U.S. Peace Council :"The Peace Movement’s Silence in the Face of Imperialistic Military Escalations in Africa and the Middle East is Unjustified and Unacceptable!

The Peace Movement’s Silence In the Face of Imperialistic Military Escalations In Africa and the Middle East Is Unjustified and Unacceptable!

U.S. Peace Council March 20, 2013

The Peace Movement’s Silence in the Face of Imperialistic Military Escalations in Africa and the Middle East is Unjustified and Unacceptable!

U.S. Peace Council — March 20, 2013

On Monday February 25th, the U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, announced that the United States will be directly providing the so-called “Syrian opposition” with “non-lethal” aid in a coordinated effort to overthrow the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. In addition, U.S. officials have announced that the United States will be supplying the so-called “Free Syrian Army” with medical supplies and the U.S. Military’s Meal-Ready-to-Eat field rations.

This is a clear step toward escalation of the U.S. military intervention in Syria, which should not surprise anyone, given the well-known U.S. plan for a “New Middle East,” which is aimed at redrawing the map of the Middle East to secure its hegemonic domination of the region and its resources.

What is surprising, however, is the absolute silence and inaction of the peace movement against the criminal acts that are being openly committed against the people of the Middle East, and against the peace and security of the region and the world.

1. “Non-Lethal” Support for a Lethal Intervention

John Kerry’s claim to the “non-lethal” nature of the U.S. aid to the artificially created and armed Syrian “opposition” is nothing but a blatant lie. In fact, the U.S. definition of “non-lethal aid,” which is being constantly expanded, covers “virtually anything that doesn’t in and of itself kill people, including night-vision goggles and sniper scopes, ... body armor, direct combat training and even armored personnel carriers.”1

And this is only the tip of the gigantic iceberg. What the U.S is not supplying openly is being transferred to the rebels via U.S. proxies: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Turkey. According to the New York Times,2 “Saudi Arabia has financed a large purchase of infantry weapons from Croatia and quietly funneled them to antigovernment fighters in Syria.... The weapons began reaching rebels in December via shipments shuttled through Jordan....” These weapons, which have been distributed “principally to armed groups” ... “include a particular type of Yugoslav- made recoilless gun, as well as assault rifles, grenade launchers, machine guns, mortars and shoulder-fired rockets for use against tanks and other armored vehicles.” Qatar and Saudi Arabia have also been supplying these armed bandits with American-made surface-to-air missiles to be used against the superior Syrian army and air force. Given the close ties between the United States, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, it is inconceivable that such shipments of U.S.-made weapons to the Syrian “opposition” were made without U.S. sanction.

Moreover, according to Asia Times, “Turkey's southern Hatay province is home of the FSA [Free Syrian Army] headquarters and training camp has been set up by there by Qatari special forces. Through Turkey, the FSA also receive weapons used in Libya and advanced

1

communication equipment from NATO....”3

In addition, since last summer, more than 150 U.S. military planners have been stationed along the Syrian border with Jordan, where the Croatian arms are reported to have passed into rebel hands.4 According to a New York Times report,5 the CIA has been overseeing the arms shipments to Syrian rebels from within Turkey.

This proxy war on the Syrian people by the United States and its puppet allies in the region has already wreaked havoc for the Syrian society and economy. According to one researcher, “A recent report prepared by the Syrian Center for Policy Research (SCPR) estimated that the losses to the country’s economy over the last 22 months amounted to $48.4 billion—the equivalent of 81.7 percent of the country’s GDP for 2010. It estimated that GDP had declined by 18.8 percent in 2012, this on top of a decline of 35 percent since the fighting—together with punishing Western sanctions—began. According to the report, losses to the country’s capital stock amount to $42 billion, with the outright physical destruction of plants, equipment and buildings accounting for $20.8 billion.” And to top this, “the US-backed ‘rebels’ have systematically looted the economy in areas of the industrial capital of Aleppo that have fallen under their control, stripping factories of their goods and machinery and smuggling them across the border to Turkey.”6

It is thus quite clear that, despite all official denials, the U.S. is already involved in a lethal war against Syria—a proxy war that it is now being escalated into a direct military intervention.

This escalation of U.S. military intervention in Syria is a result of the U.S. policy makers’ recognition of the obvious fact that the Syrian government enjoys the support of a significant part of the country’s population and cannot be directly defeated by a bunch of mercenaries armed and funded by Western powers and their proxy states in the region. As Karen Koning AbuZayd, a former U.S. diplomat and member of the UN independent panel investigating human rights violations in Syria, stated in a recent interview with CBC Radio, “there’s quite a number of the population, maybe as many as half, if not more, who stand behind him [Assad].”7

After more than 20 months of U.S. orchestrated criminal effort to impose a regime change on Syria, which has resulted in close to 50 thousand deaths, 700,000 refugees—three quarters of them women and children, according to the UN—and the displacement of more than two million people out of a population of 20 million,8 a shift of policy toward direct military intervention in Syria seems to have become inevitable if the U.S. is to achieve its hegemonic domination over a completely subdued “New Middle East.”

2. Terrorism as a Means of Achieving Regime Change in Syria

The fact that the Obama administration is orchestrating the largest state-sponsored terror campaign to force a regime change in Syria is by now beyond doubt. Indeed, the so-called “popular revolt” in Syria is a totally managed terror campaign led by the U.S., France, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, with the help of various terrorist groups and organizations, most of them from other Arab countries. They include elements of al-Qaeda, jihadists from Afghanistan, Somalia and Pakistan, and a handful of deserters from the Syrian army.9

2

According to Asia Times, “The Syrian people demanding democratic reforms do not represent an overwhelming majority as was the case in Tunisia or Egypt. Furthermore, the ‘democratic fighters’ comprising the Free Syrian Army (FSA) are not all Syrian citizens.... Al-Qaeda fighters are known to be amongst the opposition forces in Syria as well as Libyan mercenaries fresh out of the ‘Libyan Revolution,’ which was another good example of regime change dubbed as the ‘ArabSpring’byWesternmedia.g,al-QaedaleaderAymanAl- Zawahiri himself invited al-Qaeda fighters and any Sunni mercenaries alike to join the Syrian opposition forces. Therefore, the US, al-Qaeda, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are all on the same side in this conflict — trying to enforce a regime change in Syria....Asia Times article then asks: “Where are the images of peaceful protests? There are none, because this is not a democratic uprising as Western media claims but an all-out civil war where the rebels do not represent the majority of the population....”10

The Asia Times article then goes on to describe how the terrorist face of this fabricated “opposition” is being deliberately hidden from the public eyes by the Western media:

“There are few reports on the Syrian People or their legitimate demands, and the imagery used is also of bombings and killings blamed on the Assad regime without proof. 

