ZGram - 12/2/2001 - "Keep Your Eye on the Target!" - Part I

[irimland@zundelsite.org]

>Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 11:31:25 -0800
>To: zgrams@freedomsite.org
>From: Ingrid Rimland <irimland@zundelsite.org>
>Subject: ZGram - 12/2/2001 - "Keep Your Eye on the Target!" - Part I
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>
>
>Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland
>
>ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny
>
>December 2, 2001
>
>Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
>
>Unrelated to the ZGram below, but for the record:
>
>I need to correct an item in yesterday's ZGram written by Matt Giwer,
>titled "Tribal Observations."  Matt made a mistake saying that Abe Foxman
>was heading the Wiesenthal Center.  Foxman heads the ADL.
>
>I noticed this mistake and, in fact, secured Matt's permission via e-mail
>to correct it, but then accidentally sent the ***uncorrected*** version
>through my automatic mail program because both documents were sitting
>"open" on my desktop.  I should have been more careful.  Blame it on work
>overload!
>
>Now to today's Part I of a three-part ZGram.  It is a speech given by
>Congressman Ron Paul, one of America's most courageous and sensitive
>leaders,  in response to the "9-11" crisis.  Ron Paul has grasped what
>this emergency is really all about - and where it can lead, to the
>detriment of the American people.
>
>Here is a Paul Revere-type call to reason and reflection that needs to be
>as widely distributed as possible among ordinary citizens and community
>leaders.  Please read it several times and let it sink in - and then pass
>it on, far and wide.
>
>[START]
>
>Congressman Ron Paul, House of Representatives, November 29, 2001
>
> Keep Your Eye on the Target
>
> Mr.  Speaker:
>
> We have been told on numerous occasions to expect a long and protracted
>war.  This is not necessary if one can identify the target - the enemy -
>and then stay focused on that target.  It's impossible to keep one's eye
>on a target and hit it if one does not precisely understand it and
>identify it.
>
>In pursuing any military undertaking, it's the responsibility of Congress
>to know exactly why it appropriates the funding.  Today, unlike any time
>in our history, the enemy and its location remain vague and pervasive.  In
>the undeclared wars of Vietnam and Korea, the enemy was known and clearly
>defined, even though our policies were confused and contradictory.  Today
>our policies relating to the growth of terrorism are also confused and
>contradictory;  however, the precise enemy and its location are not known
>by anyone.  Until the enemy is defined and understood, it cannot be
>accurately targeted or vanquished.
>
> The terrorist enemy is no more an entity than the "mob" or some
>international criminal gang.  It certainly is not a country, nor is it the
>Afghan people.  The Taliban is obviously a strong sympathizer with bin
>Laden and his henchmen, but how much more so than the government of Saudi
>Arabia or even Pakistan?  Probably not much.
>
> Ulterior motives have always played a part in the foreign policy of
>almost every nation throughout history.  Economic gain and geographic
>expansion, or even just the desires for more political power, too often
>drive the militarism of all nations.  Unfortunately, in recent years, we
>have not been exempt.  If expansionism, economic interests, desire for
>hegemony, and influential allies affect our policies and they, in turn,
>incite mob attacks against us, they obviously cannot be ignored.  The
>target will be illusive and ever enlarging, rather than vanquished.
>
> We do know a lot about the terrorists who spilled the blood of nearly
>4,000 innocent civilians.  There were 19 of them, 15 from Saudi Arabia,
>and they have paid a high price.  They're all dead.  So those most
>responsible for the attack have been permanently taken care of.  If one
>encounters a single suicide bomber who takes his own life along with
>others without the help of anyone else, no further punishment is possible.
>The only question that can be raised under that circumstance is why did it
>happen and how can we change the conditions that drove an individual to
>perform such a heinous act.
