An explanation for the apparent descent of United States foreign policy into the insane irrationality so lately exhibited in its nuclear weapons doctrine seems now to have been clarified. The Associated Press in a March 1st article claims that the pretense of insanity was, in fact, just that--a pretense.
"The United States should maintain the threat of nuclear retaliation," said the AP article, "with an 'irrational and vindictive' streak to intimidate would-be attackers such as Iraq, according to an internal military study made public Sunday." (AP, March 1, 1998)
The study AP referred to was done by the Omaha based STRATCOM (Strategic Command), the Pentagon organization tasked with the oversight of America's tactical and strategic nuclear arsenal.
The stated purpose of the military doctrine, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, is for the deterrence of any attack upon the United States, its territories or citizens, using chemical, biological or atomic weapons. The study claims that the United States is hurt by portraying an attitude that is "too fully rational and cool-headed." (ibid.) There is strong implication that threats, imaginary or real, must be emphasized out of proportion to reality as part of the "Pentagon's push to maintain a mission for its nuclear arsenal long after the Soviet threat disappeared." (ibid.) This, it might be noted, is a standard military approach to weapons funding--"use it or lose it"--or at least find a reason to hang onto it. STRATCOM, according to the report, has been at bureaucratic war with those in the Clinton Administration "who lean in favor of dramatic nuclear weapons reductions."
The U.S. military, rather than existing strictly under civilian command as mandated by the Constitution, has, by appearances, taken to itself a considerable autonomy in policymaking. In an earlier article The WINDS quoted John Pike, a member of the arms control advocacy group, The Federation of American Scientists, as stating that the Clinton White House was, in effect, rubber-stamping the nuclear arms deployment policy already established by the military.
"'What they are retroactively doing is attempting to realign national policy with what the operational policy has been for some time,' Pike said. 'The colonels and lieutenant colonels figured out what they wanted to do, and you've just now got the White House catching up with that.'" (AP, Dec. 8, 1997).
The stated purpose for assuming this posture of unpredictable and irrational antagonism is to re-focus, for the purpose of intimidation, on what the Pentagon calls "rogue states" --those who are not signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), --countries like North Korea, Iraq, Cuba, Libya, Iran, etc.
The report claims, "The fact that some elements (of the U.S. government) may appear to be potentially 'out of control' can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts within the minds of an adversary's decision makers. That the U.S. may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked, should be a part of the national persona we project to all adversaries." This policy was abundantly obvious in the recent manufactured crises between the UN and Iraq.
This doctrine of measured insanity actually has it roots in the Carter Administration but was not, however, endorsed by President Carter--at least not by any currently available documentation. For the purpose of strengthening the newly established NPT, Carter declared the doctrine of "negative security assurance" which says essentially that the United States would not retaliate with nuclear weapons in response to attack by nations not possessing them.
"But then, not everyone pays much attention to matters as trivial as national policy," says Hans Kristensen in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Sept./Oct. 1997. "In 1995, for instance, the ink was barely dry on a reaffirmation of that pledge [by Clinton of Carter's doctrine] when the Pentagon updated a nuclear plan to target certain Third World nations, even if they were not in league with a nuclear power.
"The Carter/Clinton pledge was simply swept away by military planners determined to protect and expand the role of nuclear weapons, a strategy pursued since the early 1990s, according to documents recently declassified.... As a result, there is a fundamental disharmony between declared policy and U.S. nuclear warriors' activities...."
The Bulletin further elaborates that "...in December 1995, the Pentagon's 'Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' (also known as 'Joint Pub 3-12') was issued. It made a hash of the restated we-won't-use-nuclear-weapons pledge" of Carter/Clinton.
"In fact," Kristensen continues, "nuclear bureaucrats had been quietly slicing and dicing the pledge for several years. Planners first expanded nuclear targeting to include regional troublemakers armed with 'weapons of mass destruction' in an earlier version of the document which emerged in April 1993."
Although the Associated Press treated the March 1st story as a recent startling revelation, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists revealed, back in October of last year, that a Nuclear Posture Review had been formulated in 1995 containing the identical language as the AP report of March first. In that review quoted by the Bulletin entitled, "Essentials of Post Cold War Deterrence," was stated a "warning that in threatening nuclear destruction, the United States should not appear too rational or cool-headed. If some elements...appear potentially 'out of control,' it would create and reinforce fears and doubts within the minds of an adversary's decision-makers. That the U.S. may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked, should be part of the national persona we project,"--virtually identical language contained in the Associated Press report--only five months earlier.
Is it not a serious stretch of credibility to assume it to be mere coincidence that following the continual reproach of Clinton's nuclear posture by his military, the president strangely changed his administration's position on first-strike use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states? It seems that these recent disclosures are well calculated to create the image of a president who is incapable of staring directly into the eyes of those over whom he is Commander-in-Chief.