“The latest massacre that took place in Houla is one of the best examples of media manipulation: without any proof, as soon as news of the massacre came out, it was immediately blamed on government forces. The BBC even threw in a fake picture of hundreds of dead bodies wrapped up in white sheets that was in fact a picture taken in Iraq by Marco di Lauro back in 2003. 

“The BBC conveniently said in small characters under the picture itself ‘This image — which cannot be independently verified — is believed to show the bodies of children in Houla awaiting burial.’ They broke the story all over the world as a means to show the ruthlessness of the Syrian regime and push the public into approval towards humanitarian/military intervention in Syria. 

“Soon after the picture was discovered as a fake, news that the real perpetrators of the massacre were in fact members of the FSA disguised as Shabiha (thugs), and that those killed were pro- government Syrians, did not receive the same ‘airtime’ as the original news did....”11

Thus, when U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced in Doha that the $60 million U.S. aid to Syrian rebels will not go to “terrorists,” he knew very well that he was not telling the truth. He was hiding the fact that the only allies the U.S. has within Syria are these terrorists, and that, one way or another, the lion’s share of the U.S. aid will end up in their hands regardless of who initially receives it.

3. Fabricating a “Legitimate” Surrogate Government for Syria

In spite of all its criminal terroristic efforts to impose an illegal regime change in Syria, the U.S. and its proxies in the region are faced with a more fundamental problem: the absence of a legitimate alternative to the Assad regime. Well aware of the fact that the armed rebels within

3

  

Syria have no credibility among both the Syrian people and the international community, the Obama administration has been trying desperately to put together its own surrogate government for Syria.

According to the New York Times: “One aim of the $60 million in aid is to help the Syrian opposition coalition, ... which the United States backs and has helped shape, in building credibility within the country.... The American assistance could also help the Syrian coalition develop the governance skills it will need to play a role in any post-Assad political transition. The funds are to be used in areas controlled by the Syrian opposition coalition to improve education, sanitation and security. Another goal is to strengthen the rule of law in these areas....”12

Who are the recipients of this aid, who are being trained by the U.S. to govern Syria? According to the former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself: “... a bunch of out-of-touch exiles who should be replaced with a group more representative of the fighters on the ground.”13

Indeed, at least since last October, the Obama administration has been trying to put together, legitimize and train a coalition of the same “out-of touch exiles” to rule Syria on behalf of the United States. According to one researcher: “On her journey Clinton unearthed yet another group of handpicked rich Syrian exiles who hadn’t been in the country in decades, with no connections on the ground and, more importantly, zero military presence of any significance. Clinton re- named the group the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution, and unveiled her new offspring to glowing U.S. media acclaim....”14

This “new offspring” of the U.S. State Department was later renamed the Syrian National Coalition and unilaterally recognized as the “sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people” without any input form the Syrian people themselves: “A statement issued at the close of the meeting in Rome described the Syrian National Coalition—a formation cobbled together by the US State Department at a luxury hotel in Doha last November—as ‘the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people.’ Kerry appeared at a joint press conference with Mouaz al- Khatib, the Sunni preacher and ally of the Muslim Brotherhood, whom Washington is grooming to become the Syrian equivalent of Iraq’s Ahmed Chalabi or Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai. The US-sponsored coalition was supposed to convene a meeting Saturday in Istanbul to announce the formation of a ‘transitional government.’ It was reported on Thursday, however, that the meeting had been postponed, likely due to another falling-out over the division of posts and spoils.”15

It is quite clear that the “popular revolution” in Syria is just a myth created by the United States to bring “legitimacy” to its policy of regime change in Syria with the help of a group of mercenaries and traitors. The Obama administration has been leading this entire process, while actively trying to organize a respectable “public face” for the rebels. One should expect that the actual U.S. military intervention to topple the Assad regime would begin as soon as this fractured puppet coalition is unified around the U.S. agenda and is trained and armed enough to take over the country.

“Anyone who has paid attention to the Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libyan wars understands that U.S.- style regime change equals the destruction of a nation. The above three countries were all once independently functioning civilizations, but are now socially and economically destroyed and

4

regionally fragmented, ruled by whomever in the region happens to have the most guns....”16 And this is exactly what the United States is after.

4. Blocking All Efforts Toward a Peaceful Settlement

While carrying out terroristic attacks to dislodge the Syrian government, the U.S. has concurrently been blocking any effort for a peaceful settlement of the artificially created armed conflict. This is despite all the reforms initiated by the Syrian government and dismissed by the U.S. government-backed opposition since the beginning of the protests in 2011. Among them:

• February 26, 2011 is set as the date for a national referendum on the country's new draft constitution. Parliamentary elections will be held within 90 days of the approval of the constitution.... If passed, it would restrict the president to serving a maximum of two terms of seven years and introduce a pluralistic party system. This draft constitution is a major step ... in Syrian history. For the first time, the president of Syria ... will be elected—not appointed by referendum—and there will have to be at least two candidates for the presidency. [The constitutional referendum was held in February 2012 and passed. Parliamentary elections were held in May 2012.]

• April 6, 2011: Assad government scrapped a ruling that banned teachers from wearing the hijab - a veil that hides a woman's face other than her eyes — in a move seen as an attempt to reach out to conservatives. In a further concession, Assad ordered the shutting down of Casino Damascus.

• April 7, 2011: Assad issued a decree granting nationality to thousands of Kurds living in the eastern al-Hassake region.

• April 22, 2011: Assad issued decrees ending nearly five decades of emergency rule.... It prohibited several civil liberties, such as public gatherings, and authorized the arrest of any individual thought to pose a security threat.

