: “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people.” (1)

During 17 years of terror under Allende’s successor, General Augusto Pinochet, an estimated 3,000 Chileans were killed and many others were tortured or “disappeared.” (2,3,4,5)

Also see South America: Operation Condor

China An estimated 900,000 Chinese died during the Korean War.

For more information, See: Korea.

Colombia

One estimate is that 67,000 deaths have occurred from the 1960s to recent years due to support by the U.S. of Colombian state terrorism. (1)

According to a 1994 Amnesty International report, more than 20,000 people were killed for political reasons in Colombia since 1986, mainly by the military and its paramilitary allies. Amnesty alleged that “U.S.- supplied military equipment, ostensibly delivered for use against narcotics traffickers, was being used by the Colombian military to commit abuses in the name of “counter-insurgency.” (2) In 2002 another estimate was made that 3,500 people die each year in a U.S. funded civilian war in Colombia. (3)

In 1996 Human Rights Watch issued a report “Assassination Squads in Colombia” which revealed that CIA agents went to Colombia in 1991 to help the military to train undercover agents in anti-subversive activity. (4,5)

In recent years the U.S. government has provided assistance under Plan Colombia. The Colombian government has been charged with using most of the funds for destruction of crops and support of the paramilitary group.

Cuba

In the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba on April 18, 1961 which ended after 3 days, 114 of the invading force were killed, 1,189 were taken prisoners and a few escaped to waiting U.S. ships. (1) The captured exiles were quickly tried, a few executed and the rest sentenced to thirty years in prison for treason. These exiles were released after 20 months in exchange for $53 million in food and medicine.

Some people estimate that the number of Cuban forces killed range from 2,000, to 4,000. Another estimate is that 1,800 Cuban forces were killed on an open highway by napalm. This appears to have been a precursor of the Highway of Death in Iraq in 1991 when U.S. forces mercilessly annihilated large numbers of Iraqis on a highway. (2)

Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire)

The beginning of massive violence was instigated in this country in 1879 by its colonizer King Leopold of Belgium. The Congo’s population was reduced by 10 million people over a period of 20 years which some have referred to as “Leopold’s Genocide.” (1) The U.S. has been responsible for about a third of that many deaths in that nation in the more recent past. (2)

In 1960 the Congo became an independent state with Patrice Lumumba being its first prime minister. He was assassinated with the CIA being implicated, although some say that his murder was actually the responsibility of Belgium. (3) But nevertheless, the CIA was planning to kill him. (4) Before his assassination the CIA sent one of its scientists, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, to the Congo carrying “lethal biological material” intended for use in Lumumba’s assassination. This virus would have been able to produce a fatal disease indigenous to the Congo area of Africa and was transported in a diplomatic pouch.

Much of the time in recent years there has been a civil war within the Democratic Republic of Congo, fomented often by the U.S. and other nations, including neighboring nations. (5)

In April 1977, Newsday reported that the CIA was secretly supporting efforts to recruit several hundred mercenaries in the U.S. and Great Britain to serve alongside Zaire’s army. In that same year the U.S. provided $15 million of military supplies to the Zairian President Mobutu to fend off an invasion by a rival group operating in Angola. (6)

In May 1979, the U.S. sent several million dollars of aid to Mobutu who had been condemned 3 months earlier by the U.S. State Department for human rights violations. (7) During the Cold War the U.S. funneled over 300 million dollars in weapons into Zaire (8,9) $100 million in military training was provided to him. (2) In 2001 it was reported to a U.S. congressional committee that American companies, including one linked to former President George Bush Sr., were stoking the Congo for monetary gains. There is an international battle over resources in that country with over 125 companies and individuals being implicated. One of these substances is coltan, which is used in the manufacture of cell phones. (2)

Dominican Republic

In 1962, Juan Bosch became president of the Dominican Republic. He advocated such programs as land reform and public works programs. This did not bode well for his future relationship with the U.S., and after only 7 months in office, he was deposed by a CIA coup. In 1965 when a group was trying to reinstall him to his office President Johnson said, “This Bosch is no good.” Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Mann replied “He’s no good at all. If we don’t get a decent government in there, Mr. President, we get another Bosch. It’s just going to be another sinkhole.” Two days later a U.S. invasion started and 22,000 soldiers and marines entered the Dominican Republic and about 3,000 Dominicans died during the fighting. The cover excuse for doing this was that this was done to protect foreigners there. (1,2,3,4)

East Timor

In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor. This incursion was launched the day after U.S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia where they had given President Suharto permission to use American arms, which under U.S. law, could not be used for aggression. Daniel Moynihan, U.S. ambassador to the UN. said that the U.S. wanted “things to turn out as they did.” (1,2) The result was an estimated 200,000 dead out of a population of 700,000. (1,2)

Sixteen years later, on November 12, 1991, two hundred and seventeen East Timorese protesters in Dili, many of them children, marching from a memorial service, were gunned down by Indonesian Kopassus shock troops who were headed by U.S.- trained commanders Prabowo Subianto (son in law of General Suharto) and Kiki Syahnakri. Trucks were seen dumping bodies into the sea. (5)

El Salvador

The civil war from 1981 to1992 in El Salvador was financed by $6 billion in U.S. aid given to support the government in its efforts to crush a movement to bring social justice to the people in that nation of about 8 million people. (1)
During that time U.S. military advisers demonstrated methods of torture on teenage prisoners, according to an interview with a deserter from the Salvadoran army published in the New York Times. This former member of the Salvadoran National Guard testified that he was a member of a squad of twelve who found people who they were told were guerillas and tortured them. Part of the training he received was in torture at a U.S. location somewhere in Panama. (2)

About 900 villagers were massacred in the village of El Mozote in 1981. Ten of the twelve El Salvadoran government soldiers cited as participating in this act were graduates of the School of the Americas operated by the U.S. (2) They were only a small part of about 75,000 people killed during that civil war. (1)

According to a 1993 United Nations’ Truth Commission report, over 96 % of the human rights violations carried out during the war were committed by the Salvadoran army or the paramilitary deaths squads associated with the Salvadoran army. (3)

That commission linked graduates of the School of the Americas to many notorious killings. The New York Times and the Washington Post followed with scathing articles. In 1996, the White House Oversight Board issued a report that supported many of the charges against that school made by Rev. Roy Bourgeois, head of the School of the Americas Watch. That same year the Pentagon released formerly classified reports indicating that graduates were trained in killing, extortion, and physical abuse for interrogations, false imprisonment and other methods of control. (4)

Grenada

The CIA began to destabilize Grenada in 1979 after Maurice Bishop became president, partially because he refused to join the quarantine of Cuba. The campaign against him resulted in his overthrow and the invasion by the U.S. of Grenada on October 25, 1983, with about 277 people dying. (1,2) It was fallaciously charged that an airport was being built in Grenada that could be used to attack the U.S. and it was also erroneously claimed that the lives of American medical students on that island were in danger.

Guatemala

In 1951 Jacobo Arbenz was elected president of Guatemala. He appropriated some unused land operated by the United Fruit Company and compensated the company. (1,2) That company then started a campaign to paint Arbenz as a tool of an international conspiracy and hired about 300 mercenaries who sabotaged oil supplies and trains. (3) In 1954 a CIA-orchestrated coup put him out of office and he left the country. During the next 40 years various regimes killed thousands of people.

In 1999 the Washington Post reported that an Historical Clarification Commission concluded that over 200,000 people had been killed during the civil war and that there had been 42,000 individual human rights violations, 29,000 of them fatal, 92% of which were committed by the army. The commission further reported that the U.S. government and the CIA had pressured the Guatemalan government into suppressing the guerilla movement by ruthless means. (4,5)

According to the Commission between 1981 and 1983 the military government of Guatemala – financed and supported by the U.S. government – destroyed some four hundred Mayan villages in a campaign of genocide. (4)
One of the documents made available to the commission was a 1966 memo from a U.S. State Department official, which described how a “safe house” was set up in the palace for use by Guatemalan security agents and their U.S. contacts. This was the headquarters for the Guatemalan “dirty war” against leftist insurgents and suspected allies. (2)

Haiti

From 1957 to 1986 Haiti was ruled by Papa Doc Duvalier and later by his son. During that time their private terrorist force killed between 30,000 and 100,000 people. (1) Millions of dollars in CIA subsidies flowed into Haiti during that time, mainly to suppress popular movements, (2) although most American military aid to the country, according to William Blum, was covertly channeled through Israel.

