The ideological pretext for 9/11

[iro]

Hello all, i have stumbled onto this site thanks to a link from a friend. My main background in this life is concerned in working in the field of academic research and study at a uk university.

i have pasted below a very short summary of my research on 9/11. It serves well as a 'where i am currently' piece. I can't really release any of my more original work for plagiarism and copyright reasons until i publish it, in which case i will give it out freely.

steve


The ideological pretext for 9/11

Zibignew Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard (1997):

The main theme of the book was building up armaments to reorient america’s strategic position to encompass new conquest and secure resources at the expense of others. In academic speak this kind of approach is called ‘realism’… you do what you must do as others will inevitably be trying to do the same due to a lack of an international government to stop them…so reluctance to act is weakness.
‘The US strategic aim is to seek hegemony in the whole world and it cannot tolerate the appearance of any big power that will constitute a threat to its leading position p.169

The US is currently the worlds indespensible leading nation. There is no chance of a challenger in the next generation…at least 20 years and the only candidate is China…which is far from ready and in serious shortfall of resources and infrastructure and riddled with political instability...so an ememy must be created to justify keeping america at the top of her military might and spending.

3 Things destroyed Rome
1) Cultural Decay
2) Political Division
3) Financial Inflation

What makes the US a superpower? A combination of 4 decisive domains:
1) Military
2) Economic
3) Technology
4) Culturally

The 3 Grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy to ensure the US does not succumb to Rome'f fate are;
‘To prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together’ p.40
that means ‘the most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the US from Eurasia’ p.198

The Eurasian landmass or ‘the eurasian balkans’, stretching from Israel in the west, to Pakistan in the east; to Saudi Arabia in the south and the caucauss area in the north, is the theatre where the future of Americas Foreign policy will be centred. Bear in mind this was written in 1997. 4 years before the events that unfolded

Now here’s the crunch:
As the US becomes increasingly divided and multicultural ‘it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on Foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat’ p.211 ...a threat certainly arrived 4 years later..

For Zbig, the US is Machiavelli’s Prince, founding a world republic (a New World Order) through being the bad guy for a little while because through foresight and greatness they have recognized the end justifies the means. Terrorism and fear are employed as a necessary evil to reach their utopian elitist goal.

Now, lets develop this a little

Henry Kissinger writing in 'Does America need a Foreign Policy' 2001 (before 9/11) mentioned that in the previous 3 presidential elections before and including 2000 foreign policy had never once been mentioned in any context..

It was clear that the domestic agenda was focused (in the peoples eyes) on other issues. Foreign policy and war etc... was not considered a priority. It took 9/11 for this to change and change it did.

The Project for the New American Century or PNAC (2000) mentions the same issues... the flow of money, support and resources is going away from military planning and expeditions. America was beginning to look to other things, of course a 'new pearl harbour' 'event would be needed to correct this as the PNAC crowd wanted to see the US engaged in multiple token wars to project its might and secure the global future being sheperded under the american thumb.


In an excellent article in 2002 'drafting a plan for global dominance' (taken from 'Tell Me No Lies' by John Pilger 2004) David Armstrong traces the genesis of this plan to reorient US defence strategy all the way back to around 1990 during the Bush 1 administration. Cheyney emerges as the real strategist willing the US to 'not be more powerful, or most powerful, but that it must be absolutely powerful. The plan is for the US to rule the world. The overt theme is unilateralism, but it is ultimately a story of domination'
'The plan was to ensure that nothing got in the way of America's dominance of the strategic world, its resources and politics' p.517
Colin Powell is quoted as saying the US should be 'the bully on the block' of the international community...nice!

It took these neocon minions the best part of eleven years to perfect their design for focused military spending and expansion overseas. It was only possible after 9/11. Even though they were in power already, the congress was blocking all their attempts to hike the military spending upwards, they needed that fear factor..and they got it.


so what has happened since 9/11? arguably the 2 most important developments are the Patriot Act and the Pre-emptive War strategy (the Bush Doctrine) announced in 2002. I am not concerned with the former as domestic & constitutional American issues are not areas of my research. but the latter is very central to my work.

The doctrine of declaring war on anyone who may in the future possess the means to threaten you is both illegal, immoral and irrational, and it is most importantly NOT pre-emptive. It is PREVENTATIVE war. Preemptive war is knocking bombers out of the sky before they fire on you. this is a much bigger development.

Article 51 of the UN constitution (which the US is still bound to) makes this preventative war 100% illegal. In some cases preemptive strikes are warranted, but a strike on any other country with no dierct and present danger is an impediment on their sovereignty. The US has sidestepped this (illegally) by reinterpreting their own sovereignty and adapting the definition of terrorists to include not just individuals or organisations, but whole COUNTRIES.

This is the death of the international system, to be replaced with a US law of the jungle...and when that burns out i suppose we will have order from chaos and march onwards to Bush 1's New World Order.

In 2003 Noam Chomsky published his most biting work since the 70's Hegemony or Survival, on american foreign policy

In that work he identified a classification for pre-emptive (or more aptly preventative) strikes on countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq

1) It must be virtually defenseless
2) It must be important enough to be worth the trouble (propaganda, oil..)
3) There must be a way to portray it as the ultimate evil and an imminent threat to our survival.

all this adds up to target 'rouge states' (those who are not fully subordinate to the globalised, liberalised world order) embarking on massive armament programs - nuclear in some instances (N.Korea, Pakistan. Iran etc...) and contributing to a new multipolarity that is dangerously unstable...the chaos will follow. The US is knowingly polarising the world and fulfilling its desire for multi theatre war and worldwide restructuring around the threat of force.

(i wasn't sure where to put this article..not familiar with the moderation level of this place..)