Abolishing state security courts

• April 22, 2011: Assad issued a decree abolishing state security courts. These courts operated independently from the conventional judicial system and were used to prosecute people accused of challenging the government. The verdicts reached in these courts could not be appealed.

Amnesty

• May 31, 2011: Assad issued a decree granting a general amnesty that state media said would cover all political movements, including the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.

• June 20, 2011: Assad issued a decree granting general amnesty for “crimes” committed before that date. A similar decree was issued in January 2012.

Local elections law

• August 4, 2011: Assad issued the local administration law, which gives the local administrations more powers and financial independence.... The electoral process is—for the first time—supervised by judicial committees as opposed to the interior ministry....

5

• August 4, 2011: Assad issued a decree authorizing a multi-party political system in Syria.... Syria has effectively been a one-party state since 1963 and article 8 of the constitution stipulates that the Baath Party is “the leader of state and society.”

• August 28, 2011: Assad approved a new media law that upholds freedom of expression and bans the arrest of journalists.17

There is no doubt that the Syrian government is itself guilty of political repression and excessive violence against the opposition. But this is even more true about most Arab states in the region, most of whom are close allies of the United States. However, once the uprisings began, the Syrian government immediately took measures to correct its excesses.

Yet, while most popular organizations within Syria embraced these efforts by the Syrian government for a peaceful settlement of the conflict, the United States and its allies consistently dismissed them because the U.S. continues to insist that any political dialogue must be preempted by regime change. As State Department spokesperson, Patrick Ventrell, commented recently, “the [political] process has to include Assad leaving....”18 Thus the only choice left for the Syrian people is to submit to Washington’s agenda for their country.

According to a Reuters report, even as recent as February 25th of this year, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid a-Mualem once again announced that “Syria is ready for talks with its armed opponents,” dubbed by Reuters as “the clearest offer yet to negotiate with rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad,” but received “a dismissive response from U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry....”19

Why is Washington insisting on a policy of war instead of a peaceful settlement? Because, as one analyst has correctly put, it cannot dictate its own terms to the present Syrian government, which is “an obstacle to US hegemony in the Middle East....”20

5. Washington’s Real Agenda for Syria

Probably the best description of Washington’s real agenda for Syria and beyond has been given by Noureddin Merdaci in his article entitled, “Road Map Drawn Up by Syrian Traitors to Serve Imperialist, Gulf Monarchies.”21 In this article he exposes how the Obama administration and its proxy states in the region, especially Qatar, have been trying to force the U.S. agenda on their puppet “Syrian opposition” forces in Doha last November:

“... the veil begins to lift on the circumstances of the ‘conclave’ held in Doha in early November, which saw a heterogeneous ‘opposition’—divided, without a program and without perspective— provide itself with a leader, Moez Ahmed al-Khatib, and a ‘coalition.’”

“But to achieve this, according to sources familiar with the matter, the Syrian “opponents” were ordered by Qatar to ‘find’ an agreement, sine qua non, before leaving the room they were provided. This means that the ‘Syrian opposition’ had a gun to its head, forcing it to reach this minimum agreement. Qatari Prime Minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani, took a personal interest in the proceedings....

6

“So, in Doha, it was necessary to ‘unify’ the opposition, whose credibility was placed in question, even by one of its main sponsors, the United States, which has applied its full weight to restore a semblance of consistency and visibility to an opposition created completely by France, Qatar, and the United States in particular, and supported by Turkey.... Doha has been a refocusing of a rebellion that had not been able to achieve the goals ordered by its sponsors.”

But the most revealing part of the article is its description of the list of U.S.-imposed conditions for the future puppet government of Syria:

“In fact, we can better understand the situation when we know the terms of the ‘Doha Protocol,’ a document we have been able to consult, which contains the following 13 points:

1. Syria should reduce the number of soldiers of the Syrian army to 50,000; 2. Syria will assert its right to sovereignty over the Golan only by political means. Both

parties will sign peace agreements under the auspices of the United States and Qatar; 3. Syria must get rid of, under the supervision of the United States, all its chemical and biological weapons and all of its missiles. This operation must be carried out on the

land of Jordan; 4. To cancel any claim of sovereignty over Liwa Iskenderun (Alexandretta) and to

withdraw in favor of Turkey from some border villages inhabited by Turkmens in

‘muhafazahs’ in Aleppo and Idlib; 5. To expel all members of the Workers Party of Kurdistan, and to hand over those

wanted by Turkey. This party should be added to the list of terrorist organizations; 6. To cancel all agreements and contracts signed with Russia and China in the fields of

subsurface drilling and armaments; 7. To allow Qatari gas pipeline passage through the Syrian territory toward Turkey and

then on to Europe; 8. To allow water pipes to pass through the Syrian territory from the Atatürk Dam to

Israel; 9. Qatar and United Arab Emirates pledge to rebuild what has been destroyed by the war

in Syria on the condition that their companies have the exclusive access to contracts

for reconstruction and for exploitation of Syrian oil and gas; 10. To terminate relations with Iran, Russia and China; 11. To break off relations with Hezbollah and with Palestinian resistance movements; 12. The Syrian regime should be Islamic and not Salafi; 13. This agreement will come into effect as soon as power is taken [(Algerian) Editor's

note: by the ‘Opposition’].” As the author correctly observes,

“This is the price of foreign pressures and of resignation and treachery on the part of Arab states. A high price, an exorbitant price, for Syria that persons calling themselves ‘Syrian’ have endorsed. Indeed, this agreement, or rather ‘Protocol,’ is thus the price that the Syrian opposition will have to pay once installed in power in Damascus, as stated in Article 13 of the ‘Doha Agreement.’

7

“In this way, each of the sponsors of the ‘revolt of the Syrian people’ has helped himself according to his own interests and appetite. The United States, by disarming Syria and distancing the nation from its friends; Turkey, by retrieving Syrian villages and modifying the common borders according to its interests; Qatar, by being granted contracts for the ‘reconstruction’ of the country; and Saudi Arabia, by the establishment of an Islamic regime of its devotion.

