Excerpted from Baghdad bombings by Paul Craig Roberts:
The Pentagon report, which has been leaked to a defense magazine, designates “terrorists” as the targets of the mini-nukes. New nuclear weapons are said to be necessary in order to destroy deeply buried biological weapons caches, terrorist cells and hidden weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Such weapons caches will exist wherever neoconservatives declare them to be. For the neoconservatives, the advantage of a nuclear over a conventional attack is that the former solves the manpower problem and, by obliterating the target, conveniently rules out discovering the embarrassing fact of nonexistent WMD.
Obviously, nuclear weapons of any size are too destructive to use against terrorists, who are scattered among much larger populations. The only purpose of the “small nuclear weapons” — an oxymoron if ever there was one — is to incinerate Muslim cities. Just as Iraq, Iran and Syria are declared, propagandistically, to be “terrorist states,” Damascus, Tehran, Baghdad, Mecca, Cairo and Mogadishu would be declared “terrorist cities.” It looks as if the neoconservatives intend a final solution to their “Muslim problem” and are organizing genocide for Arabs.
This isn’t the first time I’ve read the opinion that the United States is contemplating using these ‘tactical’ nukes in major Islamic cities and it seems to me, in light of its inability to get international troop support, the Bush administration may have decided to allow the situation in Iraq to deteriorate to the point it gives them an excuse to initiate such an attack.
The Bush administration brings war to Iraq and that gives them the right to decide its future, rule of force? Since the occupation is causing the turmoil, an occupation illegal from the start and made worse now by the further raping of its assets, the United States should get out, compensate the Iraqis for the damage they’ve caused, and allow international peacekeepers to intervene as the Iraqis request their help and only then. On our way out, grab Ahmed Chalabi by the short hairs and take him and his group along.
If we were in the business of invading countries to relieve people of tyrants, why do we continue to support them elsewhere? Do you think that line of reasoning is fooling anyone? Iraq was a political move, encouraged by fanatics within the Bush administration who have no intention of stopping at Iraq if they get their way, manipulated by Karl Rove who puts the agenda of the GOP and its cronies above the good of the country. Considering the character of the ‘commander in chief’, a man who believes God is talking to him, a puppet who only cares about poll numbers, a bruised egomaniac immersed in some grandiose conception of himself being a macho man despite his AWOL status, I’d say the prospects of them ratcheting up this Middle East nightmare are frighteningly real.
Remember globalisation? I would gladly go back to the days of conniving other countries out of their assets instead of killing in the name of democracy for them. The ICC could take care of tyrants, that is if the United States wasn’t so fearful of being a defendant in the majority of cases.
Excerpt from Iraqification: A Losing Strategy by Fareed Zakaria
When we speak of sending “Iraqis” on raids into the Sunni Triangle, who would these soldiers be? Sunnis? They might not want to hunt down Baathists, or might easily be bought off. Shiites and Kurds? That would galvanize the Sunni populations in support of the guerrillas. If the goal is to stabilize Iraq, fomenting intragroup violence might not be the best path.
Unless of course your Karl Rove military strategy is to give the American people the illusion we are pulling out and turning over ‘control’ just in time for the 2004 election.
Once ‘another 4’ are in the bag the situation in Iraq should have deteriorated to the point the boy king can justify to his realm the use of those new nukes, not only in Iraq but elsewhere.
Where’s the debate?
Excerpted from US scraps oversight of nuclear arsenal published August 1, 2003:
The Bush Administration has quietly disbanded a Department of Energy panel of experts that provided independent oversight of the United States’ nuclear arsenal.
The decision to close down the National Nuclear Security Administration Advisory Committee – required by law to hold public hearings and issue public reports on nuclear weapons issues – has come just days before a closed-door meeting at a US Air Force base in Nebraska to discuss the development of a new generation of tactical “mini nukes” and bunker buster bombs, as well as an eventual resumption of nuclear testing.
More about that meeting in Nebraska.
If you’ve heard the U.S. has backed off mini-nukes and are considering gamma ray bombs so why worry, think again if you believe they will thwart an arms race.
This new report by the Washington-based Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Report Urges U.S., NATO to Rethink New Nuke Policy cautions the administration to reconsider this ‘strategy’.
And the following is from my e-mail:
MORE LIGHT ON THE DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD
The Defense Science Board, a Pentagon advisory panel, is reportedly poised to recommend a major new departure in U.S. defense policy involving development of a new generation of nuclear weapons (as reported by Ian Hoffman in the Oakland Tribune last week, following up on a story in Jane’s Defence Weekly).
But who is the Defense Science Board (DSB)? The Pentagon doesn’t make it easy to find out, having deleted the names of the membership from the DSB website (Secrecy News, 10/28/03).
A current roster of the DSB membership appears in the October 2003 DSB Newsletter, which also reports on the status of the panel’s various studies.
Along with the “Future Strategic Strike Forces” study, which addresses next-generation nuclear weapons, and many other topics, the DSB is also looking at intelligence reform.
Thus, one pending study “will address alternative ways of managing U.S. foreign intelligence endeavors… by focusing not on the means by which intelligence information is collected, but rather the ends it is to serve,” according to the October 2003 DSB Newsletter.
The 2003 DSB Newsletters are not available on the official DSB web site, but they are now posted on the FAS web site here: