6) The attack against Afghanistan has fortified Muslim terrorist networks and their recruitment bases, which constitutes a full-scale strategic setback. Barzai’s puppet government only controls Kabul. The military campaign’s true purpose (to grant the USA control over Central Asia’s resources and oil flows) has not been achieved. Bin Laden, Emir Omar and the mujahid elites are still as active and elusive as ever, and the international financial networks have either remained intact or been reinforced.
7) Islamist terrorism has gained in intensity as a result of Bush’s clumsy ‘anti-terrorist’ struggle, a struggle that was triggered by the 9/11 attacks, which the CIA and FBI probably allowed to unfold, just like Pearl Harbor. The USA has been acting like a sorcerer’s apprentice. On a global level, it has thus bet everything on Islamism so as to weaken Europe and Russia. However, this calculating behaviour has backfired against it like a boomerang. The Americans have contributed to the propagation and aggravation of the ‘terrorist contagion’.
8) Last but not least, we have the icing on the cake: the military attack against Iraq, an alleged effort to overthrow Saddam Hussein, a micro-Hitler of sorts who was said to possess nuclear and chemical arsenals, despite the fact that his country is as poor as Mali (shortly before the onset of the Gulf War, the Pentagon had actually presented the Iraqi army as being ‘the fourth most powerful’ one. Yeah, we noticed…). The international press has pointed out the facts: the issue of the alleged ‘weapons of mass destruction’ owned by Iraq does not hold water when the dangerous countries that do possess such weapons are actually Iran, Pakistan and North Korea, with the latter having admitted it openly.
***
Here is the most paradoxical aspect, however — both the Anglo-Saxon press and the American administration have acknowledged the following problems: first of all, it is not clear who should supersede the current regime. The gloomiest likelihood is that of having the Islamists replace the secular Baath Party. Secondly, while it is common knowledge that the Bush clan’s ambition is to appropriate the Iraqi oil reserves (which may be the world’s second largest) in anticipation of the failure of the Saudi resources should the ancient local monarchy be overthrown by an Islamist regime, how could Anglo-American companies ever be expected to peacefully exploit the oil wells of a country that has been plunged into chaos? There is, however, something even more troubling: if a conflagration were to occur in the Middle-East, everyone knows (and particularly Mr. Greenspan, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank) that oil prices would skyrocket on a worldwide scale, soaring at around 35 Euros a barrel. The attack against Iraq substantiates the Islamist conviction of an ongoing western aggression targeting Muslim-Arabs, which increases the global number of mujahid legions and terrorists. The Bush clan is well aware of these objections, but finds itself cornered and cannot back down without becoming the focus of mockery. It has no choice but to tackle the problem head on. Let us not forget that the American military industry needs to function somehow. The Iraqi campaign resulted in increased orders of sophisticated materials, which had been exhausted in Afghanistan. Just like its oil counterpart, this industry finances the Republican Party. And G. W. Bush longs to be re-elected…
In short, what is happening is that under G. W. Bush, the American foreign policy is losing its grip and taking some of its recent characteristics, namely its counterproductive militarism, its twisted alliances/overthrows (which always end up backfiring against the USA) and its globally destabilising activities (which represent the very opposite of pacification), to their utmost extreme. The Pax Americana is akin to a bull trudging through a china shop. It was back in 1945 that the USA truly embodied a superpower, with 40 % of the world’s GDP compared to its current 20 % rate. In 20 years’ time, America will be reduced to a mere middle power on all possible levels and will obviously be overtaken by China.
Bush will have also pulled off the feat of cutting the USA off from its two principal European vassals: Germany and Great Britain. Never since 1945 has anything like this happened — both the German government and the British public opinion are openly opposed to the American ambitions regarding Iraq. The USA is basically isolating itself.