“This is a virtual castration of Syria, to be stripped of its sovereignty just as Egypt was by the Camp David Agreements in 1979. Actually, it is as if the ‘opposition’—supported at arm’s length by Qatar—was to demand the immediate recognition of Israel, with, however, as in Article 2 of the Doha protocol, a negotiated settlement.

“This is a sharing of Syrian hoard! Nowhere is there any question of democracy, freedom, human rights, building a new Syria in which the Syrians, whatever their ethnicity, religion and belief, enjoy the same rights. Instead, each of the ‘sponsors’ served himself first, taking whatever he wanted....”

6. The Grand Imperialist Strategy for World Domination

It would be a grave mistake to look at the aggression against Syria as an isolated case only aimed at Bashar al-Assad and his government. Demonization of political leaders as a pretext for intervention—as it has been done to Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Panama, Venezuela, Cuba and many other countries—serves a dual purpose for imperialist powers: First, it is used as a means of creating a justification in the public mind in order to pacify all potential opposition to the planned attack on the targeted country; thus promoting the well-known “good against evil” scenario, which has been skillfully used to justify almost all of the imperialistic wars of aggression in the recent past. The case of Syria is but one such example.

But the more important, and deceptive, purpose of such propaganda is to hide the true imperialist motives behind these aggressions and to conceal from the public eye the broader imperialistic project within which such aggressions are planned and, step-by-step, implemented. Understanding the connection between all instances of imperialistic aggression around the world, and overcoming the false perception that each is just an isolated case pertaining to a particular country at any given time, is key for the peace movement if it is to succeed in carrying out a preventive mass mobilization against war and aggression around the world.

A. Project for the New American Century

What we are witnessing in Syria today is no other than another step in the direction of implementation of the imperialist policies developed by the infamous neocons at the Project for the New American Century, and adopted by the Bush Administration after the 2000 presidential elections when the same neocons took direct control of the executive branch of the U.S. government. The objective of these policies, which were developed immediately after the demise of the Soviet Union, and which are now being followed, with small modifications, by the Obama Administration, is to guarantee the absolute hegemony and domination of the United States over the rest of the world and its resources throughout the 21st Century.

8

The new wave of imperialist aggressions that started after 9/11 with the invasion of Afghanistan and continued with the invasion of Iraq, the coup attempt against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the NATO attack on Libya, the ongoing military intervention in Syria, the continuing economic sanction and threats of war against Iran, the drone attacks on Pakistan, and the most recent military interventions in Africa, are all integral parts of this grand imperialistic project now carried out under the guise of the “global war on terror.”

To better understand the strategic objectives of this Project one needs to go no further than the founding Statement of Principles, published in 1997:

“As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

“[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities....

“If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.”22 (emphases added)

— From the Project’s founding Statement of Principles

In explaining the methods of achieving these objectives, especially that of “shaping circumstances before crises emerge,” and “meeting threats before they become dire,” the founders of the Project published a 90-page document in September 2000 (a year before 9/11) entitled “Building America’s Defenses: Strategy, forces and Resources For a New Century,” in which they described the foundations and the main policies of the U.S. military strategy for global domination. It is worth looking at excerpts from this very revealing document.

What follows is a highly condensed version of this 90-page document, which outlines the main strategic policies that need to be followed for a total domination of the world by the United States in the 21st Century:23

REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century

“At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible. There are, however, potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and eager to change it.... Preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself

9

requires a globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future....”

“In broad terms ... [our] defense strategy ... [must be] maintaining U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests....”

“The challenge for the coming century is to preserve and enhance this ‘American peace.’ Yet unless the United States maintains sufficient military strength, this opportunity will be lost.... In particular, ... the United States must:

MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats....

REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.

DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES ... to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world....

CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNA TIONAL COMMONS” OF SP ACE AND “CYBERSPACE,” and pave the way for the creation of ... U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control....”

INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING....” “The true cost of not meeting our defense requirements will be ... the loss of a global security

order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity....”

“But as we have seen over the past decade, there has been no shortage of powers around the world who have taken the collapse of the Soviet empire as an opportunity to expand their own influence and challenge the American-led security order....”

“Today its [the military’s] task is to ... deter the rise of a new great-power competitor; defend key regions of Europe, East Asia and the Middle East; and to preserve American preeminence.... [I]n the new century, the prospect is for a variety of theater wars around the world, against separate and distinct adversaries pursuing separate and distinct goals. During the Cold War, the main venue of superpower rivalry, the strategic “center of gravity,” was in Europe ... [Now the] new strategic center of concern appears to be shifting to East Asia. The missions for America’s armed forces have not diminished so much as shifted. The threats may not be as great, but there are more of them.... Today, that same security can only be acquired at the “retail” level, by deterring or, when needed, by compelling regional foes to act in ways that protect American interests and principles....”

“It is now commonly understood that information and other new technologies ... are creating a dynamic that may threaten America’s ability to exercise its dominant military power. Potential rivals such as China are anxious to exploit these transformational technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate.... If an American peace is to be maintained, and expanded, it must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence....”

10

“Generally, American strategy for the coming decades should seek to consolidate the great victories won in the 20th century, ... maintain stability in the Middle East, while setting the conditions for 21st-century successes, especially in East Asia.... [S]tates seeking to establish regional hegemony continue to probe for the limits of the American security perimeter....”

“[T]he reality of the today’s world is that there is no magic wand with which to eliminate [nuclear] weapons ... and that deterring their use requires a reliable and dominant U.S. nuclear capability.... Nuclear weapons remain a critical component of American military power....

“It addition, there may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep underground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries.... U.S. nuclear superiority is nothing to be ashamed of; rather, it will be an essential element in preserving American leadership....”

“[M]aintaining or restoring a favorable order in vital regions in the world such as Europe, the Middle East and East Asia places a unique responsibility on U.S. armed forces.... [W]ithdrawing from the Balkans would place American leadership in Europe – indeed, the viability of NATO – in question....”

“Further, these constabulary missions are far more complex and likely to generate violence than traditional “peacekeeping” missions. For one, they demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations.... Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance of neutrality; the preponderance of American power is so great and its global interests so wide that it cannot pretend to be indifferent to the political outcome in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf or even when it deploys forces in Africa.... American forces must remain deployed abroad, in large numbers.... Neglect or withdrawal from constabulary missions will ... encourage petty tyrants to defy American interests and ideals. And the failure to prepare for tomorrow’s challenges will ensure that the current Pax Americana comes to an early end....”

“U.S. forces have other vital roles to play in building an enduring American peace. The presence of American forces in critical regions around the world is the visible expression of the extent of America’s status as a superpower.... [I]t will be difficult, if not impossible, to sustain the role of global guarantor without a substantial overseas presence.... Whether established in permanent bases or on rotational deployments, the operations of U.S. and allied forces abroad provide the first line of defense of what may be described as the “American security perimeter....”

“While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.... Across the globe, the trend is for a larger U.S. security perimeter, bringing with it new kinds of missions.... The placement of U.S. bases has yet to reflect these realities ... as the perimeter of U.S. security interests has expanded....”

“[I]t is important that NATO not be replaced by the European Union, leaving the United States without a voice in European security affairs.... In Turkey, Incirlik Air Base ... also needs to be expanded, improved and perhaps supplemented with a new base in eastern Turkey....”

“Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf

11

as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region....”

“The prospect is that East Asia will become an increasingly important region, marked by the rise of Chinese power.... Raising U.S. military strength in East Asia is the key to coping with the rise of China to great-power status.... Indeed, in time, American and allied power in the region may provide a spur to the process of democratization inside China itself.... In sum, it is time to increase the presence of American forces in Southeast Asia. Control of key sea lines of communication, ensuring access to rapidly growing economies, maintaining regional stability while fostering closer ties to fledgling democracies ... are all enduring security interests for America.... For operational as well as political reasons, stationing rapidly mobile U.S. ground and air forces in the region will be required....”

“As a supplement to forces stationed abroad under long-term basing arrangements, the United States should seek to establish a network of “deployment bases” or “forward operating bases” to increase the reach of current and future forces.... Such installations would be a “force multiplier” in power projection operations, as well as help solidify political and security ties with host nations. While it should be a clear U.S. policy that such bases are intended as a supplement to the current overseas base structure, they could also be seen as a precursor to an expanded structure....”

“[T]he value of land power continues to appeal to a global superpower, whose security interests rest upon ... the ability to win wars. While maintaining its combat role, the U.S. Army has acquired new missions in the past decade – most immediately ... defending American interests in the Persian Gulf and Middle East. These new missions will require the continued stationing of U.S. Army units abroad.... [E]lements of U.S. Army Europe should be redeployed to Southeast Europe, while a permanent unit should be based in the Persian Gulf region.... American land power is the essential link in the chain that translates U.S. military supremacy into American geopolitical preeminence....”

“The Air Force presence in the Gulf region is a vital one for U.S. military strategy, and the United States should consider it a de facto permanent presence, even as it seeks ways to lessen Saudi, Kuwaiti and regional concerns about U.S. presence....”

“When their missiles are tipped with warheads carrying nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, even weak regional powers have a credible deterrent, regardless of the balance of conventional forces. That is why, according to the CIA, a number of regimes deeply hostile to America – North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria – “already have or are developing ballistic missiles” that could threaten U.S allies and forces abroad.... Such capabilities pose a grave challenge to the American peace and the military power that preserves that peace. “The ability to control this emerging threat through traditional nonproliferation treaties is limited when the geopolitical and strategic advantages of such weapons are so apparent and so readily acquired....”

“America and its allies ... have become the primary objects of deterrence and it is states like Iraq, Iran and North Korea who most wish to develop deterrent capabilities.... Building an effective, robust, layered, global system of missile defenses is a prerequisite for maintaining American preeminence....”

“The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to

12

undermine American leadership....” And, most importantly, none of these can be done “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event —

like a new Pearl Harbor....” (all emphases added) B. Redrawing the Map of the Middle East

The criminal attacks of September 11, 2001, the “new Pearl Harbor” that they were waiting for, triggered the process of implementation of the grand imperialist strategy as outlined by the Project for the New American Century.

What has been declared as the “global war on terror” is nothing therefore but a cover for a multifaceted deployment of U.S. military forces throughout the world, expansion of the sphere of influence of NATO, and establishment of permanent “forward bases” throughout the world, for the clearly stated purpose of “maintaining U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival,” especially China as the most dangerous emerging rival to the U.S., “and shaping the international security order in line with American interests.” In this context, controlling the oil resources of the Middle East and north Africa, and eliminating all pockets of potential resistance in the region, especially “Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria,” as the main “deterrents” to the U.S. plan, is key to the success of this imperialistic project.

The obvious first target was Iraq, which was invaded in 2003 under the false pretext that it had “weapons of mass destruction.” But even from the outset everybody knew that the main purpose was taking control of the Iraq oil. Yet, oil was not the only objective. In the context of the U.S. global strategic plan for the 21st Century, countries like Iran and Iraq, as “regional powers” that could resist the U.S. domination of the region, must be weakened, subdued, or if necessary, entirely crushed by military force. As Noam Chomsky once jokingly observed, “the U.S. would have ‘liberated’ Iraq even if its main export was pickles and asparagus.” In other words, not only control of oil resources, but complete U.S. military and political control over the whole Middle East is an integral part of its global strategic plan. And this requires redrawing the political map of the Middle East according to this imperialist project.

Hence enter the U.S.-Israeli project for the “New Middle East,” first introduced officially by George Bush’s U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in June 2006, which, according to one researcher, was “in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the ‘Greater Middle East’ .”

“This project, which has been in the planning stages for several years, consists in creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.

“The ‘New Middle East’ project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of “constructive chaos.” This ‘constructive chaos’—which

13

generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region—would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives....

“Anglo-American occupied Iraq, particularly Iraqi Kurdistan, seems to be the preparatory ground for the balkanization (division) and finlandization (pacification) of the Middle East. Already the legislative framework, under the Iraqi Parliament and the name of Iraqi federalization, for the partition of Iraq into three portions is being drawn out.

“Moreover, the Anglo-American military roadmap appears to be vying an entry into Central Asia via the Middle East. The Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are stepping stones for extending U.S. influence into the former Soviet Union and the ex-Soviet Republics of Central Asia....”24

And more importantly, establishing permanent “forward military bases” ever closer to China.

