To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » David Peterson's Blog » "As Far As Feasible"

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

50

David Peterson's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/davidpeterson
Bio: I am an independent writer and researcher based in Chicago. (More)

All Peterson Blogs

Recent Peterson Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts

"As Far As Feasible"

By David Peterson at Apr 29, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
Without much ado this past week, Washington closed the lid on its last remaining formal inquiry into one of the greatest lies in American history. At some moment on April 25, the CIA posted several Addendums to last fall's speculative epic by the Iraq Survey Group on the former regime in Baghdad's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, capabilities---and fantasies. With this posting, the prewar warnings of the inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission, as well as the independents such as the American Scott Ritter, to the effect that they had "found no weapons of mass destruction" even though they and had "carried out inspections at sites given...by U.S. and British intelligence" (to quote the former UNMOVIC head Hans Blix, here commenting on a related matter), were proven right once again. In the words of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, Charles A. Duelfer:
After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted. As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.
Notice, however, that I opened by writing lies---as in one of the greatest lies in American history---and not mistakes or errors or something similarly misleading. Among the greatest lies that properly-schooled Americans learn from a very young age onward is the Big Lie that whenever their government does something really awful in the world---such as commit crimes against the peace, crimes against humanity, crimes of war; the sponsorship of terrorism; violations of the Geneva Conventions, customary and treaty law with respect to the use of torture and the denial of the right to food and medicine and the like; even violations of the U.S. Constitution's vesting of powers over war and peace in the Congress rather than in the Imperial Presidency---these cannot possibly be the willful, deliberate, and intentional acts of a state whose policymakers are pursuing what they perceive to be the self-interests of American Power, in the singular manner with which they are most intimately familiar, both in terms of their history and in terms of the supremacy their state enjoys over the rest of the world: Violently. Belligerently. And with a take-no-prisoners brutality. (So to speak. As the taking of some prisoners also has become a major instrument of statecraft. (Just don't tell anybody.)) Rather. Ultimately, each and every one of these awful policies and their awful consequences must be dismissible. If certain facts about them are even acknowledged at all, they must be acknowledged as mistakes. As errors. As slip-ups and oversights. Or, in worst case scenarios, as cases of American boys and girls gone wild and getting carried away with themselves. No harm intended. Even if harm is caused. As anything, that is, but the deliberately and maliciously crafted policies that they are. And this, no matter how many times the same course of action winds up pursued. By one and the same state. In no matter how many different regions around the world. No matter how many different victims. Over how many consecutive decades.
"Prepared Testimony of Charles A. Duelfer," Senate Armed Services Committee, October 6, 2004 Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, September, 2004 (a.k.a. Duelfer Report) Addendums to the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, March, 2005 Iraq Special Weapons Guide (Homepage), Federation of American Scientists In Focus: IAEA and Iraq (Homepage), International Atomic Energy Agency United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC Homepage) Twelfth quarterly report of the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in accordance with paragraph 12 of Security Council resolution 1284 (1999) (S/2003/232), UNMOVIC, February 28, 2003 Thirteenth quarterly report of the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in accordance with paragraph 12 of Security Council resolution 1284 (1999) (S/2003/580), UNMOVIC, May 30, 2003 Twentieth quarterly report on the activities of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in accordance with paragraph 12 of Security Council resolution 1284 (1999) (S/2005/129), UNMOVIC, February 28, 2005 "Arms Move to Syria 'Unlikely,' Report Says," David E. Sanger, New York Times, April 26, 2005 "Report Finds No Evidence Syria Hid Iraqi Arms," Dana Priest, Washington Post, April 26, 2005 "US team concludes Saddam had no WMD," Demetri Sevastopulo, Financial Times, April 27, 2005 "Interrogators 'botched hunt for WMDs'," Julian Borger, The Guardian, April 27, 