Re: [A-List] Eurocorps To Take NATO's Afghan War Into The Provinces

["Anyutka" <annewilliamson@xxxxxxx>]

On February 9, 2004, Rick Rozoff wrote:

> A consummation devoutly to be wished. And not beyond
> the realm of possibilities, though I fear there
> remains the sequential program of: US eggs on and
> leads the wars; NATO participates either severally or
> collectively (as it's done in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan,
> Central and South Asia, Iraq, Kuwait, the Horn of
> Africa, the entire rim of the Mediterranean Sea from
> the Suez Canal to the Straits of Gibraltar, even the
> US Atlantic Seaboard after 9/11/2001, etc.) ; NATO,
> then the UN, steps in to 'peacekeep,' which is to say
> to set up an occupation regime and pretend to clean up
> the mess, thereby freeing up US and UK assault troops
> for the next act of aggression. (Look at Bosnia almost
> a decade later.)

The arrangements with NATO have been afoot for years:

World Net Daily
March 26, 1999
By Anne Williamson

How Did We Get To Kosovo From Potsdam?


NATO's air attacks on a sovereign Serbia in contradiction to Article 5 of
the formerly defensive Alliance's founding treaty serve to highlight the
fact that the single most important consequence of NATO enlargement was
never addressed;  enlargement has worked first and foremost to deliver an
exponential increase in power to the office of the U.S. presidency.

Do Americans, whose founding fathers worried mightily over the danger of the
presidency becoming a royal office, really want to continue providing a
single individual de facto control of an international army?

If yes, then the costs will not be monetary alone. The first victim will be
the feisty citizenship witnessed 13 months ago at the Columbus Town Meeting
the Clinton administration organized - too hastily as it turned out - to
drum up support for a massive bombing campaign against Iraq. It is enough to
recall the stunned look on a decidedly rattled Madeleine Albright's face
when a 22 year-old substitute history teacher challenged her regarding the
inconsistencies of American foreign policy to know just how inconvenient the
U.S. Constitution is for the globalists' big agenda.

World courts, world investment agreements, world trade organizations, world
environmental agreements, world bans on personal firearms, world struggles
against terrorism and world edicts governing various UN-selected "victim"
groups meant to function as dependent international constituencies and whose
plight is to be used to squeeze revenues from productive populations on
"humanitarian" grounds, require a capability for coercion under a single
authority. U.N. Peacekeepers, funded by donation rather than taxation and
deployed by consensus, are not presently a solution to the demands of global
realpolitik.

Once installed in office six years ago, Clinton was soon chafing under the
hard fact that American public opinion has always restrained the use of the
US Armed Forces when he found himself stymied by the Balkan conflict. The
president knew too that the American people were not willing to spill blood
for Bosnia, most certainly not after his administration's Somalian
misadventure. However, the president's appointment  of a diplomatic amateur
and KGB protege, former Time Magazine journalist and Deputy Secretary Strobe
Talbott, as his man at the State Department soon began paying dividends. A
Harvard man, Talbott had had a moment of genius early in his tenure: Why not
give the Treaty of Versailles a second shot and call it 'NATO expansion'?

Talbott soon cooked up a workable subterfuge on his home computer. The
resulting Partnership For Peace program provided a framework for NATO troops
to engage in war games at U.S. taxpayers' expense with the shattered armies
of the Warsaw Pact in locales once considered exotic, like Ukraine. In
reality, the program laid the crucial groundwork for public acceptance of
the routine movement of NATO troops outside the alliance countries' national
boundaries on the basis of a vague, post-cold war gesture towards the
defeated Soviet block. Later, when a still-frustrated president turned to
NATO and along with other ally contingents, the US army was set down in
Bosnia like a porcupine in a wire mesh cage, it is worth noting that the
only real debate was about the deployment of US armed forces.

Having succeeded by incremental stealth, the Clinton administration next
advanced their cause with a sterling example of Clintonspeak known as "The
Founding Act". The Founding Act is an agreement between NATO and Russia
governing the two entities' relations in light of an enlarged alliance, but
it was designed to be an end run around the U.S. Constitution which requires
Senate approval for a "Treaty", but not for an "Act".  This semantic
camouflage enabled an agreement with a foreign nation regarding the terms of
a proposed and unauthorized expansion of a long-standing military alliance
founded by treaty and governed by charter. Additionally, the ploy gave U.S.
media shills and policy pundits plenty of time to escalate the alleged
stakes dependent on the proposed treaty to the hyperbolic premise that "the
prestige and international leadership of the United States" were on the
line.

In late April 1998, 81 Senators, their pockets stuffed with $33 million of
defense manufacturers' campaign contributions, authorized the "rolling
expansions" of NATO enlargement.  The Kosovo situation today gives citizens
but a taste of what they can expect as a result of their government's
hubris.  And what exactly are those likely results?

First, bills. Big ones.  And plenty of them. Having dumped billions into
Russia and other CIS countries to develop market economies, those nations
will inevitably re-order their national priorities to take into account the
large, well-equipped, American-led and -financed army at their borders.
Eventually, Russia will find her footing and a new president independent of
the West and most probably hostile to it as a consequence not only of NATO
air attacks against a sovereign Serbia but also of the IMF-induced ruin
Russia has suffered will emerge, thereby entailing yet further costs for US
taxpayers.

Domestically, one result is the hollowing out of our national military.
Again, Clinton demonstrated foresight; by saddling the armed forces with the
burden of an amoral and untrustworthy commander-in-chief, with nonmilitary
obligations and with a stepped-up program of gender-engineering, our
national military is today a shadow of its former self. Add to that the
reduction of funding for equipment and training and in short order the
national army will be dependent upon the international one now being
created. This is an essential development for any president who would be
king, because a powerful hierarchy based on merit and codes of honor
grounded in a tradition that includes civilian control amounts to alarming
competition.

Since Americans no longer accept casualties as an inevitable consequence of
military action, the international army will be ideal for the inattentive
and self-absorbed citizenry the Clintons are so enthusiastically attempting
to create via their boomer socialism. In the expanded NATO, officers will be
Americans, Brits and Germans mostly. The second tier of NATO forces will be
composed of second tier EU alliance members and fighting troops will be
drawn from those nations like Poland and the Czech Republic which were once
Soviet satellites and which today aspire to EU membership. After the last
group has achieved its goal, thereby putting in place the final bricks of
Fortress Europe, it will be easy to close the final gap to creating a fully
imperial army with the employment of mercenaries. Even better, the US-led
and IMF-funded empire of finance capitalism will insure a healthy supply of
soldiers for hire; an imperial army will be welcome a job program for
"emerging economies" whose corrupt governments are routinely bound and
gagged with large international loans.

That then will be the twenty-first century's brave, new world, created by a
duplicitous political and financial elite who no longer view America as a
nation, a culture or a civilization, but as an opportunity. Citizens need to
understand that should NATO survive and prosper, what began yesterday in
Serbia will conclude in several years' time in Central Asia.  From a future
base most likely in Azerbaijan, NATO troops are destined to guard oil fields
and pipelines under U.S. and Western control.  Though America's soccer moms
today fail to see the danger of losing their sons to future NATO oil wars,
the Russians surely are not so blind.



_______________________________________________________________________