Reportedly, governments after the second Duvalier reign were responsible for an even larger number of fatalities, and the influence on Haiti by the U.S., particularly through the CIA, has continued. The U.S. later forced out of the presidential office a black Catholic priest, Jean Bertrand Aristide, even though he was elected with 67% of the vote in the early 1990s. The wealthy white class in Haiti opposed him in this predominantly black nation, because of his social programs designed to help the poor and end corruption. (3) Later he returned to office, but that did not last long. He was forced by the U.S. to leave office and now lives in South Africa.

Honduras

In the 1980s the CIA supported Battalion 316 in Honduras, which kidnapped, tortured and killed hundreds of its citizens. Torture equipment and manuals were provided by CIA Argentinean personnel who worked with U.S. agents in the training of the Hondurans. Approximately 400 people lost their lives. (1,2) This is another instance of torture in the world sponsored by the U.S. (3)

Battalion 316 used shock and suffocation devices in interrogations in the 1980s. Prisoners often were kept naked and, when no longer useful, killed and buried in unmarked graves. Declassified documents and other sources show that the CIA and the U.S. Embassy knew of numerous crimes, including murder and torture, yet continued to support Battalion 316 and collaborate with its leaders.” (4)

Honduras was a staging ground in the early 1980s for the Contras who were trying to overthrow the socialist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. John D. Negroponte, currently Deputy Secretary of State, was our embassador when our military aid to Honduras rose from $4 million to $77.4 million per year. Negroponte denies having had any knowledge of these atrocities during his tenure. However, his predecessor in that position, Jack R. Binns, had reported in 1981 that he was deeply concerned at increasing evidence of officially sponsored/sanctioned assassinations. (5)

Hungary

In 1956 Hungary, a Soviet satellite nation, revolted against the Soviet Union. During the uprising broadcasts by the U.S. Radio Free Europe into Hungary sometimes took on an aggressive tone, encouraging the rebels to believe that Western support was imminent, and even giving tactical advice on how to fight the Soviets. Their hopes were raised then dashed by these broadcasts which cast an even darker shadow over the Hungarian tragedy.“ (1) The Hungarian and Soviet death toll was about 3,000 and the revolution was crushed. (2)

Indonesia

In 1965, in Indonesia, a coup replaced General Sukarno with General Suharto as leader. The U.S. played a role in that change of government. Robert Martens,a former officer in the U.S. embassy in Indonesia, described how U.S. diplomats and CIA officers provided up to 5,000 names to Indonesian Army death squads in 1965 and checked them off as they were killed or captured. Martens admitted that “I probably have a lot of blood on my hands, but that’s not all bad. There’s a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment.” (1,2,3) Estimates of the number of deaths range from 500,000 to 3 million. (4,5,6)
From 1993 to 1997 the U.S. provided Jakarta with almost $400 million in economic aid and sold tens of million of dollars of weaponry to that nation. U.S. Green Berets provided training for the Indonesia’s elite force which was responsible for many of atrocities in East Timor. (3)

Iran

Iran lost about 262,000 people in the war against Iraq from 1980 to 1988. (1) See Iraq for more information about that war.

On July 3, 1988 the U.S. Navy ship, the Vincennes, was operating withing Iranian waters providing military support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. During a battle against Iranian gunboats it fired two missiles at an Iranian Airbus, which was on a routine civilian flight. All 290 civilian on board were killed. (2,3)

Iraq

A. The Iraq-Iran War lasted from 1980 to 1988 and during that time there were about 105,000 Iraqi deaths according to the Washington Post. (1,2)

According to Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official, the U.S. provided the Iraqis with billions of dollars in credits and helped Iraq in other ways such as making sure that Iraq had military equipment including biological agents This surge of help for Iraq came as Iran seemed to be winning the war and was close to Basra. (1) The U.S. was not adverse to both countries weakening themselves as a result of the war, but it did not appear to want either side to win.

B: The U.S.-Iraq War and the Sanctions Against Iraq extended from 1990 to 2003.

Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990 and the U.S. responded by demanding that Iraq withdraw, and four days later the U.N. levied international sanctions.

Iraq had reason to believe that the U.S. would not object to its invasion of Kuwait, since U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, had told Saddam Hussein that the U.S. had no position on the dispute that his country had with Kuwait. So the green light was given, but it seemed to be more of a trap.

As a part of the public relations strategy to energize the American public into supporting an attack against Iraq the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. falsely testified before Congress that Iraqi troops were pulling the plugs on incubators in Iraqi hospitals. (1) This contributed to a war frenzy in the U.S.

The U.S. air assault started on January 17, 1991 and it lasted for 42 days. On February 23 President H.W. Bush ordered the U.S. ground assault to begin. The invasion took place with much needless killing of Iraqi military personnel. Only about 150 American military personnel died compared to about 200,000 Iraqis. Some of the Iraqis were mercilessly killed on the Highway of Death and about 400 tons of depleted uranium were left in that nation by the U.S. (2,3)

Other deaths later were from delayed deaths due to wounds, civilians killed, those killed by effects of damage of the Iraqi water treatment facilities and other aspects of its damaged infrastructure and by the sanctions.

In 1995 the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. reported that U.N sanctions against on Iraq had been responsible for the deaths of more than 560,000 children since 1990. (5)

Leslie Stahl on the TV Program 60 Minutes in 1996 mentioned to Madeleine Albright, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And – and you know, is the price worth it?” Albright replied “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think is worth it.” (4)

In 1999 UNICEF reported that 5,000 children died each month as a result of the sanction and the War with the U.S. (6)

Richard Garfield later estimated that the more likely number of excess deaths among children under five years of age from 1990 through March 1998 to be 227,000 – double those of the previous decade. Garfield estimated that the numbers to be 350,000 through 2000 (based in part on result of another study). (7)

However, there are limitations to his study. His figures were not updated for the remaining three years of the sanctions. Also, two other somewhat vulnerable age groups were not studied: young children above the age of five and the elderly.

All of these reports were considerable indicators of massive numbers of deaths which the U.S. was aware of and which was a part of its strategy to cause enough pain and terror among Iraqis to cause them to revolt against their government.

C: Iraq-U.S. War started in 2003 and has not been concluded

Just as the end of the Cold War emboldened the U.S. to attack Iraq in 1991 so the attacks of September 11, 2001 laid the groundwork for the U.S. to launch the current war against Iraq. While in some other wars we learned much later about the lies that were used to deceive us, some of the deceptions that were used to get us into this war became known almost as soon as they were uttered. There were no weapons of mass destruction, we were not trying to promote democracy, we were not trying to save the Iraqi people from a dictator.

The total number of Iraqi deaths that are a result of our current Iraq against Iraq War is 654,000, of which 600,000 are attributed to acts of violence, according to Johns Hopkins researchers. (1,2)

Since these deaths are a result of the U.S. invasion, our leaders must accept responsibility for them.

Israeli-Palestinian War

About 100,000 to 200,000 Israelis and Palestinians, but mostly the latter, have been killed in the struggle between those two groups. The U.S. has been a strong supporter of Israel, providing billions of dollars in aid and supporting its possession of nuclear weapons. (1,2)

Korea, North and South

The Korean War started in 1950 when, according to the Truman administration, North Korea invaded South Korea on June 25th. However, since then another explanation has emerged which maintains that the attack by North Korea came during a time of many border incursions by both sides. South Korea initiated most of the border clashes with North Korea beginning in 1948. The North Korea government claimed that by 1949 the South Korean army committed 2,617 armed incursions. It was a myth that the Soviet Union ordered North Korea to attack South Korea. (1,2)

The U.S. started its attack before a U.N. resolution was passed supporting our nation’s intervention, and our military forces added to the mayhem in the war by introducing the use of napalm. (1)

During the war the bulk of the deaths were South Koreans, North Koreans and Chinese. Four sources give deaths counts ranging from 1.8 to 4.5 million. (3,4,5,6) Another source gives a total of 4 million but does not identify to which nation they belonged. (7)

John H. Kim, a U.S. Army veteran and the Chair of the Korea Committee of Veterans for Peace, stated in an article that during the Korean War “the U.S. Army, Air Force and Navy were directly involved in the killing of about three million civilians – both South and North Koreans – at many locations throughout Korea…It is reported that the U.S. dropped some 650,000 tons of bombs, including 43,000 tons of napalm bombs, during the Korean War.” It is presumed that this total does not include Chinese casualties.

