- Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, famous for
defeating Napoleon's Grande Armee at Waterloo, once said "I've spent
my entire life trying to discover what the fellow on the other side of
the hill was up to."
-
- And so it is with intelligence gathering and analysis.
As a former intel analyst, I've spent many years on various missions beginning
in the mid-1980s and going beyond Desert Storm taking pieces of the "global
threat puzzle" and trying to fit the pieces together to discover what
the "other fellow" was up to, and what he would do next.
-
- In the past two decades I have witnessed a series of
events that are extremely disturbing. Events, that if put together as pieces
of a puzzle, seem to form a picture that is most disturbing-and even terrifying.
Taken alone, they mean little. But taken in whole, the mosaic forms more
than just a pattern-one that is planned, mission-oriented, and taking place
almost as if there were a list of events that must occur to accomplish
the final mission.
-
- The "final mission" is two-fold: destruction
of nation-states, and establishment of a New Age global-socialist New World
Order.
-
- For those who think this is "conspiracy theory,"
or simply fear-factor-fiction, let me ask this: Do you think the US Constitution
is intact, and is this the same country as it was fifty years ago? If not,
why not? And what and who caused the change?
-
- Let's all play intelligence analyst. We'll do this by
examining the reports, putting the pieces on the wall and seeing what kind
of picture it forms. Here are the clues:
-
- At the end of World War I, a new idea was born that national
governments could not be trusted to govern their indigenous populations
in an effective manner, and help maintain international peace. Instead,
due to the carnage of World War I-the Great War-national governments should
become subservient to a global entity. This entity was formed and became
the League of Nations. However, the world and most countries were not ready
for such a "super-government" and refused to get on board. The
globalists were furious, but did not give up.
-
- In 1945, when World War II ended, a private "club"
called the Council on Foreign Relations, which is not part of any government
agency, but instead is the American faction of the Royal Society of International
Affairs in London, was instrumental in creating a new globalist organization
called the United Nations. This body's mission was to slowly reduce the
authority of national governments and replace them with a world council
of representatives, none of which were elected, and none of which were
patriotic nationalists. Their mission was to establish a world government
in which other nations were simply nation states in their "New World
Order."
-
- In 1950 two wars broke out in Asia: the Korean war and
the French Indochina war. During these "conflicts" the French,
who attempted to retain their pre-war colony, were defeated by Ho Chi Minh's
Vietminh guerrillas (by using US supplied equipment and weapons provided
from the surplus stock on Okinawa left over from World War II). Meanwhile
the United Nations forces intervened in an invasion of South Korea by North
Korea-who was quickly reinforced by the Communist Chinese army. The French
eventually lost their colony after the debacle at Dien Bien Phu in 1954.
The South Koreans retained their country, but the war never ended. A truce
was called in 1953, and Korea has become the longest war in American history.
-
- The bottom line here is that the world-and the American
people-were mentally conditioned that a single country (like France) could
no longer win a war by itself, and the combined efforts of the UN forces
in Korea barely was able to stand up against Communist aggression. (In
point of fact, all UN forces' plans had to be cleared by a general at UN
headquarters, who just happened to be a Russian, and all plans were relayed
to the Chinese well in advance of an operation.)
-
- But the American people-who had just won a two-ocean
war against two powerful enemies-had to be convinced that we could not
longer fight a war alone or stand alone. The stage was set for Vietnam.
-
- The US forces, along with the South Vietnamese Army,
and Australian allies, were forced to fight a war that they were not allowed
to win. Lyndon B. Johnson and his "whiz kids" in the White House
micromanaged the war to the point that generals in the field could not
pursue an operation to its maximum effect, and even had to give up terrain
that we took with American blood, plus stay within the confines of South
Vietnam and not attack or pursue the enemy into his safe havens in Cambodia,
Laos and North Vietnam. The end result was that the North signed the Paris
Peace Accords simply to give President Richard Nixon (and Henry Kissinger)
a means of extracting our forces from South Vietnam with "peace with
honor." Two years later the North invaded the South and the rest is
history. The lesson to the American people, via our media, is that we should
not use our military forces abroad in any affair that might turn into a
"quagmire" or "another Vietnam." The media, controlled
by members of the Council on Foreign Relations and other global socialists
(including their Asian and European counterparts), successfully conditioned
the American psyche that we "do not want any more Vietnam style entanglements."
-
- After Vietnam our armed forces underwent what was called
a "Reduction in Force" or RIF. At the same time the "draft"
was put on the back burner and a "volunteer army" was created.
All of this at the height of the Cold War when Russia and China were building
their forces. By the early 1980s the threat envisioned by the Pentagon
was an attack on Western Europe by the Soviet Union through Germany. Known
as the Fulda Gap scenario, where it was envisioned the Russians would push
through with high speed armor assaults, it was theorized-and prepared for-that
we would be forced to fight a fighting withdrawal through Europe while
politicians decided if we would employ nuclear weapons. No one ever came
up with a public answer to this threat, and in the end it never happened-yet.
-
- There is an old military axiom that says that the military
gains its best support when there is a barbarian at the gate. In other
words, most people don't worry about supporting or funding the military
unless they fear a threat that would affect them. By the mid 1980s a new
threat was growing ever more frightening: Terrorism.
-
- It actually gained U.S. attention during the Munich Olympics
when the Black September terrorist gang of Palestinians kidnapped and killed
members of the Israeli Olympic team. This was followed by many other "Arab
Terrorist" attacks that often included American victims: skyjackings,
an attack on a cruise ship, bombings, and kidnappings and assassinations.
This new threat has been growing for over four decades and has become the
current "barbarian at the gate." Don't get me wrong: it's real,
it's there, and it's coming. But we have to ask how much of it was originally
created or financed by our own intelligence services. We know that Osama
bin Laden had CIA support in Afghanistan when the Russians occupied the
country, and that Abu Nidal was a US intelligence asset. Who knows how
many others?
-
- Since the alleged "fall of the Soviet Union",
the US and other western powers have undergone a political reduction in
our armed forces. Beginning during the George H.W. Bush administration-up
until Desert Storm when we were caught in a very vulnerable position militarily-our
military has systematically been reduced in force structure, equipment
destroyed or stored without proper maintenance, and numbers of personnel
and equipment reduced to the point of being basically combat ineffective
if committed to a major war.
-
- In the 1990s, during the Clinton regime, when bases were
being closed and Army divisions being cut, and tanks, planes and ships
were being put in mothballs, a Pentagon general gave a speech to the CASQ
officers command and staff class at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He said,
paraphrasing, "with the build down of our armed forces, should we
become committed to a two-ocean war, or be deployed to more than two foreign
campaigns, and should a national emergency occur inside the continental
United States, we will be forced to call upon foreign assets to patrol
our streets."
-
- The thought of this at the time was terrifying. But during
the Los Angeles riots Henry Kissinger stated that even though at that time
US citizens would not stand for foreign troops on US soil, that some day
we would welcome them with open arms.
|