- Jane's Defense Weekly reported this week that the US
has put out a call for bids to construct a new military base for Israel
in the central part of the country. One might well ask, why isn t Israel
building its own military base? I suspect that we are witnessing the preliminary
implementation of a coming peace deal between the PLO and Israel. Continuing
the tradition of expecting Israel to trade "land for peace,"
the current peace proposal requires Israel not only to cede the majority
of the West Bank occupied territories, including much of the critical
water supply so essential to Israeli agriculture, but also to abandon several
strategic military bases and some settlements as well. The US has offered
in the past to step in and build new bases to replace those that must be
given up. This current move to begin building one such base may well be
related to US knowledge that an eventual deal is inevitable and the content
predetermined.
-
- These globalist manipulators of Middle Eastern affairs
are obviously intent on making up for lost time because of Arafat's unexpected
refusal to go through with the former "peace process," which
had been an almost total sellout of the Israeli position by Ehud Barak,
the previous Israeli Prime Minister. The only thing that keeps Barak s
successor, Ariel Sharon from consummating what his NWO handlers have already
brokered is Sharon s need to maintain the illusion that he is a "right-wing
hardliner." He will continue his limited, but ineffective, use of
military force against the Palestinian Authority until the international
Powers That Be (PTB) can either bring Arafat around to an agreement or
replace him. The Israeli and Arab peoples resistance to the peace process
also needs to be undermined through continued bloodshed and economic suffering.
-
- Both Arab and Israeli economies are suffering from disrupted
labor supplies, diminished tourism and the high cost of military action.
The US Congress has voted to supplement Israel s aid package to compensate
for the current military drain on the budget, and one or two Arab nations
are continuing to bail out Arafat, while keeping him on a short leash
financially. For a look at'some well done maps that detail the situation
on the ground in Israel, vis-à-vis water, settlements, and strategic
position go to the following URL: http://www.d-n-i.net/a_aqsa_intifada/index.htm.
The commentary isn t very good, but the maps are great.
-
- In other news, it is noteworthy that Egypt, which receives
an annual $1.5 billion aid package equal to Israel s (the US version of
"even-handedness"), has begun to switch to Russia for a large
part of its future military procurement. After the Camp David accords,
the US began to supply Egypt with equipment comparable to Israel, claiming
to balance the military potential for both sides of the conflict. This
was also done to wean Egypt from the Soviet Bloc which had been Egypt's
primary source of supply. The equipment'sold to both countries was always
less than top-of-the-line US technology. Israel has compensated for this
by making numerous technical upgrades--some with US permission and some
without. Egypt, on the other hand, has not had the technological expertise
to do the same level of upgrades. Egypt's sudden shift back to the Russian
supply line is, in my opinion, another harbinger of a broad Middle East
war scheduled for 3 or 4 years in the future. Egypt knows that after the
war begins, it will be cut off from parts and resupply by the US, so it
is switching back to Russian armament in order to ensure a supply of spare
parts during the coming war. The planned future Arab attack on Israel
will be precipitated by a large scale missile attack on Israel, followed
by a conventional invasion. One of the objectives for the ongoing "peace"
negotiations is to get the Israeli military to abandon its strategic bases
on the high ground and reposition to more vulnerable positions on the
coastal plain.
-
-
- FACADE OF DEMOCRACY IN RUSSIA CONTINUES TO UNRAVEL
-
- The American Foreign Policy Council (www.afpc.org) warned
in its Russian Reform Monitor that "The 'Edinstvo' (Unity) faction
of the Duma, the main pro-Putin force in the parliament, has announced
its merger with the Fatherland-All Russia (OVR) coalition headed by former
Primer Minister Evgenii Primakov and Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov."
The new jumbo party will have 132 seats in the 450-member Duma. What is
noteworthy and dangerous about this union is that the Fatherland-All Russia
coalition was reported to be Putin s major "centrist" opposition.
Apparently, opposition parties are opposed to Putin in name only.
-
- All the major players in Putin s party and most other
parties in the Russian Duma are "former" Communists who still
rotate in and out of high government position. Many, like Putin, are still
active in the shadowy world of Russia s security services, where real
power in Russia is enforced. They feign being enemies of the "radical
nationalists" on the "right" as well as the Communists
on the left. Of course, left and right means relatively little in Russia
anymore. The so-called "right-wing" parties pushing for "reform"
don t even come close to approximating true free market reform. While
there exists a certain level of political competition in Russia, it is
stage managed for Western consumption. Anyone who gets too far out of
line, or who becomes a threat to Putin, is removed. It's hardly a democracy.
The supposed legal prosecution of the powerful Russian Mafia leaders like
Berezovsky and Guzinski is merely for show. Putin was selected to replace
Boris Yeltsin by these same Mafia leaders--who are the real power in Russia
today.
-
-
- GRAVE DOUBTS ABOUT THE BUSH ABM PROPOSALS
-
-
- After a long, drawn out description of the tension and
distrust between the US and Russia during the Cold War, President Bush,
in a major policy speech this week to the National Defense University,
then launched into a Pollyanna view of the current'strategic situation
vis-à-vis Russia: [my comments in brackets].
-
- "Today the sun comes up on a vastly different world.
The wall is gone, and so is the Soviet Union. [Except for three countries
in Eastern Europe, the old Soviet Union is still very much intact and
ruled by Russia. It is euphemistically called the Confederation of Independent'states.]