As for Europeans, they have been mentally emasculated (especially the British, who, in the name of a decadent set of democratic values, are allowed to shelter with impunity the worst possible green totalitarian scum) and fail to grasp the fact that the best means to protect themselves against Islamist terrorism (whose philosophy reflects the Koran’s very essence) is to ban any and all Muslim immigration on European soil, rather than to participate in the bombing of Muslim countries (once again, with utter impunity) at the behest of NATO. The Americans have, in fact, adopted a stupid foreign policy, but they at least have one, unlike the Europeans, who have none whatsoever and allow the tide to carry them away as if they were on a drunken boat4 .
The USA overestimates its own power and has chosen to take the fatal path of harsh imperialism, the very same kind that caused the demise of Alexander the Great, the Spanish empire, Napoleon, William II and Hitler.
The consequences may well turn out to be very grave for the Americans, who will thus be confronted with repetitive giga-terrorism (in a hyper-fragile society that lives in dread of death), the destabilisation of oil economy (which acts as the pillar of American power), the overthrow of ‘allied’ Muslim regimes at the hands of their own exasperated masses (who will then call for the establishment of Islamic republics), the growing hostility of European public opinions (despite the americanomorphic cultural plugging), etc. The belief that all issues can be resolved through Dollars (and the simultaneous use of bombs) is a huge historical mistake. Whenever the trading option replaces a country’s sovereign function and governs its military operations, as in America’s case, a disaster is unavoidable.
The so-called American ‘empire’ is actually nothing of the sort. It is but a ‘business’, one that is ephemeral by essence. No one could ever dominate the world by turning everyone against them, nor could they do so by imagining themselves mere customers in a supermarket. What the USA would have needed is a Talleyrand of its own. His name was actually Henry Kissinger, but no one listened to him. All the Americans now have is thus G. W. Bush, who is nothing but a poor man’s version of Texan oil tycoon J.R from the Dallas TV series. The ‘Empire of Good’ which the Americans long for has only led to the emergence of a wall that now surrounds the USA and arouses sheer hatred for it. Let us then hope that a large number of American people of European descent will choose to adopt the southern spirit and attempt to halt America’s race to the bottom.
***
Conservative Patrick Buchanan wrote an article entitled American Roots of 21st Century Wars in which he covered the topic of independence and secession struggles (World Net Daily, 05/06/2002). He states:
Not only Israel, but India in Kashmir, China in Sinkiang and Serbia in Kosovo confront independence movements by Islamic peoples who are throwing in our face our own hallowed principle of self-determination, as Hitler did in the 1930s. And there is the same perplexity and moral confusion among Western elites now as then. Are we hypocrites who only believe in self-determination when it does not threaten our own or allied interests? And if we are true believers in self-determination, was Lincoln right to send a million-man army to crush a people’s rebellion to break free of his Union, as our forefathers had broken free of the British Crown? If America was a “union of free and independent states,” why was the South not free to depart? So, today, in Chechnya, Putin invokes Lincoln as Islamic rebels invoke Wilson and the young slave-owner Jefferson. And so we all stumble toward a war of civilizations in which the atomic bomb may be the ultima ratio.
Let us once more remember that in all cases where Muslims demand new territories and secessions, they represent a majority (or have become one) thanks to immigration and childbirth (Kosovo, Macedonia, Russia, and Kashmir). Indeed, historically speaking, territories are always claimed by those whose people is dominant a
nd not by those who, like the Israelis, assert that this right was bestowed upon them by God, as Buchanan says, or even those who, akin to the Serbs, base their claims on long foregone ‘historic rights’. In France, where the French are now a minority on their own ancestral soil, we will soon face the same secessional issues and a subsequent attempt at conquest. For it is not so much the vague problematics relating to Corsica, Brittany, Catalonia or Scotland that will have to be resolved in the next 20 years, but the independence of Muslim enclaves located at the very heart of Europe, enclaves whose size is constantly growing. In their mosques, the Muslims are already speaking of ‘reclaiming’ Andalusia and the South of France.
***
How many atomic bombs does North Korea have? And why does Bush remain silent on the topic?