2005 "Search for Iraqi WMD 'Has Been Exhausted', Says Report," Andrew Buncombe, The Independent, April 27, 2005 "Blix insists there was no firm weapons evidence," Ewen MacAskill, The Guardian, April 28, 2005 "Zarqawi Attack on Inspector Cut Short the Hunt for WMD," Anne Penketh, The Independent, April 28, 2005 "Ex-CIA chief eats humble pie," Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian, April 29, 2005 "CIA can't rule out WMD move to Syria," Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, April 27, 2005 "CIA reports Saddam pushed to restart arms effort," Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, April 28, 2005 "Misreporting the Duelfer report, again," Editorial, Washington Times, April 28, 2005 Ending Secret Detentions, Deborah Pearlstein et al., Human Rights First, June, 2004 Behind the Wire: An Update to Ending Secret Detentions, Deborah Pearlstein and Priti Patel, Human Rights First, March, 2005. (And the accompanying Media Release.) Getting Away with Torture? Command Responsibility for the U.S. Abuse of Detainees, Reed Brody et al., Human Rights Watch, April 25, 2005. (And the accompanying Media Release.---For the complete PDF version of the same.) Duelferland, October 9, 2004 "Intelligence" and the Invasion of Iraq, April 1, 2005
FYA ("For your archives"): According to the testimony of Charles Duelfer, the Iraq Survey Group has produced the "best picture that could be drawn concerning the events, programs, policies, and underlying dynamics of the relationship of the former Regime to WMD over the last three decades." ("Note for the Comprehensive Report with Addendums," March, 2005.) Still. Several cracks have been designed-into the sarcophagus wherein the Iraq Survey Group's exhaustive findings have been interred. The most useful of these cracks appears to be the so-called "Residual Proliferation Risks" associated with the personnel of the former regime carrying their knowledge and expertise with them to other would-be proliferators, and the "Prewar Movement of WMD Material out of Iraq." Chief among this second category is Syria. And though Duelfer's latest report concludes that "it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place," anyone interested in spinning this probabilistic kind of conclusion into a latent threat to the United States is free to do so. With this caveat in mind, I'm going to deposit here the five paragraphs that Duelfer's latest report devoted to this single possibility, followed by three items drawn from the Washington Times, one of the leading right-wing newspapers in the United States. The contrast between Duelfer's conclusion (i.e., "the evidence available at present") and how a dedicated, fear-mongering, right-wing rag goes about exploiting it, is worth observing carefully, I think. (When the editorial voice of the Washington Times stated that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," I wanted to scream.) What this example illustrates is that in the American political system, no lie, no matter how dead and deeply buried, ever quite goes away. Frequently, they even enjoy a healthy afterlife. Doubtless, this WMD-Syria connection awaits re-animation, should the American state ever need it. _______________________ "Prewar Movement of WMD Material Out of Iraq" Excerpted from Charles Duelfer's Addendums to the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, March, 2005 ISG formed a working group to investigate the possibility of the evacuation of WMD-related material from Iraq prior to the 2003 war. This group spent several months examining documents, interviewing former Iraqi offi cials, examining previous intelligence reports, and conducting some site investigations. The declining security situation limited and fi nally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when circumstances on the ground improve. The investigation centered on the possibility that WMD materials were moved to Syria. As is obvious from other sections of the Comprehensive Report, Syria was involved in transactions and shipments of military and other material to Iraq in contravention of the UN sanctions. This indicated a fl exibility with respect to international law and a strong willingness to work with Iraq—at least when there was considerable profi t for those involved. Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined. There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security offi cer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were suffi ciently credible to merit further investigation. ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war. It should be noted that no information from debriefi ng of Iraqis in custody supports this possibility. ISG found no senior policy, program, or intelligence offi cials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD. Indeed, they uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria. Nevertheless, given the insular and compartmented nature of the Regime, ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation. It is worth noting that even if ISG had been able to fully examine all the leads it possessed, it is unlikely that conclusive information would have been found. At best, barring discovery of original documentary evidence of the transfer, reports or sources may have been substantiated or negated, but fi rm conclusions on actual WMD movements may not be possible. Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an offi cial transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unoffi cial movement of limited WMD-related materials. _______________________ The Washington Times April 27, 2005 Wednesday SECTION: PAGE ONE; Pg. A01 HEADLINE: CIA can't rule out WMD move to Syria BYLINE: By Rowan Scarborough, THE WASHINGTON TIMES Evidence 'sufficiently credible' The CIA's chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing "sufficiently credible" evidence that WMDs may have been moved there. Inspector Charles Duelfer, who heads the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), made the findings in an addendum to his final report filed last year. He said the search for WMD in Iraq - the main reason President Bush went to war to oust Saddam Hussein - has been exhausted without finding such weapons. Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s. But on the question of Syria, Mr. Duelfer did not close the books. "ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war," Mr. Duelfer said in a report posted on the CIA's Web site Monday night. He cited some evidence of a transfer. "Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined," he said. "There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation." But Mr. Duelfer said he was unable to complete that aspect of the probe because "the declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when circumstances on the ground improve." Arguing against a WMD transfer to Syria, Mr. Duelfer said, was the fact that all senior Iraqi detainees involved in Saddam's weapons programs and security "uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria." "Nevertheless," the inspector said, "given the insular and compartmented nature of the regime, ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation." He said that even if all leads are pursued someday, the ISG may never be able to finally determine whether WMDs were taken across the border. "Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place," his report stated. "However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials." Speculation on WMDs in Syria was fueled by the fact that satellite images picked up long lines of trucks waiting to cross the border into Syria before the coalition launched the invasion. Mr. Duelfer previously had reported that Syria was a major conduit for materials entering Iraq that were banned by the United Nations. Saddam placed such importance on illicit trade with Syria that he dispatched Iraqi Intelligence Service agents to various border crossings to supervise border agents, and, in some cases, to shoo them away, senior officials told The Washington Times last year. Today, U.S. officials charge that Syria continues to harbor Saddam loyalists who are directing and financing the insurgency in Iraq. The Iraq-Syria relationship between two Ba'athist socialist regimes has further encouraged speculation of weapons transfers. Several senior U.S. officials have said since the invasion that they thought WMD went to Syria. Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, the deputy commander of U.S. Central Command during the war, said in his book, "Inside CentCom," that intelligence reports pointed to WMD movement into Syria. In October, John A. Shaw, then the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, told The Times that Russian special forces and intelligence troops worked with Saddam's intelligence service to move weapons and material to Syria, Lebanon and possibly Iran. "The organized effort was done in advance of the conflict," he said. The Washington Times April 28, 2005 Thursday SECTION: NATION; Pg. A03 HEADLINE: CIA reports Saddam pushed to restart arms effort BYLINE: By Rowan Scarborough, THE WASHINGTON TIMES Addendum cites anecdotes from three senior military officials Saddam Hussein asked his weapons specialists about a timeline to restart production of deadly chemical weapons and the potential to have a fleet of bomb-laden boats to attack American ships in the Persian Gulf, a CIA report says. The report from Charles Duelfer, the CIA's chief weapons inspector for Iraq, shows Saddam consistently looked for ways to violate United Nations' weapons prohibitions before the March 2003 invasion that knocked him from power. Mr. Duelfer's Iraq Survey Group found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, despite intelligence reports before the war that Saddam still possessed the arsenal, as he did in the early 1990s. The inspector this week filed an addendum to his final report of last year. Anecdotes about the dictator's weapons ambitions came principally from three senior defense ministry