Another source states a total of about 500,000 who were Koreans and presumably only military. (8,9)

Laos

From 1965 to 1973 during the Vietnam War the U.S. dropped over two million tons of bombs on Laos – more than was dropped in WWII by both sides. Over a quarter of the population became refugees. This was later called a “secret war,” since it occurred at the same time as the Vietnam War, but got little press. Hundreds of thousands were killed. Branfman make the only estimate that I am aware of , stating that hundreds of thousands died. This can be interpeted to mean that at least 200,000 died. (1,2,3)

U.S. military intervention in Laos actually began much earlier. A civil war started in the 1950s when the U.S. recruited a force of 40,000 Laotians to oppose the Pathet Lao, a leftist political party that ultimately took power in 1975.

Also See Vietnam

Nepal

Between 8,000 and 12,000 Nepalese have died since a civil war broke out in 1996. The death rate, according to Foreign Policy in Focus, sharply increased with the arrival of almost 8,400 American M-16 submachine guns (950 rpm) and U.S. advisers. Nepal is 85 percent rural and badly in need of land reform. Not surprisingly 42 % of its people live below the poverty level. (1,2)

In 2002, after another civil war erupted, President George W. Bush pushed a bill through Congress authorizing $20 million in military aid to the Nepalese government. (3)

Nicaragua

In 1981 the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza government in Nicaragua, (1) and until 1990 about 25,000 Nicaraguans were killed in an armed struggle between the Sandinista government and Contra rebels who were formed from the remnants of Somoza’s national government. The use of assassination manuals by the Contras surfaced in 1984. (2,3)

The U.S. supported the victorious government regime by providing covert military aid to the Contras (anti-communist guerillas) starting in November, 1981. But when Congress discovered that the CIA had supervised acts of sabotage in Nicaragua without notifying Congress, it passed the Boland Amendment in 1983 which prohibited the CIA, Defense Department and any other government agency from providing any further covert military assistance. (4)

But ways were found to get around this prohibition. The National Security Council, which was not explicitly covered by the law, raised private and foreign funds for the Contras. In addition, arms were sold to Iran and the proceeds were diverted from those sales to the Contras engaged in the insurgency against the Sandinista government. (5) Finally, the Sandinistas were voted out of office in 1990 by voters who thought that a change in leadership would placate the U.S., which was causing misery to Nicaragua’s citizenry by it support of the Contras.

Pakistan

In 1971 West Pakistan, an authoritarian state supported by the U.S., brutally invaded East Pakistan. The war ended after India, whose economy was staggering after admitting about 10 million refugees, invaded East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and defeated the West Pakistani forces. (1)

Millions of people died during that brutal struggle, referred to by some as genocide committed by West Pakistan. That country had long been an ally of the U.S., starting with $411 million provided to establish its armed forces which spent 80% of its budget on its military. $15 million in arms flowed into W. Pakistan during the war. (2,3,4)

Three sources estimate that 3 million people died and (5,2,6) one source estimates 1.5 million. (3)

Panama

In December, 1989 U.S. troops invaded Panama, ostensibly to arrest Manuel Noriega, that nation’s president. This was an example of the U.S. view that it is the master of the world and can arrest anyone it wants to. For a number of years before that he had worked for the CIA, but fell out of favor partially because he was not an opponent of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. (1) It has been estimated that between 500 and 4,000 people died. (2,3,4)

Paraguay: See South America: Operation Condor

Philippines

The Philippines were under the control of the U.S. for over a hundred years. In about the last 50 to 60 years the U.S. has funded and otherwise helped various Philippine governments which sought to suppress the activities of groups working for the welfare of its people. In 1969 the Symington Committee in the U.S. Congress revealed how war material was sent there for a counter-insurgency campaign. U.S. Special Forces and Marines were active in some combat operations. The estimated number of persons that were executed and disappeared under President Fernando Marcos was over 100,000. (1,2)

South America: Operation Condor

This was a joint operation of 6 despotic South American governments (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay) to share information about their political opponents. An estimated 13,000 people were killed under this plan. (1)

It was established on November 25, 1975 in Chile by an act of the Interamerican Reunion on Military Intelligence. According to U.S. embassy political officer, John Tipton, the CIA and the Chilean Secret Police were working together, although the CIA did not set up the operation to make this collaboration work. Reportedly, it ended in 1983. (2)

On March 6, 2001 the New York Times reported the existence of a recently declassified State Department document revealing that the United States facilitated communications for Operation Condor. (3)

Sudan

Since 1955, when it gained its independence, Sudan has been involved most of the time in a civil war. Until about 2003 approximately 2 million people had been killed. It not known if the death toll in Darfur is part of that total.

Human rights groups have complained that U.S. policies have helped to prolong the Sudanese civil war by supporting efforts to overthrow the central government in Khartoum. In 1999 U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright met with the leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) who said that she offered him food supplies if he would reject a peace plan sponsored by Egypt and Libya.

In 1978 the vastness of Sudan’s oil reservers was discovered and within two years it became the sixth largest recipient of U.S, military aid. It’s reasonable to assume that if the U.S. aid a government to come to power it will feel obligated to give the U.S. part of the oil pie.

A British group, Christian Aid, has accused foreign oil companies of complicity in the depopulation of villages. These companies – not American – receive government protection and in turn allow the government use of its airstrips and roads.

In August 1998 the U.S. bombed Khartoum, Sudan with 75 cruise míssiles. Our government said that the target was a chemical weapons factory owned by Osama bin Laden. Actually, bin Laden was no longer the owner, and the plant had been the sole supplier of pharmaceutical supplies for that poor nation. As a result of the bombing tens of thousands may have died because of the lack of medicines to treat malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases. The U.S. settled a lawsuit filed by the factory’s owner. (1,2)

Uruguay: See South America: Operation Condor

Vietnam

In Vietnam, under an agreement several decades ago, there was supposed to be an election for a unified North and South Vietnam. The U.S. opposed this and supported the Diem government in South Vietnam. In August, 1964 the CIA and others helped fabricate a phony Vietnamese attack on a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Tonkin and this was used as a pretext for greater U.S. involvement in Vietnam. (1)

During that war an American assassination operation,called Operation Phoenix, terrorized the South Vietnamese people, and during the war American troops were responsible in 1968 for the mass slaughter of the people in the village of My Lai.

According to a Vietnamese government statement in 1995 the number of deaths of civilians and military personnel during the Vietnam War was 5.1 million. (2)

Since deaths in Cambodia and Laos were about 2.7 million (See Cambodia and Laos) the estimated total for the Vietnam War is 7.8 million.

The Virtual Truth Commission provides a total for the war of 5 million, (3) and Robert McNamara, former Secretary Defense, according to the New York Times Magazine says that the number of Vietnamese dead is 3.4 million. (4,5)

Yugoslavia

Yugoslavia was a socialist federation of several republics. Since it refused to be closely tied to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, it gained some suport from the U.S. But when the Soviet Union dissolved, Yugoslavia’s usefulness to the U.S. ended, and the U.S and Germany worked to convert its socialist economy to a capitalist one by a process primarily of dividing and conquering. There were ethnic and religious differences between various parts of Yugoslavia which were manipulated by the U.S. to cause several wars which resulted in the dissolution of that country.

From the early 1990s until now Yugoslavia split into several independent nations whose lowered income, along with CIA connivance, has made it a pawn in the hands of capitalist countries. (1) The dissolution of Yugoslavia was caused primarily by the U.S. (2)

Here are estimates of some, if not all, of the internal wars in Yugoslavia. All wars: 107,000; (3,4)

Bosnia and Krajina: 250,000; (5) Bosnia: 20,000 to 30,000; (5) Croatia: 15,000; (6) and

Kosovo: 500 to 5,000. (7)

NOTES

Afghanistan

1.Mark Zepezauer, Boomerang (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2003), p.135.

2.Chronology of American State Terrorism
http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_
terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html

3.Soviet War in Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

4.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.76

5.U.S Involvement in Afghanistan, Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in Afghanistan)

6.The CIA’s Intervention in Afghanistan, Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998, Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

7.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p.5

8.Unknown News, http://www.unknownnews.net/casualtiesw.html

Angola

1.Howard W. French “From Old Files, a New Story of the U.S. Role in the Angolan War” New York Times 3/31/02

2.Angolan Update, American Friends Service Committee FS, 11/1/99 flyer.

3.Norman Solomon, War Made Easy, (John Wiley & Sons, 2005) p. 82-83.

4.Lance Selfa, U.S. Imperialism, A Century of Slaughter, International Socialist Review Issue 7, Spring 1999 (as appears in Third world Traveler www. thirdworldtraveler.com/American_Empire/Century_Imperialism.html)

5. Jeffress Ramsay, Africa , (Dushkin/McGraw Hill Guilford Connecticut), 1997, p. 144-145.

6.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.54.