William Perry, a high-ranking official at the Pentagon and a man who, at one point, was both Clinton’s special envoy in North Korea and the American Defence Secretary, made the following declaration on the 21st of July 2003 when interviewed by the American PBS channel:
If North Korea perseveres in its current programme, it will, by the end of 2003, have a total of 8 nuclear heads in its possession and be able to manufacture 5 to 10 of them per year.
The North Koreans use their Taopedong missiles to threaten both South Korea, where 38,000 GIs are stationed, and Japan. In Perry’s eyes, the principal danger lies in selling either plutonium or bombs to terrorists, who may subsequently choose to detonate the device in an American city. He believes that potential buyers are now lining up. On the other hand, according to The New York Times (20/07/2003), the massive presence of Krypton 5, a gas released during the fabrication of plutonium, has been detected along the border that separates the two Koreas. What is extraordinary, however, is that while the American State Department did not hesitate to accuse Iraq of possessing ‘weapons of mass destruction’ without any proof whatsoever, it casts doubt upon such information in the case of North Korea, although the latter is very convincing. In other words, Bush chooses to retreat when confronted with the evidence that points to the existence of North Korean nuclear weapons. He may be brave, but not fearless… Had Saddam Hussein been convicted of having just one nuclear warhead, he would still hold the reins of power in Baghdad.
***
What accounts for the USA’s easy victory in Iraq? Le Journal Du Dimanche had already indicated that one of the Iraqi chiefs of staff, General Al-Tikriti, had opted for treason and, having been bribed by the Americans, chose not to defend Baghdad in exchange for a safe-conduct for himself and those closest to him. An article published in the Defense News weekly (19/05/2003) specified things further. When questioned by journalists, General Tommy Franks himself had allegedly confessed to having paid off the executives of the Iraqi republican guard. The corruption of enemies is unflinchingly presented as a weapon of war:
In order to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime, the USA has, according to both numerous high-ranking officials at the Pentagon and on-site military officers, made use of a wide range of weapons, including pay-offs meant to convince various Iraqi generals to keep their forces out of the conflict.
In fact, in the rare cases where resistance and confrontations did take place, American troops made a fool out of themselves (in an effort to minimise their casualties, most probably).
B. The Madness Pervading the Iraqi Campaign
The Iraqi campaign embodies a rather comical violation of international law, one that points to the fact that the USA feels cornered. The Bush administration is dragging the USA into adopting a risky approach unlike any other in its entire history, an approach comprising the use of vulgar pretexts for unilateral acts of aggression that discredit the legitimate right of this ‘superpower’ to police the world. Rooted in bad faith, such attacks and contradictions only serve to deride the American administration.
This ‘pre-emptive war’, waged upon a small country that has already been bled dry (a country with a population of 24 million inhabitants that the Americans have chosen to invade because they know perfectly well that it does not actually have any weapons of mass destruction), is evidence of the USA’s immense weakness and decline, and not of its power, as nowadays understood by the entire world.
The fact of mobilising six nuclear aircraft carriers and 200,000 soldiers before begging the British and the Turks for help, in an effort to overthrow a regime that has been under embargo and bombarded for a whole decade, demonstrates that the USA is utterly incapable of taking on a middle power (especially after the openly acknowledged fiasco resulting from the Afghan operation). In a state of delirium, the sheriff can no longer dissuade nor frighten the ‘scoundrels’ (as witnessed during the Korean provocations); all he can manage to do is to open fire upon the weak and unarmed.
