Highlights | Calendar | Music | Books | Concerts | Links | Education | Save DC Hospital
Urgent News Updates:
PRESIDENT BUSH MUST CHANGE HIS MIND QUICKLY
Monday, August 13, 2001
I appeal publicly to President George W. Bush, Jr., because, first, he is the President of the U.S.A., and, secondly, unless he uses his powers and influence in an appropriate way, there is presently nothing in sight which will prevent that general, spreading war in the Middle East which would lead, of necessity, to a new Masada, Israel's destruction by its own hand.
The present situation is composed of the following leading elements.
1. Fanatics in leading positions in Israel's Defense Force (IDF), are presently committed to a process including systemic murder of the Palestinian Authority, and to other measures of strategic bridge-burning, along the way toward something like the Thirty Years War Europe suffered during the 1618-1648 interval, not only within the Middle East region, but spreading through Central, East, and Southeast Asia, and beyond.
2. Under such conditions, Israel is now in the process of creating for itself a mire of virtually uncontrollable irregular warfare, a condition soon far beyond the capabilities of Israel's security-forces to control. Thus, Israel would bring about its own destruction, as strategic experts whom I know in Israel itself would agree, with which any rational expert there must concur, by definition.
3. The larger, global strategic danger is, that the targetting of Islam's holy places in Jerusalem, by both certain Israeli fanatics and also masses of Protestant fanatics from the U.S.A., is in the process of transforming a long-standing Israeli-Arab conflict into what geopoliticians Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel P. Huntington have proposed as a spread of a generalized religious warfare throughout much of Asia. The case of the Talibans of Afganistan merely typifies the kinds of religious conflicts, among Muslims as also against them, throughout much of Asia and beyond, unless the kind of lunacy typified by Brzezinski and Sharon its stopped.
4. Unfortunately, while a rumbling anger against Sharon's policies is building up in Europe, only an intervention by the U.S. is capable of stopping the IDF-led war machine now running amok in Israel today. This puts President Bush in the position of being obliged to act counter to those sections of both his own Republican and the Democratic parties, in and outside the Congress, who appear to be literally Hell-bent to have a religious war take over much of this planet during the weeks and months ahead.
5. Therefore, the question is, are there leading advisors to the President, who can persuade him to recognize the danger of not intervening in an effective way to halt the Israeli war-drive now, while that might still be possible?
In the effort to define war-avoiding alternatives, certain additional facts must be borne in mind.
6. The problem inside Israel is not Ariel Sharon. Sharon, on record, has always acted primarily as an extension of the Anglo-American intelligence establishment, not as a religious fanatic. President Bush could ask his father, the former President, or James Baker III, about such important matters of background. Look back to the 1980s, beginning about 1982, when Sharon was operating inside what became known later to the U.S. reading public as the "Iran-Contra" complex. Sharon's tendency is to stay within the bounds of what that section of the Anglo-American intelligence community might consider "acceptable behavior."
The danger is, that those who desire to use present atrocities against the Palestinians as a detonator of the kind of geopolitical religious warfare demanded by H.G. Wells-follower Brzezinski, recognizing Sharon's reluctance to break out of his mold, will use the escalation of the situation as a cover for dumping Sharon, in one way or another, and bringing to the fore those elements of the IDF who are disposed to unleash full-scale religious warfare through most of Asia and beyond.
7. The President of the U.S. has the authority, and prospective collaborators abroad, needed to bring the errant impulses of the IDF to a sudden halt. He is in a position to muster the international support he requires for such an effect. No less dramatic intervention than that, taken suddenly, would be sufficient to ensure that the looming spiral of religious warfare does not erupt very, very soon.
8. The question will be asked: What about those lunatics on both sides of the Congressional aisle, who are so rabidly pressing for Middle East war? Should the President act, he would have little to fear from those elements of the Democratic and Republican parties.
Presently, except for his position as President, he has very little credibility; but, at the moment, the members of the Congress have even less. The collapsing financial system, and the depression conditions now gripping the U.S. increasingly, create an ideal opportunity for a President who understands the implications of his situation.