>
> The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington are not quite so simple,
>but they are similar.  These attacks required funding, planning and
>inspiration from others.  But the total number of people directly involved
>had to be relatively small in order to have kept the plans thoroughly
>concealed.  Twenty accomplices, or even a hundred could have done it.  But
>there's no way thousands of people knew and participated in the planning
>and carrying out of this attack.
>
>Moral support expressed by those who find our policies offensive is a
>different matter and difficult to discover.  Those who enjoyed seeing the
>U.S.  hit are too numerous to count and impossible to identify.  To target
>and wage war against all of them is like declaring war against an idea or
>sin.
>
> The predominant nationality of the terrorists was Saudi Arabian.  Yet for
>political and economic reasons, even with the lack of cooperation from the
>Saudi government, we have ignored that country in placing blame.  The
>Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war.  The Taliban, of course,
>is closely tied to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but so are the Pakistanis and
>the Saudis.  Even the United States was a supporter of the Taliban's rise
>to power, and as recently as August of 2001, we talked oil pipeline
>politics with them.
>
> The recent French publication of "bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth"
>revealed our most recent effort to secure control over Caspian Sea oil in
>collaboration with the Taliban.  According to the two authors, the
>economic conditions demanded by the U.S.  were turned down and led to U.S.
>military threats against the Taliban.
>
> It has been known for years that Unocal, a U.S.  company, has been
>anxious to build a pipeline through northern Afghanistan, but it has not
>been possible due to the weak Afghan central government.  We should not be
>surprised now that many contend that the plan for the UN to "nation build"
>in Afghanistan is a logical and important consequence of this desire.  The
>crisis has merely given those interested in this project an excuse to
>replace the government of Afghanistan.  Since we don't even know if bin
>Laden is in Afghanistan, and since other countries are equally supportive
>of him, our concentration on this Taliban "target" remains suspect by
>many.
>
> Former FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill resigned in July over duplicitous
>dealings with the Taliban and our oil interests.  O'Neill then took a job
>as head of the World Trade Center security and ironically was killed in
>the 9-11 attack.  The charges made by these authors in their recent
>publication deserve close scrutiny and congressional oversight
>investigation - and not just for the historical record.
>
> To understand world sentiment on this subject, one might note a comment
>in "The Hindu", India's national newspaper - not necessarily to agree with
>the paper's sentiment, but to help us better understand what is being
>thought about us around the world in contrast to the spin put on the war
>by our five major TV news networks.
>
> This quote comes from an article written by Sitaram Yechury on October
>13, 2001:
>
>"The world today is being asked to side with the U.S.  in a fight against
>global terrorism.  This is only a cover.  The world is being asked today,
>in reality, to side with the U.S.  as it seeks to strengthen its economic
>hegemony.  This is neither acceptable nor will it be allowed.  We must
>forge together to state that we are neither with the terrorists nor with
>the United States."
>
> The need to define our target is ever so necessary if we're going to
>avoid letting this war get out of control.
>
> It's important to note that in the same article, the author quoted
>Michael Klare, an expert on Caspian Sea oil reserves, from an interview on
>Radio Free Europe:
>
>"We (the U.S.) view oil as a security consideration and we have to protect
>it by any means necessary, regardless of other considerations, other
>values."
>
>This, of course, was a clearly stated position of our administration in
>1990 as our country was being prepared to fight the Persian Gulf War.
>Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction only became the issue
>later on.
>
> For various reasons, the enemy with whom we're now at war remains vague
>and illusive.  Those who commit violent terrorist acts should be targeted
>with a rifle or hemlock - not with vague declarations, with some claiming
>we must root out terrorism in as many as 60 countries.  If we're not
>precise in identifying our enemy, it's sure going to be hard to keep our
>eye on the target.  Without this identification, the war will spread and
>be needlessly prolonged.