officials who are incarcerated in Iraq. The most talkative, the report indicates, was Abduallah al Mullah Huwaysh, a key defense industry official from 1997 until the fall of Baghdad in April 2003. "Huwaysh recalled that Saddam approached him immediately following a ministers' meeting to ask how long it would take to restart production of chemical agents," the report says. Huwaysh told Saddam in 2001 that Iraq could make mustard gas almost immediately, but two other deadly agents previously produced by Iraq, VX and sarin, would take much longer. Huwaysh said that a year later Saddam inquired again, asking "Do you have any programs going on that I don't know about?" He told investigators Saddam was increasingly worried about his declining conventional forces and feared an attack from Iran. Saddam's forces used chemical weapons to kill thousands of Iranians in the 1980s. Huwaysh said that as far as he could determine no element of the regime had restarted production of weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion. He told of another conversation with Saddam in 2002 when the leader ordered Huwaysh to begin production of a ballistic missile that could travel more than 300 miles and be able to hit targets in Israel and Iran. Such a weapon would be in violation of U.N. cease-fire resolutions. Saddam also said he had decided not to let U.N. weapons inspectors re-enter the country, after thwarting their efforts in 1998. His move led to President Clinton's ordering the bombing of Iraq for four days in Operation Desert Fox. "To avoid disclosure of this program, Saddam ordered that no written documentation and no phone calls were allowed," the Duelfer report states. "By early 2002, Saddam was convinced support for sanctions was eroding and they would soon disappear irrespective of what happened with Iraqi missile programs." In 1997, Saddam ordered the establishment of a secretive arms developing unit called the 28 Nisan Group. One task was to develop eavesdropping equipment. Another was to build remotely controlled, explosives-laden boats that would target U.S. shipping in the Gulf. Saddam agreed to cancel the program after his intelligence chief said meeting the goal was impossible. The Washington Times April 28, 2005 Thursday SECTION: EDITORIALS; Pg. A22 HEADLINE: Misreporting the Duelfer report, again BYLINE: By THE WASHINGTON TIMES The mainstream media is playing another misbegotten round of "gotcha" with President Bush on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. This week, the CIA issued a follow-up to its October 2004 Iraqi Survey Group report, saying its investigations into possible WMD transfers from Iraq to Syria before the war were inconclusive and warranted further investigation. Predictably, the media did not convey that message. Instead, it cherry-picked the findings. "Report Finds No Evidence Syria Hid Arms," The Washington Post's headline blared. Actually, the report, by the CIA's chief weapons inspector, Charles A. Duelfer, made no such claim. Here's what the CIA said: It is "unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war"; it was "unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place"; and it found "no senior policy, program, or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD." But it said nothing about what Syria did or did not do, as The Post claimed. Instead, the report held out the possibility that an "unofficial" transfer - that is, a secret one that the Iraqi officials the CIA interviewed didn't know about - may have taken place. In fact, the report says, "there was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer," and the CIA "received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved." These reports "were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation" - especially "given the insular and compartmented nature of the [Saddam Hussein] regime." But in the end, since the CIA was unable to complete its investigation owing to the situation in Iraq, it is unable to say whether illicit weapons were moved to Syria. It held out the possibility of reopening the investigation once security in Iraq improves. It declines to rule out the possibility that WMD were shipped across the border. Clearly, the media needs an object lesson in an old truth: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That was true back in October, and it is true now. Back then, The Post was so eager to declare the Bush administration wrong that it shoved someone else's words into the chief weapons inspector's mouth. The Post was forced to issue a correction when the headline of its above-the-fold story on the initial report erroneously claimed that Mr. Duelfer said the United States was "almost all wrong." Mr. Duelfer said no such thing; his predecessor, David Kay, did. The fact is this: We still don't know whether illicit weapons were secreted out of Iraq in the months before the war. That doesn't make for catchy anti-Bush headlines. But then, the truth is sometimes like that. _______________________