***
We have already highlighted all the goals behind the neoconservative warmongering. What they strive to do is: to appropriate Iraqi oil — in case the Arab peninsula falls into the hands of Islamists — and reoccupy Mesopotamia so as to ensure Israel’s protection and keep Iran at bay (while making sure that they never actually attack the latter, which would be a completely different kettle of fish); to establish themselves in the Middle-East and Central Asia to outflank Russia from the south and neutralise it, preventing the birth of a Euro-Russian axis; and to keep the military-industrial complex that finances the Republican Party in motion. We have also mentioned the private (and oil-related) dispute between the Bush family and Saddam Hussein, who was once rearmed by Bush Senior; the domestic electoral operation which aims to reassure a public opinion that has been traumatised by the 9/11 attacks and convince the American people of America’s invincibility; and the American nation’s irrepressible need to ‘combat Evil’. Additionally, we have covered the topic of the naïve, yet sincere American desire to ‘democratise’ the Muslim Near-East. This is the basis of Ivan Roufiol’s view, who wonders ‘why democracy seems so inaccessible from the Muslim perspective’ (Le Figaro, 07/03/2003). The reason, my dear friend, is that everything in Islam, beginning with the Koran and the Hadiths, condemns any notion of democracy.
In short, all of these factors play a certain role in the Bush clan’s motivations. The Bush administration crystallises the worst, most improvised, most irresponsible and most naïve and cynical attitudes embraced by the American foreign policy during the past century (including the effort to restore freedom and happiness in a country whose population has been brought to the brink of starvation and bombarded for ten long years by the Americans themselves…), while simultaneously incorporating every conceivable American flaw and excluding any and every quality. Let us not forget, furthermore, that all declining world powers are prone to waging war without good reason.
***
The consequences of war are obviously very harmful to the USA. Let us now enumerate them: regional destabilisation; the reinforcement of Islamic and terrorist prestige (America is Islam’s ideal impresario — they have been playing an insane game since the 1980s, a game in which the USA first allied itself to Islamism before arousing its hatred and fighting against it and ultimately strengthening it on a worldwide scale); the moulding of Bin Laden into a global jihadi hero; the Islamisation of Iraq, a country that has sunk into chaos instead of being democratised; the unexpected birth of a French-German-Russian continental axis challenging the Anglo-Saxons, which is precisely what the Americans sought to avoid; the unleashing of both Western and Muslim public fury against an ‘American Imperialism’ considered to be synonymous with genuine ‘Evil’; and, last but not least, the definite risk of facing a very severe form of economic depression and financial/budgetary crises as a result of this military campaign and the quagmire that stems from occupation.
***
What is most necessary at this stage is for us to reason in a completely Machiavellian and cynical manner, only taking into consideration European interests (including those of Russia) and avoiding any sort of moral indignation. Let us rejoice at watching the Americans sin
k into crocodile-infested backwaters. Following Hegelian dialectical reasoning, let us hope that both this war and the global reaction to American naivety can, however inadvertently, serve as History’s midwives by actually triggering the dreaded ‘civilisational clash’ between us and Islam, the very same Islam that acts as the banner of the Third World menace. For this is how everything will, at long last, become clear. Objectively speaking, the American hubris has sparked a global confrontation and increasing disorders that represent our only hope of awaking. The Americans, who, following the fall of Communism, longed to preside over the ‘End of History’ and their ‘new world order’ (as imagined by Bush Senior), have actually set off a historical devolution (through Bush Junior) which is as detrimental to them as it is advantageous to us!
In connection to this remark, I would like to make another: let us not forget that one of the main reasons behind Jacques Chirac’s opposition to the American expedition lay in his (sincere) Philo-Arabism and his concern to treat the millions of Muslim-Arabs living in France with utmost care, and not in an alleged anti-American and Gaullist stance that he never espoused. All one had to do was to look at the physiognomy of all those who participated in French ‘anti-war’ manifestations and the banners they carried, and everything became clear… The European position must, in fact, follow a ‘third path’ — that of resisting the American adversary as well as the far more dangerous enemy gradually occupying our land.
***
It is perfectly logical for an Arab or Muslim to mobilise passionately against this American imperialistic intervention, but it remains an utter waste of time and energy from the European perspective. Why should Europeans ever have to defend the Muslim-Arabs against the American imperium or rise up in support of the Palestinian cause? What does this struggle have to do with us?
A Global Coup Page 7