>
> Why is this definition so crucial?  Because without it, the special
>interests and the ill-advised will clamor for all kinds of expansive
>militarism.  Planning to expand and fight a never-ending war in 60
>countries against worldwide terrorist conflicts with the notion that, at
>most, only a few hundred ever knew of the plans to attack the World Trade
>Center and the Pentagon.  The pervasive and indefinable enemy - terrorism
>- cannot be conquered with weapons and UN nation building - only a more
>sensible pro-American foreign policy will accomplish this.  This must
>occur if we are to avoid a cataclysmic expansion of the current
>hostilities.
>
> It was said that our efforts were to be directed toward the terrorists
>responsible for the attacks, and overthrowing and instituting new
>governments were not to be part of the agenda.  Already we have clearly
>taken our eyes off that target and diverted it toward building a
>pro-Western, UN-sanctioned government in Afghanistan.  But if bin Laden
>can hit us in New York and DC, what should one expect to happen once the
>US/UN establishes a new government in Afghanistan with occupying troops?
>It seems that would be an easy target for the likes of al Qaeda.
>
> Since we don't know in which cave or even in which country bin Laden is
>hiding, we hear the clamor of many for us to overthrow our next villain -
>Saddam Hussein - guilty or not.  On the short list of countries to be
>attacked are North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and the Sudan, just for
>starters.  But this jingoistic talk is foolhardy and dangerous.  The war
>against terrorism cannot be won in this manner.
>
> The drumbeat for attacking Baghdad grows louder every day, with Paul
>Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, and Bill Bennett leading the
>charge.  In a recent interview, U.S.  Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
>Wolfowitz, made it clear: "We are going to continue pursuing the entire al
>Qaeda network which is in 60 countries, not just Afghanistan."
>Fortunately, President Bush and Colin Powell so far have resisted the
>pressure to expand the war into other countries.  Let us hope and pray
>that they do not yield to the clamor of the special interests that want us
>to take on Iraq.
>
> The argument that we need to do so because Hussein is producing weapons
>of mass destruction is the reddest of all herrings.  I sincerely doubt
>that he has developed significant weapons of mass destruction.  However,
>if that is the argument, we should plan to attack all those countries that
>have similar weapons or plans to build them - countries like China, North
>Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and India.  Iraq has been uncooperative with the
>UN World Order and remains independent of western control of its oil
>reserves, unlike Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.  This is why she has been bombed
>steadily for 11 years by the U.S.  and Britain.  My guess is that in the
>not-too-distant future, so-called proof will be provided that Saddam
>Hussein was somehow partially responsible for the attack in the United
>States, and it will be irresistible then for the U.S.  to retaliate
>against him.  This will greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke
>even greater hatred toward the United States, and it's all so unnecessary.
>
> It's just so hard for many Americans to understand how we inadvertently
>provoke the Arab/Muslim people, and I'm not talking about the likes of bin
>Laden and his al Qaeda gang.  I'm talking about the Arab/Muslim masses.
>
> In 1996, after five years of sanctions against Iraq and persistent
>bombings, CBS reporter Lesley Stahl asked our Ambassador to the United
>Nations, Madeline Albright, a simple question: "We have heard that a half
>million children have died (as a consequence of our policy against Iraq).
>Is the price worth it?" Albright's response was "We think the price is
>worth it." Although this interview won an Emmy award, it was rarely shown
>in the U.S.  but widely circulated in the Middle East.  Some still wonder
>why America is despised in this region of the world!
>
> Former President George W.  Bush has been criticized for not marching on
>to Baghdad at the end of the Persian Gulf War.  He gave then, and stands
>by his explanation today, a superb answer of why it was ill-advised to
>attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power - there were strategic and
>tactical, as well as humanitarian, arguments against it.  But the
>important and clinching argument against annihilating Baghdad was
>political.  The coalition, in no uncertain terms, let it be known they
>wanted no part of it.  Besides, the UN only authorized the removal of
>Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.  The UN has never sanctioned the continued
>U.S.  and British bombing of Iraq - a source of much hatred directed
>toward the United States.