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (11)

Person

By Rickyneva2004, Duluth_1941 at May 15, 2005 15:34 PM
The 4th Reich patterned after the infamous German counterpart of Hitler is now in power and nothing short of a major world war will unseat the dictator Bush! The impoverished nations and third world must rise up to defeat the monolith created by the industrial military complex in this nation and yes many of us will die. That is the sad part but his power has gone too far now for any party to move by constitutional means. He has usurped the Constitution of the United States and in it's place he has instituted a military regime that will stiffle all press coverage of the atrocities commited to further the goals of world domination. I say, nations oppressed must rise up and we must help them defeat this despot that has destroyed Democracy and has the untimitigated gaul to wage war in the name of Democracy! Rise up nations and resist this tyrant George W. Bush!

Reply this comment

50

Re: "As Far As Feasible"

By Peterson, David at May 13, 2005 17:34 PM
Frederic Christie et al: Much superb work. Thanks for contributing it. Am honored. As of March, 2003, there was no Security Council authorization for attacking Iraq---though to repeat the Americans' view of it, as expressed by the quote you've provided from the Daily Telegraph, as was also recognized by Lord Peter Goldsmith's "Possible legal bases for the use of force" (March 7, 2003: Since the software isn't accepting the link, see: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/files/pdf/Iraq%20Resolution%201441.pdf ): "The Americans were quite clear that legally they do not need a resolution at all." (Quick aside. It appears that the software isn't accepting the link to the Goldsmith document. But a working link is available in my blog The Blair Era (April 30).) About the estimated 100,000 Iraqis killed since the launching of the U.S.-U.K. war (“Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey,” Les Roberts et al., The Lancet, posted online October 29, 2004): This represents the best-available estimate through the middle of September, 2004---some eight months ago. By now, the actual total must be considerably higher. By the way, the Federation of American Scientists maintains a very helpful webpage devoted to "Iraq and the UN," and it includes a link to another page that archives all of the UN Security Council resolutions relevant to Iraq from 660 (Aug. 2, 1990---the very day Iraq first invaded Kuwait) through 1441 (Nov. 8, 2002)---the reslution which, along with 678 (Nov. 29, 1990) and 687 (April 8, 1991), the Americans claimed gave them the legal right to launch a war over Iraq, regardless of what the rest of the world maintained. One other thing, on Yakov Bok, as well as everyone else who contributes to the comments section of this blog (you and I included). The comments section to my blog is a common space, and open to everyone. Under no circumstances should anyone feel compelled to post anything but what they want. There are no Lords here. No subordinates. No hierarchy. So Yakov Bok is free to post whatever Yakov Bok wants. Frederic Christie is free to respond to Yakov Bok at length---and free to wonder why YB posts what YB does, in the manner that YB posts it. And I am equally (and I do mean equally, but no more and no less) free to reaffirm this one elementary principle. I will not delete posters' comments. And though I will reserve the right to raise appropriateness issues at any time in the future (as should each and every one of the rest of you), I am not anticipating the need.

Reply this comment

50

Re: "As Far As Feasible"