Today's Russia is not yesterday's Soviet Union [only in superficial appearances--all
the controls and powers of oppression are still in place]. Its government
is no longer Communist [absolutely false]. Its president is elected [but
the system is completely rigged to produce a predictable outcome]. Today's
Russia is not our enemy [Then why are they building new missiles aimed
at the US and why does the Russian military begin each military exercise
with a simulated nuclear "first'strike" on America?], but a
country in transition, with an opportunity to emerge as a great [predatory]
nation, democratic, at peace with itself and its neighbors [tell that
to Chechnya]. The Iron Curtain no longer exists. Poland, Hungary and the
Czech Republic are free nations [but controlled by governments with secret
ties to Moscow], and they are now our allies in NATO, together with a
reunited Germany."
-
- When we have a president this naive or this disingenuous,
one cannot have any confidence in his stated intentions to defend this
nation, let alone to build a viable National Missile Defense (NMD) system.
Of course, Bush s proposal, if sincere, is a huge improvement over the
token 100 interceptor system proposed by Bill Clinton (begrudgingly to
a Republican Congress). Bush is correctly focusing on a system that will
be mobile and deployable outside the US where ABMs can intercept ICBMs
in their upward trajectory, or boost phase, prior to warhead separation.
Sadly, he is still going to throw a few billion at the unworkable fixed-base
interceptors that will attempt to hit incoming warheads with too few interceptors
equipped with no explosive warheads. The Pentagon is proposing modifying
the potent Aegis ship-board missile system to act as a worldwide ABM platform.
This latter proposal scares the hell out of the Russians and the Chinese
because it directly impinges upon their ability and intention to begin
the next war with a pre-emptive nuclear first'strike against the American
military. The Bush administration continues to assure these two evil empires
that the NMD is not intended to threaten Russia or China--but neither
nation can believe that the US is this stupid or this naive. They assume
the US must be cheating, just like they are.
-
- But it is the second part of Bush s proposal that is
most ominous: a continuation of the suicidal disarmament begun under Bill
Clinton. While Bush refused to give any numbers in his speech, knowledgeable
sources in the Pentagon say the administration is telling the Russians
the US is willing to unilaterally reduce its nuclear warhead stockpile
to 2,500. That's a deeper cut than Clinton could ever have pushed through
Congress--and now a Republican president will push it through with scant
opposition.
-
- Let me put all of this in the context of timing and things
look even worse. All of Bush s disarmament proposals take place unilaterally
(without any corresponding compliance by Russia or China) before 2004.
None of the proposed NMD or deployment of significant new weapons systems
comes into play until after 2005. This leaves a huge window of opportunity
for the Russia/Chinese axis to strike during the one or two year time
period when our offensive capabilities are lowest and our defenses are
not yet ready.
-
- As if to justify this unilateral gesture of radical disarmament,
Bush claimed that "to maintain peace, to protect our own citizens
and our own allies and friends, we must'seek security based on more than
the grim premise that we can destroy those who seek to destroy us."
Now, let's see if I understand this increased security Bush is talking
about. First, we propose building a limited ABM system that can t possibly
be deployed before 2005. Meanwhile, before this system of limited protection
is in place, we dismantle our remaining heavy ICBMs (the MX "Peacekeeper")
in 2003 so that we have no nuclear missile capable of deep penetration
of hardened targets. In addition, we strip all our existing cruise missiles
of their nuclear warheads, and we downsize our stockpile of nuclear warheads
to 2,500. Second, we continue to rely upon the forces of a small quantity
of high tech bombers and naval vessels rather than rebuild a true 2-ocean
navy with corresponding army and air forces. Lastly, Bush keeps in place
the suicidal Presidential Decision Directive (PDD-60), implemented by Bill
Clinton, that instructs our military to absorb a nuclear first'strike
and NOT launch on warning. I m a former Marine officer and trained in
military strategy. I don t'see any increased deterrence with this scheme.
In fact, I don t even see comparable deterrence.
-
- For those of you who have read my "Strategic Analysis
of the Coming Decade" (front page blue banner on my website: http://www.joelskousen.com)
you will remember that I have predicted that the Russians will strike prior
to the deployment of a viable ABM system. They cannot take the chance that
their prime nuclear advantage over the US will be nullified or degraded
by a missile defense. Given my assumption that the globalists are intending
to use war to accelerate and finalize the implementation of the New World
Order, I am suspicious that this ABM system proposal (if it ever is intended
for deployment) is meant primarily to force Russia into a more predictable
timetable for the initiation of hostilities. There is some doubt about
whether our government is serious about defending America. Anonymous sources
within the defense industry, working on the current ABM system, complain
that they never see the billions of dollars that are supposedly being
spent on this system. Perhaps the discrepancy can be explained by the
common practice of siphoning off excess profits into other secret "black
budget" weaponry which the PTB don t want Congress to know about.
-
- Across the board, there seems to be a sense of urgency
and movement among the globalists. The EU is pushing harder for integration
and is running into increased opposition, judging by the negative reaction
to Germany s recent restructuring proposals. The globalist leaders in
America are pushing hard for a fast track agenda for the implementation
of our own version of the EU in this hemisphere--the so-called Free Trade
Area of the Americas (FTAA) as detailed in last week s brief. Despite
the appearance of unity, there has been and will be much resistance to
a full merger into global or even regional government. Sovereignty issues
are dear to most Americans who understand the Constitution. It is my belief
that those driving this global merger don t have an unlimited time to
accomplish their goals. War is becoming the option of choice. Thus, despite
the rhetoric about peace and security, I have an intense feeling that
these NMD proposals are not intended to be in place in time to deter the
next war.
-
- MainPage
http://www.rense.com
-
-
-
- This
Site Served by TheHostPros
|