>
> But placing of U.S.  troops on what is seen as Muslim holy land in Saudi
>Arabia seems to have done exactly what the former President was trying to
>avoid - the breakup of the coalition.  The coalition has hung together by
>a thread, but internal dissention among the secular and religious
>Arab/Muslim nations within individual countries has intensified.  Even
>today, the current crisis threatens the overthrow of every puppet
>pro-western Arab leader from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
>
> Many of the same advisors from the first Bush presidency are now urging
>the current President to finish off Hussein.  However, every reason given
>11 years ago for not leveling Baghdad still holds true today - if not more
>so.
>
> It has been argued that we needed to maintain a presence in Saudi Arabia
>after the Persian Gulf War to protect the Saudi government from Iraqi
>attack.  Others argued that it was only a cynical excuse to justify
>keeping troops to protect what our officials declared were "our" oil
>supplies.  Some have even suggested that our expanded presence in Saudi
>Arabia was prompted by a need to keep King Fahd in power and to thwart any
>effort by Saudi fundamentalists to overthrow his regime.
>
> Expanding the war by taking on Iraq at this time may well please some
>allies, but it will lead to unbelievable chaos in the region and
>throughout the world.  It will incite even more anti-American sentiment
>and expose us to even greater dangers.  It could prove to be an
>unmitigated disaster.  Iran and Russia will not be pleased with this move.
>
> It is not our job to remove Saddam Hussein - that is the job of the Iraqi
>people.  It is not our job to remove the Taliban - that is the business of
>the Afghan people.  It is not our job to insist that the next government
>in Afghanistan include women, no matter how good an idea it is.  If this
>really is an issue, why don't we insist that our friends in Saudi Arabia
>and Kuwait do the same thing, as well as impose our will on them?  Talk
>about hypocrisy!  The mere thought that we fight wars for affirmative
>action in a country 6,000 miles from home, with no cultural similarities,
>should insult us all.  Of course it does distract us from the issue of an
>oil pipeline through northern Afghanistan.  We need to keep our eye on the
>target and not be so easily distracted.
>
> Assume for a minute that bin Laden is not in Afghanistan.  Would any of
>our military efforts in that region be justified?  Since none of it would
>be related to American security, it would be difficult to justify.
>
> Assume for a minute that bin Laden is as ill as I believe he is with
>serious renal disease, would he not do everything conceivable for his
>cause by provoking us into expanding the war and alienating as many
>Muslims as possible?
>
> Remember, to bin Laden, martyrdom is a noble calling, and he just may be
>more powerful in death than he is in life.  An American invasion of Iraq
>would please bin Laden, because it would rally his troops against any
>moderate Arab leader who appears to be supporting the United States.  It
>would prove his point that America is up to no good, that oil and Arab
>infidels are the source of all the Muslims' problems.
>
> We have recently been reminded of Admiral Yamamoto's quote after the
>bombing of Pearl Harbor in expressing his fear that the event "Awakened a
>sleeping giant." Most everyone agrees with the prophetic wisdom of that
>comment.  But I question the accuracy of drawing an analogy between the
>Pearl Harbor event and the World Trade Center attack.  We are hardly the
>same nation we were in 1941.  Today, we're anything but a sleeping giant.
>There's no contest for our status as the world's only economic, political
>and military super power.  A "sleeping giant" would not have troops in 141
>countries throughout the world and be engaged in every conceivable
>conflict with 250,000 troops stationed abroad.
>
> The fear I have is that our policies, along with those of Britain, the
>UN, and NATO since World War II, inspired and have now awakened a
>long-forgotten sleeping giant - Islamic fundamentalism.
>
> Let's hope for all our sakes that Iraq is not made the target in this
>complex war.
>
>[to be continued]
>
>=====
>
>Tomorrow:  Part II
>
>=====
>
>Thought for the Day:
>
>"A Constitution is a terrible thing to waste."
>
>(Letter to the Zundelsite)
>
>
>
>
>
>