Argentina : See South America: Operation Condor

Bolivia

1. Phil Gunson, Guardian, 5/6/02,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/archive /article/0,4273,41-07884,00.html

2.Jerry Meldon, Return of Bolilvia’s Drug – Stained Dictator, Consortium,www.consortiumnews.com/archives/story40.html.

Brazil See South America: Operation Condor

Cambodia

1.Virtual Truth Commissiion http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/ .

2.David Model, President Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, and the Bombing of Cambodia excerpted from the book Lying for Empire How to Commit War Crimes With A Straight Face, Common Courage Press, 2005, paperhttp://thirdworldtraveler.com/American_Empire/Nixon_Cambodia_LFE.html.

3.Noam Chomsky, Chomsky on Cambodia under Pol Pot, etc.,http//zmag.org/forums/chomcambodforum.htm.

Chad

1.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 151-152 .

2.Richard Keeble, Crimes Against Humanity in Chad, Znet/Activism 12/4/06http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=11560&sectionID=1).

Chile

1.Parenti, Michael, The Sword and the Dollar (New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1989) p. 56.

2.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 142-143.

3.Moreorless: Heroes and Killers of the 20th Century, Augusto Pinochet Ugarte,

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pinochet.html

4.Associated Press,Pincohet on 91st Birthday, Takes Responsibility for Regimes’s Abuses, Dayton Daily News 11/26/06

5.Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2000), p. 18.

China: See Korea

Colombia

1.Chronology of American State Terrorism, p.2

http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html).

2.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 163.

3.Millions Killed by Imperialism Washington Post May 6, 2002)http://www.etext.org./Politics/MIM/rail/impkills.html

4.Gabriella Gamini, CIA Set Up Death Squads in Colombia Times Newspapers Limited, Dec. 5, 1996,www.edu/CommunicationsStudies/ben/news/cia/961205.death.html).

5.Virtual Truth Commission, 1991

Human Rights Watch Report: Colombia’s Killer Networks–The Military-Paramilitary Partnership).

Cuba

1.St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture – on Bay of Pigs Invasionhttp://bookrags.com/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion.

2.Wikipedia http://bookrags.com/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion#Casualties.

Democratic Republic of Congo (Formerly Zaire)

1.F. Jeffress Ramsey, Africa (Guilford Connecticut, 1997), p. 85

2. Anup Shaw The Democratic Republic of Congo, 10/31/2003)http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/DRC.asp)

3.Kevin Whitelaw, A Killing in Congo, U. S. News and World Reporthttp://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/mysteries/patrice.htm

4.William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p 158-159.

5.Ibid.,p. 260

6.Ibid.,p. 259

7.Ibid.,p.262

8.David Pickering, “World War in Africa, 6/26/02,
www.9-11peace.org/bulletin.php3

9.William D. Hartung and Bridget Moix, Deadly Legacy; U.S. Arms to Africa and the Congo War, Arms Trade Resource Center, January , 2000www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/congo.htm

Dominican Republic

1.Norman Solomon, (untitled) Baltimore Sun April 26, 2005
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2005/0426spincycle.htm
Intervention Spin Cycle

2.Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Power_Pack

3.William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p. 175.

4.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.26-27.

East Timor

1.Virtual Truth Commission, http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/date4.htm

2.Matthew Jardine, Unraveling Indonesia, Nonviolent Activist, 1997)

3.Chronology of American State Terrorismhttp://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html

4.William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p. 197.

5.US trained butchers of Timor, The Guardian, London. Cited by The Drudge Report, September 19, 1999. http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/indon.htm

El Salvador

1.Robert T. Buckman, Latin America 2003, (Stryker-Post Publications Baltimore 2003) p. 152-153.

2.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 54-55.

3.El Salvador, Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Salvador#The_20th_century_and_beyond)

4.Virtual Truth Commissiion http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/.

Grenada

1.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p. 66-67.

2.Stephen Zunes, The U.S. Invasion of Grenada,http://wwwfpif.org/papers/grenada2003.html .

Guatemala

1.Virtual Truth Commissiion http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/

2.Ibid.

3.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.2-13.

4.Robert T. Buckman, Latin America 2003 (Stryker-Post Publications Baltimore 2003) p. 162.

5.Douglas Farah, Papers Show U.S. Role in Guatemalan Abuses, Washington Post Foreign Service, March 11, 1999, A 26

Haiti

1.Francois Duvalier,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Duvalier#Reign_of_terror).

2.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p 87.

3.William Blum, Haiti 1986-1994: Who Will Rid Me of This Turbulent Priest,http://www.doublestandards.org/blum8.html

Honduras

1.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 55.

2.Reports by Country: Honduras, Virtual Truth Commissionhttp://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/honduras.htm

3.James A. Lucas, Torture Gets The Silence Treatment, Countercurrents, July 26, 2004.

4.Gary Cohn and Ginger Thompson, Unearthed: Fatal Secrets, Baltimore Sun, reprint of a series that appeared June 11-18, 1995 in Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, School of Assassins, p. 46 Orbis Books 2001.

5.Michael Dobbs, Negroponte’s Time in Honduras at Issue, Washington Post, March 21, 2005

Hungary

1.Edited by Malcolm Byrne, The 1956 Hungarian Revoluiton: A history in Documents November 4, 2002http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB76/index2.htm

2.Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia,
http://www.answers.com/topic/hungarian-revolution-of-1956

Indonesia

1.Virtual Truth Commission http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/.

2.Editorial, Indonesia’s Killers, The Nation, March 30, 1998.

3.Matthew Jardine, Indonesia Unraveling, Non Violent Activist Sept–Oct, 1997 (Amnesty) 2/7/07.

4.Sison, Jose Maria, Reflections on the 1965 Massacre in Indonesia, p. 5.http://qc.indymedia.org/mail.php?id=5602;

5.Annie Pohlman, Women and the Indonesian Killings of 1965-1966: Gender Variables and Possible Direction for Research, p.4,http://coombs.anu.edu.au/SpecialProj/ASAA/biennial-conference/2004/Pohlman-A-ASAA.pdf

6.Peter Dale Scott, The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno, 1965-1967, Pacific Affairs, 58, Summer 1985, pages 239-264.http://www.namebase.org/scott.

7.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.30.

Iran

1.Geoff Simons, Iraq from Sumer to Saddam, 1996, St. Martins Press, NY p. 317.

2.Chronology of American State Terrorismhttp://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html.

3.BBC 1988: US Warship Shoots Down Iranian Airlinerhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/default.stm )

Iraq

Iran-Iraq War

1.Michael Dobbs, U.S. Had Key role in Iraq Buildup, Washington Post December 30, 2002, p A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

2.Global Security.Org , Iran Iraq War (1980-1980)globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm.

U.S. Iraq War and Sanctions

1.Ramsey Clark, The Fire This Time (New York, Thunder’s Mouth), 1994, p.31-32

2.Ibid., p. 52-54

3.Ibid., p. 43

4.Anthony Arnove, Iraq Under Siege, (South End Press Cambridge MA 2000). p. 175.

5.Food and Agricultural Organizaiton, The Children are Dying, 1995 World View Forum, Internationa Action Center, International Relief Association, p. 78

6.Anthony Arnove, Iraq Under Siege, South End Press Cambridge MA 2000. p. 61.

7.David Cortright, A Hard Look at Iraq Sanctions December 3, 2001, The Nation.

U.S-Iraq War 2003-?

1.Jonathan Bor 654,000 Deaths Tied to Iraq War Baltimore Sun , October 11,2006

2.News http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html

Israeli-Palestinian War

1.Post-1967 Palestinian & Israeli Deaths from Occupation & Violence May 16, 2006 http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2006/05/post-1967-palestinian-israeli-deaths.html)

2.Chronology of American State Terrorism

http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html

Korea

1.James I. Matray Revisiting Korea: Exposing Myths of the Forgotten War, Korean War Teachers Conference: The Korean War, February 9, 2001http://www.truman/library.org/Korea/matray1.htm

2.William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p. 46

3.Kanako Tokuno, Chinese Winter Offensive in Korean War – the Debacle of American Strategy, ICE Case Studies Number 186, May, 2006http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/chosin.htm.

4.John G. Stroessinger, Why Nations go to War, (New York; St. Martin’s Press), p. 99)

5.Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, as reported in Answers.comhttp://www.answers.com/topic/Korean-war

6.Exploring the Environment: Korean Enigmawww.cet.edu/ete/modules/korea/kwar.html)

7.S. Brian Wilson, Who are the Real Terrorists? Virtual Truth Commissonhttp://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/

8.Korean War Casualty Statistics www.century china.com/history/krwarcost.html)

9.S. Brian Wilson, Documenting U.S. War Crimes in North Korea (Veterans for Peace Newsletter) Spring, 2002) http://www.veteransforpeace.org/

Laos

1.William Blum Rogue State (Maine, Common Cause Press) p. 136

2.Chronology of American State Terrorismhttp://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html

3.Fred Branfman, War Crimes in Indochina and our Troubled National Soul

www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2004/08/00_branfman_us-warcrimes-indochina.htm).