By Peterson, David at May 02, 2005 22:31 PM
Friends: Two quick points.--- The first is that I do not agree with various assessments of Yakov Bok's contributions (here as well as elsewhere) to the effect that they are distractions or diversions or whatever the favored description is. Clearly, Yakov Bok provides a much different take on the material that I and others cover. But there is nothing problematic about the fact that he comments on the blogs---whatever his comments are. Nor do I believe that it is healthy to shun him for posting what he does. As a matter of principle, this section of the blogs belongs to Yakov Bok as much as---i.e., no more, no less than---it belongs to the rest of us. But to me, above all. On the other point: AndrewG (here simply taking up the very last comment, and by no means singling out AndrewG) raises the question of warmaking and government lying, and extends this to the German government and World War II. As a matter of fact, I think we need to extend this kind of critical approach to all warmaking and to all governments---in all likelihood, there being a positive correlation between the relative power of a state in the world, and the relative scale of the ideology in and through which its agents articulate (lying included) the interests at stake, their decisions, and their policies. Thus, in a study that I regard as something of a classic, Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and U.S. Foreign Policy, by Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter (Monthly Review Press, 1977), the authors write (my transcription---apologies for any typing errors):
Military conflicts are fought to determine who will shape the peace following victory, and on what basis. Therefore, the complex of assumptions labeled for the sake of convenience as war aims, are most crucial for understanding long-range foreign policy. Analysis and description of these aims throw light on both the origin and consequent consequences of the conflict. The Grand Area concept [i.e., the Western Hemisphere, British Empire, and Pacific area] and the means by which the Council [on Foreign Relations, or CFR] proposed to integrate this territory became the initial basis for United States war aims. Two problems faced the Council and government planners in regard to these goals. First, the American people had to be inspired and mobilized to enter the war and win it. This involved issuing plausible propaganda. Secondly, the detailed and specific means for integration of an expanded Grand Area into a United States-dominated world order had to be devised. This involved working out the mechanics for new international institutions. The CFR's War and Peace Studies groups recognized at an early date the differences between these two types of problems. The Economic and Financial Group pointed out in July 1941 that "formulation of a statement of war aims for propaganda purposes is very different from formulation of one defining the true national interests." While this group's main concern was with the latter function, it did give the government ideas on how to deal with the former. In April 1941 the group suggested to the government that a statement of U.S. war aims should now be prepared, coldly warning: "If war aims are stated which seem to be concerned solely with Anglo-American imperialism, they will offer little to people in the rest of the world, and will be vulnerable to Nazi counter-promises. Such aims would also strengthen the most reactionary elements in the United States and the British Empire. The interests of other peoples should be stressed, not only those of Europe, but also of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This would have a better propaganda effect." Since such propaganda statements had to be at least close to actual U.S. interests, the war aims declaration had to be vague and abstract, not specific. The statement which resulted was the Atlantic Charter of August 1941. It was the public war aims statement of the United States, and its reason for being was propaganda. The generalized aims it advocated were those which people everywhere would agree were laudable: freedom, equality, prosperity, and peace. The Council had made suggestions about what should be in such a public statement, and a member of the Council—Undersecretary of States Sumner Welles—was President Roosevelt's chief adviser on the Atlantic Charter. With the entry of the United States into World War II, U.S. planners were virtually unanimous in the belief that the nation should claim a dominant position in the postwar world…. Council president Norman Davis, now chairman of the Department of State's security subcommittee on Postwar Foreign Policy, asserted in May 1942 that it was probable "the British Empire as it existed in the past will never reappear and that the United States may have to take its place." Gen. George W. Strong, a member of Davis' subcommittee who had worked on the War and Peace Studies Project during 1940, used even stronger language during the same discussion. He expressed the opinion that the United States "must cultivate a mental view toward world settlement after this war which will enable use to impose our own terms, amounting perhaps to a pax-Americana." He went on to say that the nation must adopt a tough attitude toward its allies at the expected peace conference. Davis agreed with Strong, adding that the United States could "no longer be indifferent as to what happens in any part of the world." The reason for this emphasis on global hegemony for the United States was the same one that the Council had stressed in 1940 and 1941: the economic life of U.S. society as presently organized was very closely connected with the outside world. The economy of the nation, as it had been for some time, was geared to the need for large export markets, the loss of which—barring a transition to a form of socialism—would cause a lowering of national income and greatly reduced employment. The haunting specter of depression and its political consequences made the planners pay careful attention to the relationship between international and domestic economic policies….
Notice where Shoup and Minter mention the "Grand Area concept," and where, in the second-to-last paragraph, they quote then-State Department planner Norman Davis, who wrote that the U.S. Government could "no longer be indifferent as to what happens in any part of the world." Early on in this stage of imperial planning, from the 1930s through the end of World War II, an event of such a monumental scale that in many ways it established the political infrastructure of the world in which we are still living, it was unclear to American planners whether any German-led bloc may emerge from a partial German victory. Moreover, the fate of a Soviet-led bloc was also an unknown variable---though, longer-term, it too would be decided some 45-years later. But, clearly, what Shoup and Minter are reporting deserves to be categorized under what AndewG, terence, anonymous1, among others, remind us is the lying in which all governments engage about warmaking---relative to their power to wage wars, that is. This was roughly as true of the Pacific and the European theaters of the Americans' involvement in World War II, as it is today of the Americans' "War on Terror" (so called). As Edward Gibbon reminded us, "According to Livy, the Romans conquered the world in their own defense."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "As Far As Feasible"

By Andrewga, Andrewg at May 02, 2005 14:59 PM
Absolutely right epiong. To go back to David's original post before the discussion was once again derailed. Almost every single war except maybe WW2, was based on a lie or a series of lies. You could probably even include WW2 in Europe as Hitler lied to the German people about the reasons for their acts of Aggression – “counter-terrorism, humanitarian grounds, etc...” (Where did we hear those lines?) Our leaders will continue to lie about the reasons for War, because they have always been able to get away with it!!! For the public - “Ignorance is Bliss”. It's easier to sleep at night when you believe your country is one of the “Good Guys”. And as for the Media – Remember - "It's very hard to convince a man of something when he's salary depends upon him not understanding it"

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "As Far As Feasible"

By Epiong, Epiong at May 01, 2005 01:07 AM
Once again Yakov has achieved his purpose. Instead of discussing the original post by Peterson, people have unfortunately gotten into a war of words (mostly wasted and uninteresting) with one of the really useless posters on this site. Why?!!?!?!? Please follow the advice of many before and COMPLETELY ignore the guy.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "As Far As Feasible"