The discredit of the leaderships of both the Republican and Democratic parties, especially on all leading economic issues, puts the President in the curious position of having both everything and nothing to lose: like the commander who has discreetly arranged an anti-personnel minefield around his own combat forces.
In a combat situation, and the threat of an ominous, unwanted war as a combat situation, the troops will rally to the commander who has led them to safety. Such is the implicit strategic constitutional authority of a sitting U.S. President.
9. The question is, does this President have the combination of advisors and ability to listen to them, which is required of him in this perilous situation? The question is, do we others have the wisdom and will to act on the basis of that set of facts?
``El Presidente Bush Debe Cambiar de Parecer Rápidamente'' en Cuanto al Oriente Medio,
dice Lyndon LaRouche
13 de agosto, 2001
13 de agosto (EIRNS)--El presidente de los Estados Unidos debe cambiar su política hacia el Oriente Medio para evitar que estalle una guerra general, dijo Lyndon LaRouche, aspirante a la candidatura presidencial del Partido Demócrata para 2004, según una declaración que emitió su comité de campaña, LaRouche in 2004, el 13 de agosto, titulada ``El presidente Bush debe cambiar de parecer rápidamente'', y que dice: Le hago un llamado público al presidente George W. Bush porque, primero, él es el presidente de los Estados Unidos de América, y, segundo, porque a menos que él use sus facultades y su influencia de manera apropiada, no hay nada a la vista que pueda evitar que estalle una guerra general en el Oriente Medio, que necesariamente resultaría en una nueva Masada, en la que Israel se destruiría por sus propias manos.
La presente situación se compone de los siguientes elementos principales:
1. Hay fanáticos en posiciones de mando en las Fuerzas de Defensa de Israel que al presente están empeñados en un proceso que incluye el asesinato de la Autoridad Palestina, y otras medidas estratégicas sin posibilidad de retroceso, encaminadas a algo parecido a la Guerra de los Treinta Años que padeció Europa en el intervalo de 1618 a 1648, no sólo en la región del Oriente Medio, sino que se extendería por el centro, el este y el sudeste de Asia, y más allá.
2. En tales condiciones, Israel se encuentra en proceso de crearse a sí mismo una maraña de guerra irregular incontrolable, condición que pronto rebasaría las capacidades de las fuerzas de seguridad de Israel. De esa forma, Israel acarrearía su propia destrucción, una apreciación con la que estarán de acuerdo expertos estratégicos que conozco en el propio Israel, y con la cual cualquier experto racional de ahí tendría que coincidir, por definición.
3. El peligro más grande, global, es que el poner en la mira los lugares sagrados de Islam en Jerusalén--como lo han hecho tanto ciertos fanáticos israelíes, así como numerosos fanáticos protestantes de los Estados Unidos--, yace en el proceso de transformar el conflicto árabe-palestino de larga data, en una guerra religiosa generalizada extendida por gran parte de Asia, como han propuesto los geopolíticos Zbigniew Brzezinski y Samuel P. Huntington. El caso de los talibán en Afganistán es meramente un ejemplo de la suerte de conflictos religiosos que pueden darse entre los musulmanes, y también en su contra, en gran parte de Asia y más allá, a no ser que se le ponga alto al tipo de locura que representan Brzezinski y Sharon.
4. Por desgracia, aunque en Europa retumba una ira creciente contra las medidas de Sharon, sólo una intervención de los EU es capaz de detener la maquinaria de guerra encabezada por las Fuerzas de Defensa israelíes, que actualmente anda suelta en Israel. Esto pone al presidente Bush en la posición de verse obligado a actuar en contra a esas secciones tanto de su propio Partido Republicano, como del Partido Demócrata, dentro y fuera del Congreso de los EU, que ahora parecen literalmente empeñadas en lograr que se ciernan guerras religiosas sobre gran parte de este planeta en las semanas y meses por venir.
5. Por tanto, la pregunta es si entre los principales asesores del Presidente habrá quien pueda persuadirlo a reconocer el peligro de no intervenir de una manera eficaz, para ponerle coto al impulso de guerra israelí ahora, cuando todavía es posible. En el esfuerzo de definir alternativas para evitar una guerra, hay que tener presentes ciertos otros hechos.
6. El problema en Israel no es Ariel Sharon. Sharon, como está documentado, siempre ha actuado principalmente como una extensión del aparato de inteligencia angloamericano, no como un fanático religioso. El presidente Bush podría preguntarle a su padre, el ex presidente Bush, o a James Baker III, sobre tales asuntos importantes de trasfondo. Remóntese a la década de 1980, empezando como en 1982, cuando Sharon funcionaba dentro del complejo que más tarde vino a conocerse entre el público de lectores de los EU, como el asunto de ``Irán y los contra''. La tendencia de Sharon es la de quedarse dentro del marco de lo que esa sección de la inteligencia angloamericana podría considerar como ``comportamiento aceptable''. El peligro es que todos los que desean usar las presentes atrocidades contra los palestinos para detonar la suerte de guerra religiosa geopolítica que exige Brzezinski, el seguidor de H.G. Wells, reconociendo la renuencia de Sharon a romper con el molde, emplearán el recrudecimiento de la situación como cubierta para desahacerse de Sharon, de una forma u otra, y poner en primer plano a esos elementos de las Fuerzas de Defensa de Israel dispuestos a desatar la guerra religiosa total por casi toda Asia y más allá
7. El presidente de los Estados Unidos tiene la autoridad y los colaboradores potenciales en el exterior, necesarios para hacer que se detengan súbitamente los impulsos descarriados de las Fuerzas de Defensa de Israel. Él está en posición de lograr el apoyo internacional que requiere para lograrlo. Ninguna intervención menos drastica, y súbita, será suficiente para asegurar que la oleada de guerra religiosa que se avisora, estalle muy, pero muy, pronto.
8. Se hará la pregunta: ¿Qué de aquellos lunáticos de ambos partidos en el Congreso de los EU, que rabiosamente presionan por una guerra en el Oriente Medio? De actuar el presidente, tendría poco que temer de esos elementos de los partidos Demócrata y Republicano. En estos momentos, salvo su cargo como presidente, Bush goza de poco crédito; pero, en estos momentos, los miembros del Congreso tienen aún menos.
El sistema financiero que se derrumba, y las condiciones de depresión que se exitenden por los EU, cada vez más crean la oportunidad ideal para un presidente que entienda lo que la situación implica.
El descredito de la dirigencia de los partidos Demócrata y Republicano, especialmente en lo que atañe a las principales cuestiones económicas, pone al Presidente en la curiosa situación de que tiene todo que ganar y nada que perder, como el comandante que discretamente ha sembrado de minas el campo alrededor de sus propias fuerzas de combate.
En una situación de combate, y la amenaza de una ominosa guerra indeseada es una situación de combate, las tropas cerrarán filas en torno al comandante que los ponga a salvo. Tal es la autoridad constitucional estratégica implícita de un presidente de los EU en funciones.
9. La pregunta es: ¿Tiene este presidente la combinación de asesores y la capacidad de hacerles caso, como requiere de él esta peligrosa situación? La pregunta es: ¿tienen los otros la prudencia y la voluntad de actuar en base a este conjunto de hechos?
Stop That War Now!
(8-2-01)
This statement was issued by Lyndon LaRouche on August 2.
The danger grows rapidly, that Israel will proceed with its indicated intent to go beyond its presently ongoing campaign of systematic murders, to full-scale invasion of the so-called "Area A" territories presently under titular control of the Palestinian authorities. Under this condition, the U.S. and other governments must take effective forms of immediate emergency actions to chill the Israeli government into a state of self-restraint.
President George W. Bush has the means to conduct the international initiative which would bring this about; he should deploy his authority and resources to do so with finality.
Such a concert among governments must act on the basis of foreknowledge of the consequences of their failure to stop the Israeli avalanche of war now, before it is too late to prevent a generalized, spreading state of religious warfare through much of Eurasia and beyond. The murder campaign being conducted by the Sharon government is already a clear violation of the prohibition against war crimes, adopted at the post-World War II Nuremberg tribunal. However, the fact to be emphasized, is that those actions are not only criminal, but, worse, are causing the present government of Israel to slide deeper and deeper into the criminal state of mind in which it will become more and more inclined to perpetrate, or to provoke even worse atrocities against humanity, over ever wider areas.
It must be recognized, that the true authors of this warfare are neither Israelis nor Arabs, but those co-thinkers of the Brzezinski-Huntington doctrine who desire an Israel-sparked launching of generalized religious warfare, as a way of disrupting present trends toward economic cooperation in Eurasia. Nonetheless, although those are ultimately the real criminals in this situation, we must act to prevent the Israeli spark from being used to ignite the oil of general religious warfare.
The U.S.A. and its partners have the means to bring the Israeli war to a halt now. Later, once the holocaust of "religious war" is ignited at the Dome of the Rock, it may be too late for civilization for some decades yet to come.
¡Paren esa guerra ahora mismo!
por Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
Jueves 2 de agosto de 2001
Crece rápidamente el peligro de que Israel lleve adelante su intención expresa de pasar de su campaña presente de asesinatos sistemáticos a la completa invasión del territorio de la denominada "Zona A", actualmente bajo el gobierno titular de las autoridades palestinas. En estas circunstancias, el gobierno de los Estados Unidos, entre otros, debe tomar formas eficaces de acciones de urgencia inmediatas para enfriar al gobierno israelí lo bastante para que se refrene.
El presidente George Bush tiene los medios para conducir la iniciativa internacional que produzca este resultado; Bush debe ejercer su autoridad y recursos para obtener eso de modo definitivo.
Semejante concierto de gobiernos debe obrar con base en la presciencia de las consecuencias de que no le pongan alto ahora mismo a la avalancha bélica israelí, antes de que sea demasiado tarde para evitar un estado generalizado y creciente de guerra religiosa en gran parte de Eurasia y otras regiones. La campaña de asesinatos que conduce el gobierno de Sharon es ya una violación patente de la prohibición de los crímenes de guerra adoptada en el tribunal de Nuremberg después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Sin embargo, lo que hay que subrayar es que esas acciones no sólo son criminales, sino que, cosa aún peor, llevan al actual gobierno de Israel a hundirse en el estado mental criminal en el que se verá más y más inclinado a perpetrar o provocar atrocidades peores en contra de la humanidad en zonas cada vez más amplias.
Se debe reconocer que los verdaderos autores de esta guerra no son ni los israelíes ni los árabes, sino los correligionarios de la doctrina Brzezinski-Huntington que desean una guerra religiosa generalizada, desatada por Israel, como una manera de desarticular las tendencias presentes a la cooperación económica en Eurasia. Pero, aunque todos esos sean a fin de cuentas los verdaderos criminales en esta situación, debemos obrar para evitar que la chispa israelí se use para encender la gasolina de la guerra religiosa general.
Los Estados Unidos y sus socios tienen los medios para ponerle alto ahora mismo a la guerra israelí. Más adelante, una vez que el holocausto de la "guerra religiosa" se encienda en el Domo de la Roca, quizá sea demasiado tarde para la civilización por varias décadas.
A POST-SHARON NUCLEAR
ARMAGEDDON PLOT? (7-22-01)
by Jeffrey Steinberg
JULY 22, 2001-- Lyndon LaRouche has issued a new warning: Some powerful desperadoes within very influential Anglo-American circles, now appear to be planning a detonator for a nuclear war within the entire Middle East region, and beyond. He warns, that, in short, these circles might choose to have Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon assassinated, thus turning him into the allegedly martyred victim of Islamic assassination, his death the pretext for either nuclear, or similar reprisals against such targets as Baghdad, Damascus, and Tehran.
The earlier EIR warning posted on July 10, that Prime Minister Sharon was operating on a calculated escalation to Mideast war, relying on Hamas terrorism as a tool of that policy, was echoed in the world's media in the days following; but, so far, without signs of comprehension of the longer-range motives of the higher-level, not necessarily Zionist circles encouraging Sharon, and also perhaps planning his early martyrdom. The threat of such developments not only exists as plausible, but the danger is increasing. LaRouche poses the question: Exactly how plausible is such a scenario for the near term?
One Likely Scenario
At the present time, Israel is embarked on a count-down toward a general attempt to expel the Palestinians into nearby Jordan, with accompanying measures intended to topple the Jordanian monarchy and terrify the neighboring nations into submission to a full-scale realization of the goal of Vladimir Jabotinsky's followers: "Eretz Israel" as a leading nuclear-weapons power.
As LaRouche has emphasized, in the medium term, Israel would be ruined and ultimately defeated by the state of irregular warfare it thus creates throughout the region. Nonetheless, the fanatics in Israel, who currently control the majority, are determined to go down that road now. At this point, those fanatics have support for this from certain circles in London and the U.S.A. At the point at which such a "war" is launched on a fuller scale by Israel, the pre-conditions for the orchestrated martyrdom of Sharon are ripe.
In the case of a prevailing belief in Israel, that Sharon had been martyred by complicity of some Islamic states of the region, terrible exemplary reprisals would be taken rather promptly by the band of howling, wild-eyed fanatics who had just buried Sharon. Nuclear, or similar attacks on population-centers, such as Damascus, Baghdad, and Tehran, are currently pre-indicated targets for such actions.
The obvious weapons for this attack are conventional nuclear warheads, but we must presume that the Israeli arsenal features electromagnetic-pulse-effect weapons as well. Politically, the latter weapons, if available, would be the Israeli command's first choice. Nonetheless, such weapons, or chemical-biological substitutes, would deliver a global political shock, like that produced by conventional nuclear weapons, to the entire structure of the post-1962 global arms-control arrangements and associated mythologies. Such a state of affairs is not a place to which a living Sharon would wish to go. He might be wicked enough, but not stupid enough. Only the most fanatical of religious nuts would go to such levels. Why, then, would anyone in Washington or London wish to bring such lunatics into power?
LaRouche describes Sharon as like an organized-crime gangster, an evil, calculating figure, who, like Adolf Hitler, would go to almost any limit, if he thought he could bluff the world into tolerating his actions. However, Sharon is also a very practical sort of organized-crime type, who would balk at the insanity of using Israel's well-known nuclear weapons arsenal to achieve his present, regionally-bounded objectives of a Greater Israel state. Sharon may be mad in his own way, but, on the record of his past performance, he is the kind of ruthless madman who would operate within certain bounds, bounds which the religious fanatics behind him, are not likely to tolerate.
LaRouche has warned repeatedly, that Sharon's quality of feral prudence is not to be expected from among the wild-eyed fanatics likely to take command of Israel's nuclear arsenal on the pretext of Sharon's assassination. Behind the scenes, among those high-level Anglo-American geopolitical circles who developed the RAND Corporation's "nuclear chicken-game" scenario for the Middle East, decades ago, there are those who could, and would use the kind of Israeli "Masada complex" desperadoes inclined to take nuclear reprisals against capitals of nearby Islamic states. The only plausible basis for a "strategic nuclear chicken-game" scenario is religious warfare.
Sharon would not go that far, without a credible threat of strategic attack from Arab states. Therefore, if one intended Israel to launch such attacks, it would be necessary to replace Sharon, and replace him in a way which would ensure bringing into power the types behind the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin. The only motive for doing that, would be to detonate general religious war throughout most of Asia, which only an unprovoked nuclear, or similar form of assault by Israel would be likely to bring about.
Who would wish to do such a thing?
Why Sharon's Masters Consider Him Expendable
The obvious question is: Why would those same high-level circles which have been using Sharon until now, intend to have him play an early role as a martyr of what would be an allegedly Islamic assassination plotted in centers such as Damascus, Baghdad, and Tehran?