Nepal

1.Conn Hallinan, Nepal & the Bush Administration: Into Thin Air, February 3, 2004

fpif.org/commentary/2004/0402nepal.html.

2.Human Rights Watch, Nepal’s Civil War: the Conflict Resumes, March 2006 )

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/03/28/nepal13078.htm.

3.Wayne Madsen, Possible CIA Hand in the Murder of the Nepal Royal Family, India Independent Media Center, September 25, 2001http://india.indymedia.org/en/2002/09/2190.shtml.

Nicaragua

1.Virtual Truth Commission
http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/.

2.Timeline Nicaragua
www.stanford.edu/group/arts/nicaragua/discovery_eng/timeline/).

3.Chronology of American State Terrorism,
http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html.

4.William Blum, Nicaragua 1981-1990 Destabilization in Slow Motion

www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Nicaragua_KH.html.

5.Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair.

Pakistan

1.John G. Stoessinger, Why Nations Go to War, (New York: St. Martin’s Press), 1974 pp 157-172.

2.Asad Ismi, A U.S. – Financed Military Dictatorship, The CCPA Monitor, June 2002, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives http://www.policyaltematives.ca)www.ckln.fm/~asadismi/pakistan.html

3.Mark Zepezauer, Boomerang (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2003), p.123, 124.

4.Arjum Niaz ,When America Look the Other Way by,

www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=2821&sectionID=1

5.Leo Kuper, Genocide (Yale University Press, 1981), p. 79.

6.Bangladesh Liberation War , Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War#USA_and_USSR)

Panama

1.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’s Greatest Hits, (Odonian Press 1998) p. 83.

2.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p.154.

3.U.S. Military Charged with Mass Murder, The Winds 9/96,www.apfn.org/thewinds/archive/war/a102896b.html

4.Mark Zepezauer, CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.83.

Paraguay See South America: Operation Condor

Philippines

1.Romeo T. Capulong, A Century of Crimes Against the Filipino People, Presentation, Public Interest Law Center, World Tribunal for Iraq Trial in New York City on August 25,2004.
http://www.peoplejudgebush.org/files/RomeoCapulong.pdf).

2.Roland B. Simbulan The CIA in Manila – Covert Operations and the CIA’s Hidden Hisotry in the Philippines Equipo Nizkor Information – Derechos, derechos.org/nizkor/filipinas/doc/cia.

South America: Operation Condor

1.John Dinges, Pulling Back the Veil on Condor, The Nation, July 24, 2000.

2.Virtual Truth Commission, Telling the Truth for a Better Americawww.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/condor.htm)

3.Operation Condorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor#US_involvement).

Sudan

1.Mark Zepezauer, Boomerang, (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2003), p. 30, 32,34,36.

2.The Black Commentator, Africa Action The Tale of Two Genocides: The Failed US Response to Rwanda and Darfur, 11 August 2006http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091706X.shtml.

Uruguay See South America: Operation Condor

Vietnam

1.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine:Common Courage Press,1994), p 24

2.Casualties – US vs NVA/VC,
http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html.

3.Brian Wilson, Virtual Truth Commission
http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/

4.Fred Branfman, U.S. War Crimes in Indochiona and our Duty to Truth August 26, 2004

www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=6105&sectionID=1

5.David K Shipler, Robert McNamara and the Ghosts of Vietnamnytimes.com/library/world/asia/081097vietnam-mcnamara.html

Yugoslavia

1.Sara Flounders, Bosnia Tragedy:The Unknown Role of the Pentagon in NATO in the Balkans (New York: International Action Center) p. 47-75

2.James A. Lucas, Media Disinformation on the War in Yugoslavia: The Dayton Peace Accords Revisited, Global Research, September 7, 2005 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=
viewArticle&code=LUC20050907&articleId=899

3.Yugoslav Wars in 1990s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_wars.

4.George Kenney, The Bosnia Calculation: How Many Have Died? Not nearly as many as some would have you think., NY Times Magazine, April 23, 1995

http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/politics/
war_crimes/srebrenica/bosnia_numbers.html
)

5.Chronology of American State Terrorism

http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/
ChronologyofTerror.html.

6.Croatian War of Independence, Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_War_of_Independence

7.Human Rights Watch, New Figures on Civilian Deaths in Kosovo War, (February 7, 2000) http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/02/nato207.htm.

An American Century of Carnage

Global Research, March 31, 2017
TomDispatch.com 28 March 2017

[This essay is adapted from “Measuring Violence,” the first chapter of John Dower’s new book, The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War Two.]

On February 17, 1941, almost 10 months before Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, Life magazine carried a lengthy essay by its publisher, Henry Luce, entitled “The American Century.” The son of Presbyterian missionaries, born in China in 1898 and raised there until the age of 15, Luce essentially transposed the certainty of religious dogma into the certainty of a nationalistic mission couched in the name of internationalism.

Luce acknowledged that the United States could not police the whole world or attempt to impose democratic institutions on all of mankind. Nonetheless, “the world of the 20th Century,” he wrote,

“if it is to come to life in any nobility of health and vigor, must be to a significant degree an American Century.” The essay called on all Americans “to accept wholeheartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful and vital nation in the world and in consequence to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such measures as we see fit.”

Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor propelled the United States wholeheartedly onto the international stage Luce believed it was destined to dominate, and the ringing title of his cri de coeur became a staple of patriotic Cold War and post-Cold War rhetoric. Central to this appeal was the affirmation of a virtuous calling. Luce’s essay singled out almost every professed ideal that would become a staple of wartime and Cold War propaganda: freedom, democracy, equality of opportunity, self-reliance and independence, cooperation, justice, charity — all coupled with a vision of economic abundance inspired by “our magnificent industrial products, our technical skills.” In present-day patriotic incantations, this is referred to as “American exceptionalism.”

The other, harder side of America’s manifest destiny was, of course, muscularity. Power. Possessing absolute and never-ending superiority in developing and deploying the world’s most advanced and destructive arsenal of war. Luce did not dwell on this dimension of “internationalism” in his famous essay, but once the world war had been entered and won, he became its fervent apostle — an outspoken advocate of “liberating” China from its new communist rulers, taking over from the beleaguered French colonial military in Vietnam, turning both the Korean and Vietnam conflicts from “limited wars” into opportunities for a wider virtuous war against and in China, and pursuing the rollback of the Iron Curtain with “tactical atomic weapons.” As Luce’s incisive biographer Alan Brinkley documents, at one point Luce even mulled the possibility of “plastering Russia with 500 (or 1,000) A bombs” — a terrifying scenario, but one that the keepers of the U.S. nuclear arsenal actually mapped out in expansive and appalling detail in the 1950s and 1960s, before Luce’s death in 1967.

The “American Century” catchphrase is hyperbole, the slogan never more than a myth, a fantasy, a delusion. Military victory in any traditional sense was largely a chimera after World War II. The so-called Pax Americana itself was riddled with conflict and oppression and egregious betrayals of the professed catechism of American values. At the same time, postwar U.S. hegemony obviously never extended to more than a portion of the globe. Much that took place in the world, including disorder and mayhem, was beyond America’s control.

Yet, not unreasonably, Luce’s catchphrase persists. The twenty-first-century world may be chaotic, with violence erupting from innumerable sources and causes, but the United States does remain the planet’s “sole superpower.” The myth of exceptionalism still holds most Americans in its thrall. U.S. hegemony, however frayed at the edges, continues to be taken for granted in ruling circles, and not only in Washington. And Pentagon planners still emphatically define their mission as “full-spectrum dominance” globally.

Washington’s commitment to modernizing its nuclear arsenal rather than focusing on achieving the thoroughgoing abolition of nuclear weapons has proven unshakable. So has the country’s almost religious devotion to leading the way in developing and deploying ever more “smart” and sophisticated conventional weapons of mass destruction.

Welcome to Henry Luce’s — and America’s — violent century, even if thus far it’s lasted only 75 years. The question is just what to make of it these days.

Counting the Dead

We live in times of bewildering violence. In 2013, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told a Senate committee that the world is “more dangerous than it has ever been.” Statisticians, however, tell a different story: that war and lethal conflict have declined steadily, significantly, even precipitously since World War II.

Much mainstream scholarship now endorses the declinists. In his influential 2011 book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker adopted the labels “the Long Peace” for the four-plus decades of the Cold War (1945-1991), and “the New Peace” for the post-Cold War years to the present. In that book, as well as in post-publication articles, postings, and interviews, he has taken the doomsayers to task. The statistics suggest, he declares, that “today we may be living in the most peaceable era in our species’s existence.”

Clearly, the number and deadliness of global conflicts have indeed declined since World War II. This so-called postwar peace was, and still is, however, saturated in blood and wracked with suffering.

It is reasonable to argue that total war-related fatalities during the Cold War decades were lower than in the six years of World War II (1939–1945) and certainly far less than the toll for the twentieth century’s two world wars combined. It is also undeniable that overall death tolls have declined further since then. The five most devastating intrastate or interstate conflicts of the postwar decades — in China, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and between Iran and Iraq — took place during the Cold War. So did a majority of the most deadly politicides, or political mass killings, and genocides: in the Soviet Union, China (again), Yugoslavia, North Korea, North Vietnam, Sudan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan/Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, and Cambodia, among other countries. The end of the Cold War certainly did not signal the end of such atrocities (as witness Rwanda, the Congo, and the implosion of Syria). As with major wars, however, the trajectory has been downward.

Unsurprisingly, the declinist argument celebrates the Cold War as less violent than the global conflicts that preceded it, and the decades that followed as statistically less violent than the Cold War. But what motivates the sanitizing of these years, now amounting to three-quarters of a century, with the label “peace”? The answer lies largely in a fixation on major powers. The great Cold War antagonists, the United States and the Soviet Union, bristling with their nuclear arsenals, never came to blows. Indeed, wars between major powers or developed states have become (in Pinker’s words) “all but obsolete.” There has been no World War III, nor is there likely to be.

Such upbeat quantification invites complacent forms of self-congratulation. (How comparatively virtuous we mortals have become!) In the United States, where we-won-the-Cold-War sentiment still runs strong, the relative decline in global violence after 1945 is commonly attributed to the wisdom, virtue, and firepower of U.S. “peacekeeping.” In hawkish circles, nuclear deterrence — the Cold War’s MAD (mutually assured destruction) doctrine that was described early on as a “delicate balance of terror” — is still canonized as an enlightened policy that prevented catastrophic global conflict.

What Doesn’t Get Counted

Branding the long postwar era as an epoch of relative peace is disingenuous, and not just because it deflects attention from the significant death and agony that actually did occur and still does. It also obscures the degree to which the United States bears responsibility for contributing to, rather than impeding, militarization and mayhem after 1945. Ceaseless U.S.-led transformations of the instruments of mass destruction — and the provocative global impact of this technological obsession — are by and large ignored.

Continuities in American-style “warfighting” (a popular Pentagon word) such as heavy reliance on airpower and other forms of brute force are downplayed. So is U.S. support for repressive foreign regimes, as well as the destabilizing impact of many of the nation’s overt and covert overseas interventions. The more subtle and insidious dimension of postwar U.S. militarization — namely, the violence done to civil society by funneling resources into a gargantuan, intrusive, and ever-expanding national security state — goes largely unaddressed in arguments fixated on numerical declines in violence since World War II.

Beyond this, trying to quantify war, conflict, and devastation poses daunting methodological challenges. Data advanced in support of the decline-of-violence argument is dense and often compelling, and derives from a range of respectable sources. Still, it must be kept in mind that the precise quantification of death and violence is almost always impossible. When a source offers fairly exact estimates of something like “war-related excess deaths,” you usually are dealing with investigators deficient in humility and imagination.

Take, for example, World War II, about which countless tens of thousands of studies have been written. Estimates of total “war-related” deaths from that global conflict range from roughly 50 million to more than 80 million. One explanation for such variation is the sheer chaos of armed violence. Another is what the counters choose to count and how they count it. Battle deaths of uniformed combatants are easiest to determine, especially on the winning side. Military bureaucrats can be relied upon to keep careful records of their own killed-in-action — but not, of course, of the enemy they kill. War-related civilian fatalities are even more difficult to assess, although — as in World War II — they commonly are far greater than deaths in combat.

Does the data source go beyond so-called battle-related collateral damage to include deaths caused by war-related famine and disease? Does it take into account deaths that may have occurred long after the conflict itself was over (as from radiation poisoning after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or from the U.S. use of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War)? The difficulty of assessing the toll of civil, tribal, ethnic, and religious conflicts with any exactitude is obvious.

Concentrating on fatalities and their averred downward trajectory also draws attention away from broader humanitarian catastrophes. In mid-2015, for instance, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reported that the number of individuals “forcibly displaced worldwide as a result of persecution, conflict, generalized violence, or human rights violations” had surpassed 60 million and was the highest level recorded since World War II and its immediate aftermath. Roughly two-thirds of these men, women, and children were displaced inside their own countries. The remainder were refugees, and over half of these refugees were children.

Here, then, is a trend line intimately connected to global violence that is not heading downward. In 1996, the U.N.’s estimate was that there were 37.3 million forcibly displaced individuals on the planet. Twenty years later, as 2015 ended, this had risen to 65.3 million — a 75% increase over the last two post-Cold War decades that the declinist literature refers to as the “new peace.”

Other disasters inflicted on civilians are less visible than uprooted populations. Harsh conflict-related economic sanctions, which often cripple hygiene and health-care systems and may precipitate a sharp spike in infant mortality, usually do not find a place in itemizations of military violence. U.S.-led U.N. sanctions imposed against Iraq for 13 years beginning in 1990 in conjunction with the first Gulf War are a stark example of this. An account published in the New York Times Magazine in July 2003 accepted the fact that “at least several hundred thousand children who could reasonably have been expected to live died before their fifth birthday.” And after all-out wars, who counts the maimed, or the orphans and widows, or those the Japanese in the wake of World War II referred to as the “elderly orphaned” — parents bereft of their children?

Figures and tables, moreover, can only hint at the psychological and social violence suffered by combatants and noncombatants alike. It has been suggested, for instance, that one in six people in areas afflicted by war may suffer from mental disorder (as opposed to one in ten in normal times). Even where American military personnel are concerned, trauma did not become a serious focus of concern until 1980, seven years after the U.S. retreat from Vietnam, when post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was officially recognized as a mental-health issue.

In 2008, a massive sampling study of 1.64 million U.S. troops deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq between October 2001 and October 2007 estimated “that approximately 300,000 individuals currently suffer from PTSD or major depression and that 320,000 individuals experienced a probable TBI [traumatic brain injury] during deployment.” As these wars dragged on, the numbers naturally increased. To extend the ramifications of such data to wider circles of family and community — or, indeed, to populations traumatized by violence worldwide — defies statistical enumeration.

Terror Counts and Terror Fears

Largely unmeasurable, too, is violence in a different register: the damage that war, conflict, militarization, and plain existential fear inflict upon civil society and democratic practice. This is true everywhere but has been especially conspicuous in the United States since Washington launched its “global war on terror” in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Here, numbers are perversely provocative, for the lives claimed in twenty-first-century terrorist incidents can be interpreted as confirming the decline-in-violence argument. From 2000 through 2014, according to the widely cited Global Terrorism Index, “more than 61,000 incidents of terrorism claiming over 140,000 lives have been recorded.” Including September 11th, countries in the West experienced less than 5% of these incidents and 3% of the deaths. The Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism, another minutely documented tabulation based on combing global media reports in many languages, puts the number of suicide bombings from 2000 through 2015 at 4,787 attacks in more than 40 countries, resulting in 47,274 deaths.

These atrocities are incontestably horrendous and alarming. Grim as they are, however, the numbers themselves are comparatively low when set against earlier conflicts. For specialists in World War II, the “140,000 lives” estimate carries an almost eerie resonance, since this is the rough figure usually accepted for the death toll from a single act of terror bombing, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The tally is also low compared to contemporary deaths from other causes. Globally, for example, more than 400,000 people are murdered annually. In the United States, the danger of being killed by falling objects or lightning is at least as great as the threat from Islamist militants.

This leaves us with a perplexing question: If the overall incidence of violence, including twenty-first-century terrorism, is relatively low compared to earlier global threats and conflicts, why has the United States responded by becoming an increasingly militarized, secretive, unaccountable, and intrusive “national security state”? Is it really possible that a patchwork of non-state adversaries that do not possess massive firepower or follow traditional rules of engagement has, as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff declared in 2013, made the world more threatening than ever?

