INTRODUCTION
The United States faces a growing
disaster in the Middle East - A DISASTER PREDICATED ON THE INABILITY OF THE
UNITED STATES TO USE ITS FULL PANOPLY of
power in order to gain control
of the situation and bring its murderous enterprise there to a successful
conclusion. Ashley Smith of the ISR explains what happened:
"The Bush
administration had aimed to use the political capital it obtained in the wake
of the September 11th attacks to pursue a more preemptive and
aggressive foreign policy that had been DESIGNED TO CEMENT THE U.S. AS THE
WORLD'S UNCHALLENGEABLE SUPER-POWER. After
first dismantling Taliban rule in Afghanistan, the Bush administration hoped to
install a sympathetic government in Iraq, conduct regime changes of a similar
nature in Syria and Iran, and settle other conflicts in the region like those
in Lebanon and Palestine on U.S. terms. With the region and its strategic oil
reserves under its control, the U.S. hoped to hold all potential challengers
that are dependent on Mideast oil, such as China, under its thumb."
Washington Post journalist Anthony Shadid captures the Bush regime's
hubris and naiveté concerning its ability to pull this giant enterprise off:
"Once the
dictator [Hussein] was removed, by force if need be, Iraq would be free, a taubla
rasa on which to build a new and different
state ... If we can change Iraq, George W. Bush and his determined lieutenants
maintained, we can change the Arab world, so precariously adrift after decades
of broken promises of progress and prosperity. This rhetoric - idealistic to
Western ears, reminiscent of century-old colonialism to a Third World audience
- envisioned the dawn of a democratic and just Middle East, guided by a
benevolent United States."
Of course, all the talk of
"democracy" and "progress and prosperity" was just that - TALK. Again, what the U.S. ruling elite was really after
was the area's oil - as former Fed Chief Alan Greenspan recently admitted - and
the reduction of the nations of the Middle East and Central Asia to
"client-state" status in the American Empire. [Please see our August,
2002 report, "The Coming War in Iraq: What It's
Really All About."]
Smith continues:
"The U.S.
won the war easily ... [But] contrary to expectations ... U.S. troops were not
greeted as liberators. The U.S. coalition deployed only 145,000 troops, nowhere
near the number of troops needed to control a country of 25 million."
As a result, Smith says, things
turned out differently:
"The Bush
administration has spent close to two trillion dollars, has sacrificed more
than 3,600 soldiers, and has maimed and psychologically damaged tens of
thousands more in this war against the Iraqi resistance that wasn't supposed to
exist, only to find itself stuck in what is routinely referred to now as a
Vietnam-style 'quagmire' ...
"It has
also lost the support of the majority of Americans for its war in Iraq ... Today,
70 percent of Americans oppose the war ..."
THE REASON FOR ALL THIS
As Smith explained, the reason
the war turned out so disastrously was that the Bush administration tried to
conduct the war "on the cheap," and with a military that had been
decisively "downsized" at the end of the Cold War. In the wake of
America's victory over the old Soviet Union, it had become impossible for the
elites to argue any longer that a huge standing military was necessary, and
so-called "liberals" prevailed in their demands to reduce military
expenditures by reducing the standing army and shifting spending to social
welfare programs.
As a result, the army that was
available to the administration of Bush II was no longer the huge, standing
army that Bush I had used to crush Iraq in the First Gulf War - an army that
had easily been able to "field" over 500,000 troops in Iraq with
thousands and thousands more in reserve. The most that Bush II could
"field" in the second Gulf War was 150,000 troops (give a little here
and there). As Smith says, this was more than enough troops - given America's overwhelming
technological superiority and its air and naval preeminence - to decisively win
the war; but it was not enough troops - given the fact that American soldiers
were not greeted as liberators - to "occupy" the country and reduce
its population to subservience.
CONSTRAINTS ON U.S. POWER
Now one must understand
something: the reason for America's failure here is not American weakness per
se, as some believe; nor is it that the
U.S. bit off more than it can chew (all other things being equal), as others
believe; it's that the U.S. is constrained "artificially" -
-
by a U.S.
population that is unwilling to support a larger military - and the draft of
its sons and daughters that such a broadening of the military would require [please
see our article "The Draft: You Had Better Get
Ready"], and -
by a population
that is unwilling to sanction the use of TOTAL WAR (genocide) as a war tactic - at least as an OPEN, "in-your-face" war tactic.
No doubt, given
time and the use of death squads on a massive basis - the kind of
tactics the U.S. used in her "contra-wars" in Central America - the
United States could prevail with its present force structure.