Although this map is not officially sanctioned by the Pentagon, recent U.S. military and political interventions in the region during the past decade clearly demonstrate that it is a logical representation of what Washington and its allies are after. A look at the map reveals several important points:

14

1. Iraq is being de facto partitioned into three separate states, with its oil reserves (which are located in the north and the south) divided between two U.S.-controlled states of “Free Kurdistan” and the “Arab Shia State,” with the oil-less middle part left in the hands of the Sunnis who have been fighting against U.S. Intervention.

2. The same is going to happen to Iran. Iran’s southern province of Khuzistan (where the Iranian oil fields are located) will be carved out and given to the U.S.-controlled “Arab Shia State.” Also, Iran’s northern provinces, which have potential unexplored oil reserves due to a historical agreement with Soviet Russia since Lenin’s time, will be carved out and added to the U.S.-controlled states of Azerbaijan and “Free Kurdistan.”

3. Given the U.S. concerns about the instability of Saudi regime, that country, too, will be divided into several pieces. The oil fields (located on the shores of the Persian Gulf) will be carved out and, again, given to the U.S.-controlled “Arab Shia State.”

4. Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, which are already U.S. proxy states, are left untouched.

5. Northern parts of Syria will be carved out and given to the U.S.-backed “Free Kurdistan.

15

6. On the eastern side, a big chunk of Pakistan, which is already in U.S. cross-hair, and against which the drone attacks have already started, will be carved out and given to the NATO-controlled Afghanistan and the newly-created “Free Baluchistan” (partly carved-out from Iran as well), thus paving the way for the construction of oil and gas pipeline that will connect Central Asian republics to the Indian Ocean.

7. Ironically, Turkey (a member of NATO and a close ally of the United States) will also lose some of its territory to the U.S.-controlled “Free Kurdistan.” Yet, if the plan for the establishment of a new NATO military base in eastern Turkey is implemented, the transfer eastern territories of Turkey to “Free Kurdistan” would make this new state a potential NATO member on the northern borders of Iran.

So, when we talk of oil as the U.S. motivation for invading Iraq and threatening to attack Iran, we must understand that the U.S. is not after oil just for its own domestic use. Rather, and more importantly, it is after controlling the global supply of oil on the whole, especially to its potential rivals like China, Russia, and the European Union, as well as to the emerging economies like India and Brazil. The real plan is to put the U.S. military and NATO in charge of the global supply of oil for everyone.

C. Peak Oil and the Imperialist Resource Wars of the 21st Century

It should be clear by now that Washington’s “global war on terror” and its military interventions in the Middle East and North Africa have nothing to do with fighting terrorism and dictatorship, or defending democracy and human rights, and has everything to do with preparation for the imminent imperialist resource wars of the 21st Century. And to understand the true nature of the pending catastrophe one must understand the phenomenon known as “peak oil.”

It is a well-known fact that our 21st Century world is faced with an ever-deepening shortage of fossil fuels, especially oil and natural gas. With the rapid industrialization and economic growth of countries like China, India and Brazil, with a combined population of over two billion, its is predicted that the global demand for oil will at least double by 2030. This is especially threatening to the United States, which, with its five percent of the population of the world, is consuming about 25 percent of the world oil, almost half of it imported from abroad. This is bound to intensify big-power rivalries over the available sources of oil and other sources of energy for decades to come.

But the increasing demand is only one side of the problem. For a long time now the discussion has been focused on the rapid decline in the global oil production. According to various sources, global oil production has peaked during the first decade of the 21st Century and has started a downward trend since. As early as 2002, Newsweek reported that for every barrel of extracted oil only half a barrel of new oil is discovered.25 It is predicted that the global oil production will be reduced to one-half by 2030 while the global demand will double during the same period. A serious energy shortage is thus looming over the world’s head.

16

Yet, this is not the whole story. There are other changes happening in the global oil market that explain why the imperialist powers are in such a rush to redraw the map of the Middle East by military force.

As the following diagram shows, two parallel events have been and are occurring in the global oil market simultaneously. First is a rapidly growing global demand, combined with a steep decline in global production of oil, which is in itself is a good predictor of emerging imperialist resource wars. The second, which has not been discussed much, but has clearly been in the minds of the planners of the Project for the New American Century and has been the main reason for the imperialist powers’ rapid deployment of forces to the Middle East and North Africa, is the fact that, since 2008, OPEC has become the dominant producer of oil in the world, and will increasingly become the main supplier of oil to the world.

By 2010, OPEC was responsible for supplying half of the world oil, and it is predicted that by 2040 its share in the total supply of oil will exceed 80 percent. What is more, the lion’s share of OPEC’s production by then will be done by the oil producing countries in the Middle East, North Africa, and Venezuela. As early as a few months before the invasion of Iraq, the London Observer reported that the neocons believed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and taking control of Iraqi oil would also pave the way for their “second objective,” namely, “destruction of

17

OPEC.”26 And a few months later, Newsweek declared that we are on the brink of a permanent war with OPEC over oil.27

A look at the list of the OPEC members and their proven oil reserves shows who the main targets of this “permanent war over oil” are going to be have been in the past, and who is going to be in the in the future. Out of OPEC’s 12 member countries, six—Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and United Arab Emirates—are located in the Middle East with combined proven reserves of about 788 billion barrels (70% of total OPEC); four—Libya, Algeria, Nigeria and Angola— are located in Africa with combined proven reserves of 105 billion barrels (less than 10% of total OPEC); and two—Venezuela and Ecuador—are located in Latin America with combined proven reserves of 217 billion barrels (211 billion barrel of it in Venezuela alone, which constitutes about 20% of total OPEC); for a total of 1.11 trillion barrels.

Prior to 9/11, of these OPEC member states all but two in the Middle East (Iran and Iraq) were already under direct control of the United States; all but one in Africa (Libya) were either directly controlled by or were friendly the United States; and in Latin America, Venezuela was the country that resisted the U.S. domination. Since 9/11 and the beginning of the so-called “war on terror,” Iraq and Libya have been attacked, invaded and their governments overthrown; and Venezuela has experienced an unsuccessful U.S.-backed coup attempt against its democratically elected and very popular president, the late Hugo Chavez.