By Gammon101, Bwong at Apr 30, 2005 22:14 PM
Yarkov you seem to have a lot of problems with Chomsky (mostly personally it seems). You made some specific accusations such as Chomsky misrepresenting his sources.Instead of wasting your time beating strawman and arguing with second rate Chomsky defenders such as us,why don't you email Chomsky to take him to task? I am told he answers all emails at length. If Chomsky's scholarship is as shaky as you alledged you should have no problem kicking his ass in the way that Finkelstein exposed Alan Dershowitz as a pathetic and incompetent liar. Please post your exchange with Chomsky when you're done demolishing him. It will serve great educational purpose for us delued leftists. We look forward to it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "As Far As Feasible"

By Aberriz, Gentho at Apr 30, 2005 21:40 PM
Simply because people have attempted to discredit Chomsky does not make him different from any other prominent scientist. Many tried to discredit Einstein. Please do not attempt to fallaciously use these attempts to belittle everything Chomsky says. That is absurd. http://freecognition.blogspot.com

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "As Far As Feasible"

By Bok, Yakov at Apr 30, 2005 21:25 PM
Interesting link Anonymous1 - a Pol Sci professor who fails to mention the battle for ME muslim hegmony between the Saudis, Syrians, Jordanians, and Persians and how the Palestinians are the pawns caught in the middle. The prof. also failed to mention oil economics and how the former elements can disrupt world stability. He also cites Chomsky who has been discredited in non-linguistic academia for his questionable citations Remind me not to take a class from that guy.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "As Far As Feasible"

By Jautter, Mind at Apr 30, 2005 04:47 AM
Remember the 3 or 4 hundred tons of high explosives that vanished, and the misc. hardware for dastardly deeds that the U.N. inspectors cataloged prior to the invasion that mysteriously disappeared? Who had free reign over the country?Who had vehicles and clearance to transport anything anywhere no questions asked? All of that stuff was worth a shitload of money. Maybe Halburton & Bechtel were acting as benevolent couriers and removed said items out of the goodness of their hearts.The corruption of this regime has no limits.Oral history[by the time this is over there will be no written]will proclaim "And a dark enveloped the earth,and such was the darkness that the serpent swallowed its' own tail and proclaimed;"Tastes like Texas chicken."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "As Far As Feasible"

By Aberriz, Gentho at Apr 30, 2005 01:17 AM
Yakov Bok says, "It takes a coward to avoid making the hard decisions that are criticized on this board." Yes, you are right. It takes a coward to avoid making hard decisions, and instead simply send thousands of troops to openly murder innocent individuals across seas. It is impersonal. It is the hollywood hero's move--kill first and ask questions later. It is easy for men in comfortable meetings to give the quick order "go" and then have the situation 'taken care of.' It takes hard work and dedication to go about the situation in a more meaningful and humanistic way. This is what we need more of, instead of a mindless assault on innocent Iraqi peoples, who were themselves the victims of Hussein. http://freecognition.blogspot.com

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "As Far As Feasible"

By Bok, Yakov at Apr 30, 2005 00:32 AM
There is a balance of power being played out in the middle east by the House of Saud, the Heshimites in Jordan, the two Baath parties in Syria and Iraq, and the Persians. The Palestinians are used as the pawn between all of them. Those players have shown a distinct disinterest in reform, stability, and peace in a region of global importance. The fact is, whether you want to admit it or not, war sometimes brings about favorable results, despite the costly consequences of the venture. It takes men of courage and great leadership to recognize that some pain now will result in great happiness later. It takes a coward to avoid making the hard decisions that are criticized on this board. Hussein in Iraq provided a means of entry into the ME so change could be achieved. Regardless of WMD, Hussein was in daily violation of the 1991 peace agreement. He was a sponsor of terrorism. And he a great socialist leader in ilk of Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot. He had to be removed for the good of humanity. It takes a small mind to ignore the big picture that is the middle east. Unfortunately, there are a lot of small minds criticizing U.S. action. Terence, what type of revolution are you advocating? As for all the don't feed the trolls comments, unlike your teeth, I will not go away if ignored.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (11)

Loading_border