Enter exemplary lackey-like figures such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel P.Huntington, Madeleine Albright, her father, Josef Korbel, and, presumably also President Doubleyou's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. As Albright has bragged publicly, she and her father have based their careers on adherence to the ideas of the notorious H.G. Wells of The Open Conspiracy notoriety. As Secretary of State, Albright acted according to that dogma, as she bragged of this on one public occasion, in 1999. Brzezinski and Kissinger, whose careers were shaped by the direction of Nashville Agrarian neo-Confederate William Yandell Elliot, represent the same "geopolitical" ideology. These public figures essentially echo the higher circles by whom they are deployed.
Brzezinski is merely typical of the mental state of those circles whose logic would impel them to exploit an assassination of an Ariel Sharon as a detonator for what Brzezinski confederate Samuel P. Huntington has proposed to unleash upon all Eurasia as a "Clash of Civilizations" (Samuel P. Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations?" Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993).
Brzezinski's consistent passion, since his role as National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter, has been his determination to use ethnic and religious conflicts in Asia, such as those deployed then, and now, from Afghanistan, to undermine and obliterate any political challenge to the world supremacy of Anglo-American world power. The Osama bin Laden problem of today is nothing other than a strategic outgrowth of what Brzezinski, and later Vice-President Bush and his British cronies conducted in Afghanistan back during the late 1970s and 1980s.
Echoes of such desperation-driven views, genetically akin to the widely publicized geopolitical passions of Brzezinski and Huntington, are to be read in Henry Kissinger's newly-issued book, reviewed in this issue (Does America Need a Foreign Policy? New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001), and in Zbigniew Brzezinski's own series of shrill attacks on the new China-Russia friendship treaty. The presently onrushing collapse of the world's present monetary and financial system takes such strategic speculations as theirs out of the policy think-tank board-rooms, and sets them into motion in real life, with real forces.
In former times, after the two world wars of the past century, we became accustomed to speak of "The Guns of August," the month when pending world wars tended to erupt. Now, as then, what inflames the passions of Brzezinski, Huntington, Kissinger, and similar types, is the looming threat of a general collapse of the world's present monetary and financial system. Then, as now, the drive toward war was motivated by the determination of the Anglo-American financier interest, to prevent the kind of economic and related cooperation throughout continental Eurasia typified by scientist D.I. Mendeleyev's development of the Trans-Siberian Railroad.
To these circles, the "geopolitical threat" represented by Eurasian infrastructure corridor development, pivoted on an evolving Russia-China-India cooperation, as elaborated by Mr. LaRouche, could warrant unleashing the kind of global conflagration that only a post-Sharon Mideast nuclear conflict would provide.
The Threat Assessed
As we see in the present deployment of the Osama bin Laden who was created for the Afghan war launched under Brzezinski's stint as National Security Adviser, the objective presented by Brzezinski side-kick Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations," is to drive the Islamic world into a state of permanent homicidal rage against the rest of Eurasia. In all of ancient, medieval, and modern history, the only way in which such a permanent state of warfare can be sustained, is the kind of religious, or related ethnic warfare from which modern Europe freed itself by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, a Treaty which Kissinger, for example, opposes as a model policy for the Middle East today.
As we should recall, when Commander Wallenstein recognized that the religious war launched in 1618 must be brought to a peaceful conclusion, hopefully through negotiations with Gustavus Adolphus, Wallenstein was assassinated by the supporters of the continuation of that war, and the war continued for nearly two more decades as a result of that killing. Former Kissinger crony Sharon exhibits none of the relatively commendable qualities of a Wallenstein, but, he, too, would be inclined, even for purely practical reasons, to seek an honorable peace with Israel's Arab neighbors, if circumstances pressed him to the wall to do so.
The point is, the spirit of the murderers of Wallenstein live on today, and there are Kissingers who oppose the Peace of Westphalia, still today. Only by exposing the risk of the assassination of Sharon, are we likely to succeed in preventing it, by discrediting the myth of Sharon's martyrdom in advance.
The Schiller Institute
PO BOX 20244
Washington, DC 20041-0244
703-297-8368
Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join
Highlights | Calendar | Music | Books | Concerts | Links | Education | Save DC Hospital
Copyright Schiller Institute, Inc. 2001. All Rights Reserved.