For those who do not believe this to be the case, possible explanations for the accelerating militarization of the United States come from many directions. Paranoia may be part of the American DNA — or, indeed, hardwired into the human species. Or perhaps the anticommunist hysteria of the Cold War simply metastasized into a post-9/11 pathological fear of terrorism. Machiavellian fear-mongering certainly enters the picture, led by conservative and neoconservative civilian and military officials of the national security state, along with opportunistic politicians and war profiteers of the usual sort. Cultural critics predictably point an accusing finger as well at the mass media’s addiction to sensationalism and catastrophe, now intensified by the proliferation of digital social media.

To all this must be added the peculiar psychological burden of being a “superpower” and, from the 1990s on, the planet’s “sole superpower” — a situation in which “credibility” is measured mainly in terms of massive cutting-edge military might. It might be argued that this mindset helped “contain Communism” during the Cold War and provides a sense of security to U.S. allies. What it has not done is ensure victory in actual war, although not for want of trying. With some exceptions (Grenada, Panama, the brief 1991 Gulf War, and the Balkans), the U.S. military has not tasted victory since World War II — Korea, Vietnam, and recent and current conflicts in the Greater Middle East being boldface examples of this failure. This, however, has had no impact on the hubris attached to superpower status. Brute force remains the ultimate measure of credibility.

The traditional American way of war has tended to emphasize the “three Ds” (defeat, destroy, devastate). Since 1996, the Pentagon’s proclaimed mission is to maintain “full-spectrum dominance” in every domain (land, sea, air, space, and information) and, in practice, in every accessible part of the world. The Air Force Global Strike Command, activated in 2009 and responsible for managing two-thirds of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, typically publicizes its readiness for “Global Strike… Any Target, Any Time.”

In 2015, the Department of Defense acknowledged maintaining 4,855 physical “sites” — meaning bases ranging in size from huge contained communities to tiny installations — of which 587 were located overseas in 42 foreign countries. An unofficial investigation that includes small and sometimes impermanent facilities puts the number at around 800 in 80 countries. Over the course of 2015, to cite yet another example of the overwhelming nature of America’s global presence, elite U.S. special operations forces were deployed to around 150 countries, and Washington provided assistance in arming and training security forces in an even larger number of nations.

America’s overseas bases reflect, in part, an enduring inheritance from World War II and the Korean War. The majority of these sites are located in Germany (181), Japan (122), and South Korea (83) and were retained after their original mission of containing communism disappeared with the end of the Cold War. Deployment of elite special operations forces is also a Cold War legacy (exemplified most famously by the Army’s “Green Berets” in Vietnam) that expanded after the demise of the Soviet Union. Dispatching covert missions to three-quarters of the world’s nations, however, is largely a product of the war on terror.

Many of these present-day undertakings require maintaining overseas “lily pad” facilities that are small, temporary, and unpublicized. And many, moreover, are integrated with covert CIA “black operations.” Combating terror involves practicing terror — including, since 2002, an expanding campaign of targeted assassinations by unmanned drones. For the moment, this latest mode of killing remains dominated by the CIA and the U.S. military (with the United Kingdom and Israel following some distance behind).

Counting Nukes

The “delicate balance of terror” that characterized nuclear strategy during the Cold War has not disappeared. Rather, it has been reconfigured. The U.S. and Soviet arsenals that reached a peak of insanity in the 1980s have been reduced by about two-thirds — a praiseworthy accomplishment but one that still leaves the world with around 15,400 nuclear weapons as of January 2016, 93% of them in U.S. and Russian hands. Close to two thousand of the latter on each side are still actively deployed on missiles or at bases with operational forces.

This downsizing, in other words, has not removed the wherewithal to destroy the Earth as we know it many times over. Such destruction could come about indirectly as well as directly, with even a relatively “modest” nuclear exchange between, say, India and Pakistan triggering a cataclysmic climate shift — a “nuclear winter” — that could result in massive global starvation and death. Nor does the fact that seven additional nations now possess nuclear weapons (and more than 40 others are deemed “nuclear weapons capable”) mean that “deterrence” has been enhanced. The future use of nuclear weapons, whether by deliberate decision or by accident, remains an ominous possibility. That threat is intensified by the possibility that nonstate terrorists may somehow obtain and use nuclear devices.

What is striking at this moment in history is that paranoia couched as strategic realism continues to guide U.S. nuclear policy and, following America’s lead, that of the other nuclear powers. As announced by the Obama administration in 2014, the potential for nuclear violence is to be “modernized.” In concrete terms, this translates as a 30-year project that will cost the United States an estimated $1 trillion (not including the usual future cost overruns for producing such weapons), perfect a new arsenal of “smart” and smaller nuclear weapons, and extensively refurbish the existing delivery “triad” of long-range manned bombers, nuclear-armed submarines, and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads.

Nuclear modernization, of course, is but a small portion of the full spectrum of American might — a military machine so massive that it inspired President Obama to speak with unusual emphasis in his State of the Union address in January 2016.

“The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth,” he declared. “Period. Period. It’s not even close. It’s not even close. It’s not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined.”

Official budgetary expenditures and projections provide a snapshot of this enormous military machine, but here again numbers can be misleading. Thus, the “base budget” for defense announced in early 2016 for fiscal year 2017 amounts to roughly $600 billion, but this falls far short of what the actual outlay will be. When all other discretionary military- and defense-related costs are taken into account — nuclear maintenance and modernization, the “war budget” that pays for so-called overseas contingency operations like military engagements in the Greater Middle East, “black budgets” that fund intelligence operations by agencies including the CIA and the National Security Agency, appropriations for secret high-tech military activities, “veterans affairs” costs (including disability payments), military aid to other countries, huge interest costs on the military-related part of the national debt, and so on — the actual total annual expenditure is close to $1 trillion.

Such stratospheric numbers defy easy comprehension, but one does not need training in statistics to bring them closer to home. Simple arithmetic suffices. The projected bill for just the 30-year nuclear modernization agenda comes to over $90 million a day, or almost $4 million an hour. The $1 trillion price tag for maintaining the nation’s status as “the most powerful nation on Earth” for a single year amounts to roughly $2.74 billion a day, over $114 million an hour.

Creating a capacity for violence greater than the world has ever seen is costly — and remunerative.
So an era of a “new peace”? Think again. We’re only three quarters of the way through America’s violent century and there’s more to come.

John W. Dower is professor emeritus of history at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  He is the author of the National Book Critics Circle Award-winning War Without Mercy and the Pulitzer Prize-winning Embracing Defeat. His new book, The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War Two (Dispatch Books), has just been published. This essay is adapted from chapter one of that densely annotated book. (Sources for the information above appear in the footnotes in that book.)

UNICEF: 1.4 Million Children Could Die from Famine in Africa, Yemen

Yemeni child

Local Editor

Nearly 1.4 million children are at imminent risk of death from hunger in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen, the UN children’s agency warned.

Yemeni child

In Yemen, with war tearing the country apart for two years, some 462,000 children are suffering from severe acute malnutrition, UNICEF said.

The Saudi-led strikes on Yemen don’t make the situation any better: in January, the UN warned that over 7,000 people had died in the attacks and about two-thirds of the population is in need of humanitarian aid.

At the same time, 450,000 children are malnourished in northeast Nigeria, and the famine early warning group Fews Net expressed concern that some remote areas of the Nigerian state of Borno are already in famine.

Fews Net also warned that should the disaster go on, aid agencies wouldn’t be able to get to the remote area.

In Somalia, the drought saw 185,000 children malnourished, and these numbers look set to skyrocket to 270,000 over the next few months, according to UNICEF.

Some 270,000 children are currently malnourished in South Sudan and a famine has just been declared in the north of the country.

UNICEF urged the world for prompt response, with Executive Director Anthony Lake saying “we can still save many lives.”

“Time is running out for more than a million children,” Lake added. “The severe malnutrition and looming famine are largely man-made. Our common humanity demands faster action. We must not repeat the tragedy of the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa.”

Source: News Agencies, Edited by Website Team

22-02-2017 | 09:22

Related Videos

Related articles

 

 

 

Trump: Trumpeting For a War on Iran?

Global Research, February 06, 2017
donald-trump-iran

The Trump Administration’s rhetoric and actions have alarmed the world.  The protests in response to his visa ban have overshadowed and distracted from a darker threat: war with Iran.   Is the fear of the threat greater than the threat itself?  The answer is not clear.

Certainly Americans and non-Americans who took comfort in the fact that we would have a more peaceful world believing that ‘Trump would not start a nuclear war with Russia must now have reason to pause.  The sad and stark reality is that US foreign policy is continuous.    An important part of this continuity is a war that has been waged against Iran for the past 38 years⎯unabated.

