Since I am reporting to you on what is being discussed frankly in political, military, and financier circles in much of the world today, you, the reader, must accept my resort to plain-spoken, corporate board-room language, to capture the flavor of what those fools are saying among themselves.
Do not let my use of some rough talk fool you. The issues I shall address here, are very serious, and a bit more profound that the current crop of Washington governmental and think-tank geniuses are capable of understanding. I begin with the rough talk, and then zero in on the hard proof that they are, indeed, babbling like fools drunk on Zbigniew Brzezinski's utopian brand of home-made strategic moonshine.
Free of double-talk, and saying things more or less as plainly as François Rabelais would, those board-room nuts around the world are getting themselves all worked over cranking up their "wet dream" of permanent U.S. imperial hegemony over the whole crisis-wracked, and, in fact, essentially bankrupt world. Only God knows what that will lead to, if these maniacs are not brought under control!
At the moment, the plan is to carry out the Brzezinski-Huntington-Lewis plan for launching a new, global war of world-conquest, starting with Iraq. Current plans have that attack occurring by about the end of Summer, if not earlier. The issue is not Iraq itself; Saddam Hussein is not the issue. Only the kind of silly, wide-eyed dupes who take CNN's Christiane Ammanpour's claptrap seriously, think that what Iraq or Saddam Hussein did, or might do, or might not do, is the issue. The issue is to get the new world war started. To start an explosion, you need an adequate detonator; an attack on Iraq is the current choice of suitable detonator.
That is the proverbial ball. Keep your eye on it. Any contrary talk is just diversionary babble, spread around through the mass media and think-tank circuits, to confuse the Congressmen and other suckers.
Just to start, look at the recent bombing runs on thinly populated, previously bombed-to-Hell Afghanistan. How many people are childish enough to believe that the U.S.A. actually won a war there, or that the place is actually governable now, or that it is not in the process of blowing up again? But, ask the question in a different way: Did the U.S.A. actually conquer it, or did it not destroy its potential as a national economy, for any purpose but producing and exporting a massive amount of drugs? The alleged strategic geniuses who thought up that sort of warfare, have ignored every political-economic lesson of the conduct of warfare from all known history to date. These are the kinds of geniuses who would have believed that Enron and the so-called "new economy," were the wave of the future. How much energy will be generated for export from an economy which has been physically destroyed?
Meanwhile, only Dracula, sometimes disguised as Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, would continue to promise his suckers a midnight recovery.
That said, look at the economic reality of the world-warriors' current crop of strategic wet dreams.
The short comment on the foolishness of official Washington and Blair's London today, is this. The characteristic feature of post-MacArthur strategic utopianism, has been the intent to divorce strategic questions respecting the U.S. and world economies as President Franklin Roosevelt, for example, had defined such connections. Typical of the dangerous strategic lunacy of those utopians is Henry A. Kissinger's insistence that the lessons of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia be ignored.
Take as one example of the problem, the role of desalination and energy development in the Middle East. The central folly of the Clinton-Barak-Arafat negotiations at Camp David, was that the issues of regional economic development, and of mass programs of desalination were excluded from the direct discussions, from the beginning. Clinton's approach was foredoomed to fail. His implied obligations to Prime Minister Barak, his virtual client, blurred his vision, and helped him overlook the fact that his responsibility in those negotiations was to act in the interests of, and as a representative of the United States.
The interest of the U.S.A. was, and is today, in securing a durable form of true Middle East peace, not bringing off a short-lived diplomatic trophy for the President. I wrote repeatedly, warning of this mistake in the President's approach, but he did not listen, and therefore he failed. He, like Barak, fell into the trap of utopianism, the trap of politics without regard for those principles of physical economy which invariably underlie any prospect of durable peace in any comparable situation. Given the Israeli military gun at the back of Barak's head, it was he, Clinton, not Arafat, who was the real author of the failure in those negotiations. We, to that degree, are paying the price of Clinton's blunder today.
It is to be conceded that very few among the leading, best military strategists of modern society have actually mastered the underlying principles of economics, but all the greatest commanders and related strategists from Leonardo da Vinci and Machiavelli, up through the pre-1951 period in U.S. command, had been steeped in the role of a military-engineering view of logistics as the foundation of all competent strategic planning. With the rise of the utopian faction in our military, the tooty-fruity teaching of sick brands of sociology and psychology replaced the traditional competence of the tradition of Sylvanus Thayer's West Point. It is those "special warfare" tooty-fruities who are in command of the long-range military policy behind the present focus on Iraq.
Those who are serious enough to follow up on this point, will study carefully my recently published "Economics: At The End of Delusion." Sane governments will study that writing carefully; otherwise, the title, "At the End of a Delusion," were suitably carved on their tombstone.
There will be more to come on this important theme, in the near future.
LaRouche's Oasis Plan
Water as a Strategic Flank-Wherein Clinton Failed