So what is left for the U.S. imperialism to do in order to completely destroy OPEC and secure its absolute control over the global supply of oil, and through it the economies of its rival powers? Crushing the remaining “deterrents” to total U.S. domination: Iran and Venezuela. And that is what is in the works right now.

7. Next Target: Iran

It is, therefore, not a surprise that Iran has been in the U.S. crosshair for a long time. And the invasion of Iraq and the current attack on Syria are just preparatory steps toward an already declared policy of “regime change” in Iran. In fact, Iran has been a target of imperialist powers since its revolution of 1979, which overthrew the puppet regime of the Shah and turned Iran into an independent regional power in the Middle East. Ever since, several attempts have been made by the imperialist powers to bring Iran back to the Western fold, all without much success.

With the increasing power of Iran in the region, it is becoming ever more dangerous “deterrent” to the imperialist geopolitical plan for the “New Middle East,” both militarily and with regard to the politics of oil. Hence, as clearly stated in the Project’s document, “Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy....” (See the excerpts above.)

And all this is now being carried out in the name of forcing Iran to stop developing its nuclear program. Yet, it is apparent to anyone who knows even the slightest about the U.S.-Israeli policy in the Middle East that the objective of both approaches is none other than imposing a pro-West

18

“regime change” in Iran and establishing an imperialist “pax-Americana” on the whole of the region.

So, as the drums of a military strike against Iran are getting louder and louder, the leaders of the United States and Israel, in a good-cop/bad-cop style of approach, are trying to present the U.S. and Israeli public opinion with an apparently “inevitable”—but certainly false—choice. While the “bad-cop” Israel is threatening Iran with an imminent Bush-style “preemptive strike,” the Obama Administration, trying to look like a “good-cop,” is pretending to be “opposed” to such a unilateral military action on the part of Israel, while forcing other governments into taking part in the imposition of devastating economic sanctions on Iran and its people.

In doing so, both the U.S. Administration and the Israeli government are distracting the public eye from several very significant facts:

1. Iran is a non-nuclear weapons state and a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It is under the supervision of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations’ enforcer of the NPT. Iran has repeatedly stated that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and not for military ends. There exists no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. U.S. Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, has himself publicly conceded that, “there is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapon.”

2. Israel is a nuclear-weapons state and an open foe of the Iranian regime, with an estimated 200-400 nuclear weapons. It has refused to join the NPT. There is no UN supervision, let alone control, over its nuclear activities. It has threatened Iran with military attack many times.

3. The United States is a nuclear state with more than 10 thousand nuclear weapons. It has, so far, not allowed any inspection of its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The U.S. is the only nuclear state that has ever used nuclear weapons against other countries (exploded two nuclear bombs on Japan, used uranium-enriched weapons

in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan). U.S. nuclear-equipped forces are currently stationed in and around the Persian Gulf (south of Iran), Turkey and Iraq (west of Iran), and possibly in Afghanistan (east of Iran). The U.S. also has repeatedly threatened Iran with military attack.

4. Iran is surrounded by nuclear forces: U.S. (in Afghanistan), India and Pakistan (to the east); Israel, Iraq and U.S. bases in Turkey (to the west); U.S. nuclear equipped Navy (to the south in the Persian Gulf) and Russia (to the north). Most of these countries and forces are not friendly to Iran. In fact, two of them (U.S. and Israel) have openly threatened Iran with military attack many times. At the same time, let us not forget that the United States, as its military strategy, is reserving its right to the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states (like Iran).

Putting all these facts together, it is not a surprise that Iran is forced to be concerned about is security. Even if we assume that Iran is moving toward developing nuclear weapons (which it claims it is not and there is no evidence for it), what is pushing Iran in that direction? Isn’t it the

19

fact that it is surrounded, and openly threatened, by nuclear states, especially by the U.S. and Israel?

It is absolute hypocrisy that a rogue nuclear state like Israel, and a nuclear superpower like the United States, are claiming to be “concerned” about nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, and using it as a cover to militarily attack or impose devastating economic sanctions on a non-nuclear state and its people.

This hypocrisy became abundantly clear last December when the UN/NPT sponsored Conference for the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free and WMD-free zone in the Middle East was deliberately sabotaged by the United States and Israel and indefinitely postponed. Although no official explanations were given, its has now become clear that the U.S. pushed for the postponement of the Conference due to Israeli’s refusal to participate. Interestingly, Iran had announced its willingness to participate, while the parties “concerned” about “nuclear proliferation” in the Middle East sabotaged it!

Why? Because the issue is not Iran’s nuclear program, and regardless of what Iran does, the goal of forcing a regime change in Iran remains. Iran—like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela and many other “deterrents” to U.S. domination—must be subdued and brought under total control, either politically or militarily, if the ongoing Project for the New American Century is to succeed; if the global supply of oil is to be controlled by the United States and its other imperialist allies; and if the new permanent forward bases toward Russia and China are to be continually built. And all this, as they have already stated, requires conscious creation of “constructive chaos” and instability in the Middle East and the rest of the world.

It is in the context of this grand imperialist strategy that the fate of countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Mali, Venezuela and many other countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America is linked. What we are witnessing in Syria now is nothing but another step toward implementation of this grand imperialist strategy for domination of the 21st Century world. As one analyst has correctly observed: “Obama’s recent strides in Syria end with a logical conclusion: U.S. direct military intervention. The stage is still being set, waiting until optimal conditions are met for a Libyan style U.S./NATO mass-bombing mission to finish off the Syrian government. In the eyes of Obama the resulting disaster will be worth the mess, since a non- compliant regime to the U.S. will have been toppled, thus clearing the path for the long term plan of crushing Iran.”28

8. Why is the Peace Movement Silent about These Blatant Intrigues and Atrocities?

Given all of these facts, one has no choice but be deeply concerned about the lack of outrage and mass mobilization on the part of the peace movement, both in the United States and globally. True, we have issued numerous statements, have signed numerous petitions, have participated in various protests and demonstrations, and even have resorted to civil disobedience tactics. And certainly no one can belittle the millions-strong global demonstrations before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But as we all know, none of these have been successful in stopping imperialist wars, invasions, occupations, coup attempts, political assassinations and other such criminal acts.