Still, Iraq is
not Central America where the use of such tactics on a large scale could be
used in relative secrecy, and the lack of such secrecy would make the use of
death squads infinitely more difficult from a public relations standpoint than
was the case in Central America. In addition, such tactics could take as long
as ten years to work, and the American people are not willing to support the
Iraq war for such a length of time.
Naturally enough, the
unwillingness of the American population to support a larger military - again,
which of necessity would mean re-instituting the draft - and the use of
genocide as an open, "in-your-face" war tactic has put the entire
American enterprise in the Middle East and Central Asia in danger; indeed, it
is jeopardizing the very existence of the American Empire itself.
OTHER PRESSURE
And its not just pressure in the
Middle East that is imperiling the American New World Order System, but also
what's occurring on America's southern border; specifically, in Mexico.
While what's happening in Mexico
is little reported in the American press, the American oil elites know
perfectly well what's occurring there and they are terribly alarmed by it. One
well-known security analyst for Bloomberg and Forbes (Dantes Peak) writes:
"In my annual new years predictions, I said
that the most significant, and surprising, development of 2007 will be the
collapse of both Mexico’s economy and its very existence as a viable
Nation-State ..."
Now one should note here, he is
not saying that the collapse of Mexico as a viable state is a case of
"if," but rather it's a case of "when" - AND HE PREDICTS
THAT IT WILL BE SOMETIME THIS YEAR OR EARLY IN 2008. He pins the blame on "leftists" bent on overthrowing the
Mexican oligarchy and establishing a Marxist state on America's southern border
- a nightmare for the American elites that would make what's occurring in the
Middle East pale in comparison. It would mean the end of NAFTA and the
resurgence of communism in Latin America on a massive basis. James McKinley
reports on what's occurring:
"For the
third time in three months, saboteurs blew up several pipelines belonging to
Mexico's state oil monopoly, disrupting service to dozens of factories and ...
rattling financial markets, officials said."
THE IMPORTANCE OF MEXICAN OIL
While most Americans are only
minimally aware of these events - THESE ATTACKS ON MEXICO'S OIL
INFRASTRUCTURE ARE THE MAIN REASON THAT THE PRICE OF CRUDE OIL ON THE WORLD
MARKET IS APPROACHING $100.00 A BARREL,
not the Iraq War (which was long ago already "priced" into the cost
of crude oil).
Mexico is the
second most important source of imported oil for the U.S. after Saudi Arabia. The
top five crude-oil exporters to the U.S. market last year, according to the
U.S. Energy Information Administration, were:
- Canada, 650,874,000 barrels.
- Mexico, 575,135,000 barrels.
- Saudi Arabia, 518,739,000 barrels.
- Venezuela, 415,676,000 barrels.
- Nigeria, 380,715,000 barrel
LEFTIST ATTACKS ON
MEXICAN OIL INFRASTRUCTURE
McKinley continues:
"The oil company, Petróleos Mexicanos, or Pemex,
issued a statement saying that someone had deliberately detonated bombs at six
points along four natural gas pipelines and one oil pipeline in the eastern
state of Veracruz early Monday morning.
"Later in
the day, The Associated Press reported that the state police in Veracruz had
evidence implicating the Popular Revolutionary Army, a ... [leftist] guerrilla
movement formed in the 1990s, in the attacks ...
"In July,
the same guerrilla group claimed responsibility for similar attacks on two
major gas pipelines supplying the cities of Querétaro, Salamanca and
Guanajuato. Carried out on July 5 and July 10, those attacks shut down the flow
of gas to dozens of factories for more than 48 hours. At the time, the rebel
group promised in a communiqué a campaign 'against the interests of the
oligarchy and of this illegitimate government' ...
"The six
explosions sent flames and plumes of smoke into the sky just before dawn. At
least 21,000 people were evacuated from their homes as a precaution, Pemex
officials said ...
"The
sabotage of the gas pipelines has punctuated a turbulent political season in
Mexico, where it has become clear that the wounds of last year’s hotly
contested presidential race still have not healed.
"Leftist
politicians, who do not regard Mr. Calderón’s razor-thin win as legitimate,
recently used parliamentary rules to keep him from giving his annual address to
Congress, and they boycotted a ceremony during which he delivered his address
in writing.
"In the
meantime, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a leftist firebrand and a former mayor
of Mexico City who lost to Mr. Calderón, continues to insist he is the 'legitimate
president'. He argues that the election was riddled with fraud and dirty
campaigning, orchestrated by big business [specifically, American oil
interests] ..." [Please see our articles, "The Bolivarian Revolution Reaches America's Southern Border"
and "Obrador's Parallel Leftist Government In Mexico City & The Spread Of 'Chavezism'."]
AND IT'S NOT JUST WHAT'S HAPPENING
IN VERA CRUZ AND CHIAPAS ...
And it's not just what's
happening in Vera Cruz (and the other oil production regions in Mexico), and
Chiapas. [Please see our article. "Chiapas: The
Effect of the New World Order on the Poor."] Take what's occurring
in Oaxaca: The ISR reported on the
uprising in Oaxaca last year:
"The
Oaxaca uprising began June 14, 2006, when the hated state governor, Ulises
Ruiz, ordered a bloody pre-dawn attack by 3,500 state police against the strike
of the Oaxaca teachers’ union, whose protest camp had occupied a large part of
downtown Oaxaca since May 22. The 40,000 strikers and their supporters fought
back, and after several hours they drove the police out of the city. Two days
later 300,000-400,000 people -- well over half the population of the city and
10 percent of the population of the state -- came out for a mass march in
support of the strike, building on two previous mass marches in June. The next
day, June 17, organizations supporting the strike convened the first meeting of
the Popular Assembly.
"Oaxaca is
the poorest state in Mexico and has the country’s largest indigenous
population, over 60 percent of the state’s people. The teachers’ strike won
mass support by demanding a higher minimum wage for all of Oaxaca -- Mexico’s
reactionary system of 'zonification' of states sets lower minimum wages for
poorer states. This minimum wage demand, more than the wage demands for the
teachers themselves, was most intolerable to Ulises Ruiz and the state
government.
"APPO [the
"Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca," the leftist guerilla
movement in the area] and the teachers’ union have taken over government
buildings and set up barricades around the city to stop attacks by vehicles
full of government-backed thugs. They have taken over several of Oaxaca’s radio
stations, and a women’s march on August 1 seized control of Oaxaca’s official
state TV and radio stations. For three weeks the strikers and their supporters
controlled the state TV broadcasts. Ulises Ruiz’s forces could not take back
control of the TV station, so they attacked it with automatic weapons,
destroying equipment and knocking it off the air August 21. While Ruiz does not
have the forces to challenge the Oaxaca uprising directly, ambushes and
drive-by shootings by paramilitary forces have killed at least five supporters
of the uprising. A number of strikers and members of APPO were still being held
as political prisoners."
Clearly, Mexico stands in great
jeopardy of a "leftist" revolution, and the fact that this is little
reported in the American press can do little to make the danger disappear.
But what can the American elites do
to confront this crisis: very little at all, especially in light of the fact
that its army is tied down in what appears to be a never-ending war in the
Middle East?
THE AMERICAN ELITES MUST FIND A WAY AROUND THEIR
INABILITY TO USE THE FULL POWER OF THE MILITARY
Very obviously, the American
elites must confront their inability to marshal enough RAW military power to confront these threats - both the
one in the Middle East and the one on its southern border. But to do this, it
must find a way around popular "grass-roots" opposition in the United
States to expanding the military (which, in essence, means the re-establishment
of the draft), and the use of TOTAL WAR (genocide) as a means of dealing with its adversaries.
It is precisely here that Naomi
Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine, proves
illuminating as to just how the elites are most likely to confront this
dilemma. Jeremy Scahill writes concerning The Shock Doctrine:
"The
Shock Doctrine is the defining, covert
history of our era, the work of a journalist embedded not with the militaries
of the powerful, but with the poor, the tortured, and those who fight for
justice against all odds."
Chalmers Johnson writes:
"Naomi
Klein's expose of neoliberal economics [i.e., the policies of the American New
World Order System] is certain to be sensational. She rips away the 'free
trade' and globalization ideologies that disguise a conspiracy to ... grab public
property [both foreign and domestic] for the rich few. Klein's is a long-needed
analysis of our headlong flight back to feudalism under the guise of social
science and 'freedom'."
Arundhati Roy writes:
"Naomi
Klein has written a brilliant, brave and terrifying book. It's nothing less
than the secret history of what we call the 'free market' ..."
Howard Zinn writes:
"This is
an important book, one of the most important I have read in a very long
time."
And, finally, Tim Robbins - whom
the Right never tires of defaming and denigrating, but who is a person I deeply
admire - writes:
"A
revelation! With unparalleled courage and clarity Naomi Klein has written the
most important and necessary book of her generation ... "
VERY SOON NOW ...
Very soon now, Shock Doctrine
will be applied to the people of the United States, and when it comes, IT
WILL COME SUDDENLY and the world as we
know it will pass away forever - AND THEN WHAT WILL YOU DO?
God
bless you all,
S.R.
Shearer
Antipas
Ministries