The primary focus of the New World Order's "neo-globalism" is upon the vast riches of multinational corporations as the mainspring of international power. To an immense degree it is the enormous wealth produced by the corporate arms establishment that fuels globalism's inertia. Is it then unreasonable to conclude that this show of choreographed insanity by the Pentagon has a purpose aimed at a specific end?--that end being the continual perpetuation of worldwide insurgencies and military brush fires calling for ever more technologically advanced (not to mention expensive) weapons systems. This concept is discussed more in-depth in a currently headlined WINDS article entitled "U.S. Manipulates MIDEAST For Fun And Profit."
One interesting trail of prevailing thought on the subject of creating a self-perpetuating arms market proceeds according to the following logic:
- U.S. arms merchants obtain Pentagon and Congressional approval to sell their older advanced missiles and aircraft systems to foreign governments.
- The Pentagon then approaches Congress to request more taxpayer dollars to upgrade now obsolete U.S. armaments using the argument that foreign countries' technologies--the same ones to whom we sold the advanced weapons--can now match or "shoot down" our current technology.
- Congress approves.
- The Pentagon issues bid requests to its major arms contractors.
- The arms merchants win their "competitive" bids and promptly broaden their profit margins with staggering cost over runs.
- A certain period of time elapses and then this money-driven "go-loop" returns to its starting point like a snake swallowing its own tail and the military industrial complex gets even wealthier.
Perhaps the foregoing presents reasonable answers to some nagging questions:
- Is this new twist in American foreign/military policy--this play at obvious insanity--an attempt to frighten the public into giving willing, even enthusiastic, support of those immensely expensive toys known as high-tech, non-nuclear weapons? (remember the wild adulation during the Gulf War over the Patriot Missile?) After all, even the military has recognized the speedily approaching obsolescence of nuclear armament, especially in a world of decentralized antagonism. A world where difficulty in locating an enemy is matched only by the difficulty in recognizing him.
- As warrior and president, was it Dwight Eisenhower's personal knowledge of the unwillingness of America's war industry to part with control of such a colossal economic power that motivated him in his farewell address to the nation to coin that now-famous phrase "military industrial complex"?
The creation of imaginary enemies, or the fanciful over-exaggeration of the power and threat of real ones, has become the standard operating procedure for maintaining this nation's extortionary superpower status. This, coupled with a military that is being given the appearance of the tail-that-wags-the-dog in its sham defiance of civilian authority, seems to be creating a cleverly disguised version of "Seven Days in May," Fletcher Knebel's famous fictional account of a military plot to overthrow the White House. Interestingly enough, in Knebel's novel it was the president's planned drastic reduction in nuclear arms that triggered the plot.
The idea that the military can autonomously take a Vegematic to a sitting president's arms policy is, on the face of it, ludicrous. General Douglas MacArthur discovered that when the "little man" in the White House, whom he despised, fired him.
Recall the comment made in the Nuclear Posture Review: "the fact that some elements (of the U.S. government) may appear to be potentially 'out of control.'" The word "appear" is an important verb. It essentially defines the entire makeup and purpose of national government. They need to "make believe" or make things "appear" as something they are not in order to establish consent and control over the governed.
This political ruse, resulting in the charade of an unsettled and confused American nuclear arms doctrine has, it seems, born some fruit to its intended purposes. The doomsday clock, that symbolic measuring device gauging the time span between the present and nuclear Armageddon, has actually been moved closer to the midnight threshold of universal destruction--even in the face of a vanished Soviet Union and the absence of any viable Cold War threat.
There is a dangerously inherent pitfall involved in the creation of a fantasy that must be constantly maintained. Whereas an actor can exit the stage and return to a world of reality, those who conceive of and execute such as has been discussed here live with the very real threat of actually becoming what they imagine. The actor gets lost in the part he plays. Psychologists will confirm that when one plays a role too seriously and continuously, one tends to become the part, creating a reality of it--to believe it to be truth. This happens, in no small measure, because the player must present himself as purposeful and believable. His presentation must be continuous. In a larger sense this is even more true of governments. They so continually deal in fantasy that they actually come to believe it corporately. How else could such as Auschwitz and My Lei take place, and any of the other innumerable atrocities that this world has witnessed, but for the acceptance and belief of that which is not true?
The ever maligned but ever accurate document, The Protocols, makes a very precise summation of the methods used by the globalists on this issue:
"...we must utilize fantasy or make-believe. Great national qualities, like frankness and honesty, are destructive qualities in politics."
They also clearly present the results of their program which is comprised of far more than soap operas...
"Fantasy and unreal drama have well-nigh ended reasonable, clear thinking."
For America the truth can also be found in the results of Hamlet's declaration of insanity. As with Shakespeare's "Prince of Denmark", the intended pretense has become the reality.
Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of
material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.
This page is in the public domain.