20

It is time for the peace movement to take inventory of its past activities, analyze its weaknesses, and develop an effective strategy for preventing all these atrocities and crimes against humanity.

Let us look at our weaknesses:

1. The peace movement, both in the United States and at the global level, is very much fragmented. From the organizational point of view, we have been lacking a coordinated leadership that is capable of producing timely and effective response, nationally and globally.

2. We have also been fragmented politically. Different parts of the movement have been defining their priorities separately, and are mostly acting as single-issue movements, without recognizing the organic links that exist between various issues they are fighting for. One is fighting for wages and workers rights, the other for immigrant rights, the third for the environments, the fourth for peace, the fifth for civil rights, and so on. So when pro-immigrant rights movement organizes and a protest, the rest remain quiet, or when the environmentalists are on the move, the pro-immigrant movement remain silent. It is clear that such single-issue oriented approach, at the expense of a systemic approach, will not get any of us anywhere.

3. Almost all of us are one way or another victims of government propaganda and the corporate media. It is the government and the corporate media that define for us who is a “terrorist,” who is a “dictator,” who is the number one “enemy” and who needs to be attacked immediately. The demonization tactics of the governments and the media have pacified the movement at very critical junctures: Castro, Chavez, Arafat, Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi, Ahmadinejad, now Assad, and the list goes on. Neither all these leaders are equally demons, nor all of them are freedom-loving democrats. All this is beside the point. They are demonized not because the U.S. and other imperialist powers are concerned about “democracy” and “human rights,” but because they are, each for their own reason, standing against imperialist plans or are acting an obstacle to the imperialist plans. Right now, this demonization has been so effective that it has paralyzed the movement in the face of the blatant imperialist intervention in Syria. Probably a similar plan is underway right now in Venezuela to keep Vice President Nicolas Maduro from being elected president, or to demonize him if they fail to do so.

4. Probably the most important weakness is lack of understanding of the nature of imperialism. There is a general tendency in the movement to look at these crimes and atrocities as consequences of either bad policy or incompetent leadership. That is why we tend to blame the likes of Bush and Cheney for the invasion of Iraq, or Obama for the NATO attack on Libya and expansion of drone attacks on Pakistan, Yemen and other countries. This is a totally misguided approach because it ties its hopes and effort to changing the policy or leadership (mostly through electoral process). This path has been tried over and over for decades without any results. The fact of the matter is that imperialism is neither a result of “wrong” policy nor of bad leadership. Imperialism is the

21

very essence of the present system of global capitalism itself and until the movement comes to grips with this undeniable fact it will not be able to stop it. Understanding this is key to understanding the link between all issues that the movement is fighting for and developing an effective strategy for success. Preventing another catastrophic eruption of American militarism depends upon the mass mobilization of the peace movement against the root causes of war and injustice throughout the world: the imperialist agenda for the 21st Century world.

On the positive side, we are witnessing mass uprisings by the oppressed peoples of the world against this imperialist agenda. This is exactly why the “global war on terror” has been declared. The strategy is to label any resistance to the imperialist agenda as a “terrorist movement” and crush it by military force while paralyzing the peace movement with the fear of being identified as supporter of “terrorists” and “tyrants.” But as we have seen the real terrorists and tyrants are the imperialists themselves.

What we need is a peace and justice movement that acts in a coordinated way, not just in response to the imperialist crimes, not just as a reactive force that only protests after the fact, but a peace movement that is proactive, that take preventive measures rather than seeking remedies.

Let us substitute imperialism’s policy of “preemptive military strikes” with the peace movement’s policy of “preemptive peace strikes.” Let us respond not just to wars and invasions after they happen, but to even the smallest preparations that are being made for wars and interventions before they happen.

We need a preventive peace policy if we are to save humanity from total destruction.

1 Jason Ditz, “Definition of ‘Non-Lethal Support’ Being Broadened,” February 26, 2013. 2 February 25, 2013. 3 Francois-Alexandre Roy, “Regime Change in Syria: A True Story,” 4 Ben Schreiner, “Washington’s Strategic Policy Shift on Syria: Edging Closer to Direct Military Intervention?”

Global Research, Feb 28, 2013. 5 June 21, 2012. 6 Bill Van Auken, “Washington Escalates Syrian Bloodbath,” Global Research, March 01, 2013. 7 CBC Radio, Canada, February 18, 2013. 8 Finian Cunningham “West Moves in for Syrian Endgame and War on Iran,” Information Clearing House, December 6, 2012. 9 Noureddine Merdaci, “Road Map Drawn Up by Syrian Traitors to Serve Imperialists, Gulf Monarchies,” Information Clearing

House, December 11, 2012. 10 Francois-Alexandre Roy, “Regime Change in Syria: A True Story,” 11 Ibid. 12 Michael R. Gordon, “U.S. Steps Up Aid to Syrian Opposition, Pledging $60 Million,” New York Times, February 28, 2013. 13 Neil MacFarouhar and Michael R. Gordon, “As Fighting Rages, Clinton Seeks New Syrian Opposition,” New York Times,

October 31, 2012. 14 Shamus Cooke, “Obama’s Agenda: Direct Military Intervention and the Relentless Destruction of Syria as a Nation State,”

Global Research, March 2, 2013. 15 Bill Van Auken, “Washington Escalates Syrian Bloodbath,” Global Research, March 01, 2013. 16 Shamus Cooke, op. cit. 17 Aljazeera web site, February 15, 2012. 18 Patrick Ventrell, Acting Deputy Spokesperson, U.S. State Department Daily Press Briefing, Washington, DC, February 27,

2013. 19 Shamus Cooke, op. cit. 20 Bill Van Auken, op. Cit.

22

21 Noureddine Merdaci, “Road Map Drawn Up by Syrian Traitors to Serve Imperialists, Gulf Monarchies,” Information Clearing House, December 11, 2012.

22 http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm 23 The full text of the document, which includes detailed proposals for the restructuring and redeployment of U.S. military forces

around the globe, can be found at: http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm. 24