The character of this war has changed over time.  From a failed coup which attempted to destroy  the Islamic Republic in its early days (the Nojeh Coup), to aiding Saddam Hossein with intelligence and weapons of mass destruction to kill Iranians during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war, helping and promoting the terrorist MEK group, the training and recruiting of the Jundallah terrorist group to launch attacks in Iran, putting Special Forces on the ground in Iran, the imposition of sanctioned terrorism, the lethal Stuxnet cyberattack,  and the list goes on and on, as does the continuity of it.

While President Jimmy Carter initiated the Rapid Deployment Force and put boots on the Ground in the Persian Gulf, virtually every U.S. president since has threatened Iran with military action.  It is hard to remember when the option was not on the table.  However, thus far, every U.S. administration has wisely avoided a head on military confrontation with Iran.

To his credit, although George W. Bush was egged on to engage militarily with Iran, , the 2002 Millennium Challenge, exercises which simulated war, demonstrated America’s inability to win a war with Iran.   The challenge was too daunting.  It is not just Iran‘s formidable defense forces that have to be reckoned with; but the fact that one of Iran’s strengths and deterrents has been its ability to retaliate to any attack by closing down the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passageway off the coast of Iran.  Given that 17 million barrels of oil a day, or 35% of the world’s seaborne oil exports go through the Strait of Hormuz, incidents in the Strait would be fatal for the world economy.

Faced with this reality, over the years, the United States has taken a multi-prong approach to prepare for an eventual/potential military confrontation with Iran.  These plans have included promoting the false narrative of an imaginary threat from a non-existent nuclear weapon and the falsehood of Iran being engaged in terrorism (when in fact Iran has been subjected to terrorism for decades as illustrated above).   These ‘alternate facts’ have enabled the United States to rally friend and foe against Iran, and to buy itself time to seek alternative routes to the Strait of Hormuz.

Plan B: West Africa and Yemen

In early 2000s, the renowned British think tank Chatham House issued one of the first publications that determined African oil would be a good alternate to Persian Gulf oil in case of oil disruption. This followed an earlier strategy paper for the U.S. to move toward African oil⎯The African White Paper⎯that was on the desk May 31, 2000 of then U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of energy giant Halliburton. In 2002, the Israeli-based think tank, IASPS, suggested America push toward African oil.   In an interesting coincidence, in the same year, the Nigerian terror group, Boko Haram, was “founded”.

In 2007, the United States African Command (AFRICOM) helped consolidate this push into the region.  The 2011, a publication titled: “Globalizing West African Oil: US ‘energy security’ and the global economy” outlined ‘US positioning itself to use military force to ensure African oil continued to flow to the United States’.   This was but one strategy to supply oil in addition to or as an alternate to the passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.

Nigeria and Yemen took on new importance.

In 2012, several alternate routes to Strait of Hormuz were identified which at the time of the report were considered to be limited in capacity and more expensive.   However, collectively, the West African oil and control of Bab Al-Mandeb would diminish the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz in case of war.

In his article for the Strategic Culture Foundation, “The Geopolitics Behind the War in Yemen: The Start of a New Front against Iran” geo-political researcher Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya correctly states: “[T] he US wants to make sure that it could control the Bab Al-Mandeb, the Gulf of Aden, and the Socotra Islands (Yemen). Bab Al-Mandeb it is an important strategic chokepoint for international maritime trade and energy shipments that connect the Persian Gulf via the Indian Ocean with the Mediterranean Sea via the Red Sea. It is just as important as the Suez Canal for the maritime shipping lanes and trade between Africa, Asia, and Europe.”

War on Iran has never been a first option. The neoconservative think tank, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), argued in its 2004 policy paper “The Challenges of U.S. Preventive Military Action” that the ideal situation was (and continues to be) to have a compliant regime in Tehran.  Instead of direct conflict, the policy paper [a must read] called for the assassination of scientists, introducing a malware, covertly provide Iran plans with a design flaw, sabotage, introduce viruses, etc.  These suggestions were fully and faithfully executed against Iran.

With the policy enacted, much of the world sighed with relief when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA , or the “Iran Nuclear Deal” which restricts Iran’s domestic nuclear power in exchange for the lifting of sanctions on Iran) was signed in the naïve belief that a war with Iran had been alleviated.   Obama’s genius was in his execution of U.S. policies which disarmed and disbanded the antiwar movements.  But the JCPOA was not about improved relations with Iran, it was about undermining it.  As recently as April 2015, as the signing of the JCPOA was drawing near, during a speech at the Army War College Strategy Conference, then Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work elaborated on how the Pentagon plans to counter the three types of wars supposedly being waged by Iran, Russia, and China.

As previously planned, the purpose of the JCPOA was to pave the way for a compliant regime in Tehran faithful to Washington, failing that, Washington would be better prepared for war for  under the JCPOA, Iran would open itself up to inspections.  In other words, the plan would act as a Trojan horse to provide America with targets and soft spots.  Apparently the plan was not moving forward fast enough to please Obama, or Trump.  In direct violation of international law and concepts of state sovereignty, the Obama administration slammed sanctions on Iran for testing missiles.   Iran’s missile program was and is totally separate from the JCPOA and Iran is within its sovereign rights and within the framework of international law to build conventional missiles.

Trump followed suit. Trump ran on a campaign of changing Washington and his speeches were full of contempt for Obama; ironically, like Obama, candidate Trump continued the tactic of disarming many by calling himself a deal maker, a businessman who would create jobs, and for his rhetoric of non-interference.    But few intellectuals paid attention to his fighting words, and fewer still heeded the advisors he surrounded himself with or they would have noted that Trump considers Islam as the number one enemy, followed by Iran, China, and Russia.

The ideology of those he has picked to serve in his administration reflect the contrarian character of Trump and indicate their support of this continuity in US foreign policy.  Former intelligence chief and Trump’s current National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, stated that the Obama administration willfully allowed the rise of ISIS, yet the newly appointed Pentagon Chief “Mad Dog Mattis” has stated: “I consider ISIS nothing more than an excuse for Iran to continue its mischief.”  So the NSC (National Security Council) believes that Obama helped ISIS rise and the Pentagon believes that ISIS helps Iran continue its ‘mischief’.  Is it any wonder that Trump is both confused and confusing?

And is it any wonder that when on January 28th Trump signed an Executive Order calling for a plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days the US, UK, France and Australia ran war games drill in the Persian Gulf that simulated a confrontation with Iran⎯ the country that has, itself, been fighting ISIS.   When Iran exercised its right, by international law, to test a missile, the United States lied and accused Iran of breaking the JCPOA. Threats and new sanctions ensued.

Trump, the self-acclaimed dealmaker who took office on the promise of making new jobs, slammed more sanctions on Iran. Sanctions take jobs away from Americans by prohibiting business with Iran, and they also compel Iranians to become fully self-sufficient, breaking the chains of neo-colonialism. What a deal!

Even though Trump has lashed out at friend and foe, Team Trump has realized that when it comes to attacking a formidable enemy, it cannot do it alone.   Although both in his book, Time to Get Tough, and on his campaign trails he has lashed out at Saudi Arabia, in an about face, he has not included Saudis and other Arab state sponsors of terror on his travel ban list.   It would appear that someone whispered in Mr. Trump’s ear that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Qatar are fighting America’s dirty war in Yemen (and in Syria) and killing Yemenis.  In fact, the infamous Erik Prince, founder of the notorious Blackwater who is said to be advising Trump from the shadows, received a $120 million contract from the Obama Administration, and for the past several years has been working with Arab countries, UAE in particular, in the “security” and “training” of militias in the Gulf of Aden, Yemen.

So will there be a not so distant military confrontation with Iran?

Not if sanity prevails.  And with Trump and his generals, that is a big IF While for many years the foundation has been laid and preparations made for a potential military confrontation with Iran, it has always been a last resort; not because the American political elite did not want war, but because they cannot win THIS war. For 8 years, Iran fought not just Iraq, but virtually the whole world.   America and its allies funded Saddam’s war against Iran, gave it intelligence and weaponry, including weapons of mass destruction.  In a period when Iran was reeling from a revolution, its army was in disarray, its population virtually one third of the current population, and its supply of US provided weapons halted Yet Iran prevailed. Various American administrations have come to the realization that while it may take a village to fight Iran, attacking Iran would destroy the global village.

It is time for us to remind Trump that we don’t want to lose our village.

This article was first submitted to the print edition of Worldwide Women Against Military Madness (WAMM) newsletter.  

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on US foreign policy.

%d bloggers like this: