Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

January 22, 2008
A Neocon Grasp for NATO

As Rick pointed out in the comments, today’s Guardian previews a curious report on NATO’s future five former senior generals from the U.S., UK, Germany, France and the Netherlands delivered to the Pentagon and NATO. The report was not officially requested.

This news comes the same day as other news on NATO and there may well be a deeper relation.

According to the Guardian the report argues for lunatic politics like preemptive nuclear strikes against "imminent" WMD proliferation. But such nonsense only sets the general tone.

Coming up with a list of "threats" the report prescribes a completely de-nationalized imperial NATO force under control of a "directorate": 

The five commanders argue that the west’s values and way of life are under threat, but the west is struggling to summon the will to defend them. The key threats are:

  • Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.
  • The "dark side" of globalisation, meaning international terrorism, organised crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
  • Climate change and energy security, entailing a contest for resources and potential "environmental" migration on a mass scale.
  • The weakening of the nation state as well as of organisations such as the UN, Nato and the EU.

A fast-check of that "threat" list:

  • Fanatists and religious fundamentalists exist in every society at all times. That is a social problem, not a military issue.
  • International terrorism and organised crime are police problems. Where has any foreign military ever been successful against these?
  • WMD can spread because knowledge spreads. But astonishingly, WMD do not spread. Only few countries beyond the original five have aquired nuclear weapons even while many others could. Those who did aquire nukes, Israel, Pakistan and India, developed these with the knowledge and support of NATO countries. Chemical weapons are ineffective in wars and as terrorist weapons. The only biological terror attack with an elaborate biological agent happened 2001 in Washington DC.
  • Climate change is a problem and we need to find political, not military solutions to lessen the severity of the outcome. The best way to reach energy security is to generate it locally. If troops can secure energy access, why isn’t Iraq producing more oil?
  • The weakening of the nation state? Yes, a severe problem. But look around and tell me who has worked to weaken and split Yugoslavia. Who has faciliated the overthrow of the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan leading to weak states? Who is constantly violating Westphalian sovereignty and disregarding the UN?

The action items the report draws from the fake "threat" list are even more problematic:

To prevail, the generals call for an overhaul of Nato decision-taking methods, a new "directorate" of US, European and Nato leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU "obstruction" of and rivalry with Nato. Among the most radical changes demanded are:

  • A shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes.
  • The abolition of national caveats in Nato operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign.
  • No role in decision-taking on Nato operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations.
  • The use of force without UN security council authorisation when "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings".

These demands are against International Law, against the existing NATO contracts, against the constitutions of several NATO states and in the interest of whom?

The EU "obstruction" line lets assume that the origin is either in the U.S. or the UK.

Neither the Guardian nor the Telegraph, which also runs the story, tell us who paid for the tripe. Someone must have put money into the writeup of those 150 pages. The list of "threats" and the recipes against those smell like a neocon central product.

Indeed the generals did not come up with these ideas themselves. As the Telegraph notes:

The report was compiled after authors were briefed by senior serving military officials who are unable to speak publicly about their concerns with Nato’s military strategy.

So some active military officials dictated this stuff and the former generals gave their names (and took how much for that?)

But why does this report appear now?

The NYT yesterday and the Washington Post today report ‘rumors’ of General "Holy" Petraeus to become the next military head of NATO. Petraeus, the second most influential U.S. conservative, "is said to favor the move."

So the same day the Petraeus trial balloon goes up, a radical imperial concept for NATO, dictated by "senior serving military officials", is launched.

This is no coincidence. Either the White House itself or some influential conservatives in a DC think-tank came up with this. Petraeus gave the talk to the former generals and they signed (and took the check).

NATO outside of national political supervision and in service of an imperial agenda under control of a "directorate." That must be a wet dream for neocon extremists and imperial fundamentalists.

It is time for NATO to act against these.

Posted by b on January 22, 2008 at 21:20 UTC | Permalink
Comments

It might be significant that one of the authors, Lord Inge, is on the board of Aegis, the big private military company in Iraq.

Posted by: Tom Griffin | Jan 22 2008 21:59 utc | 1

European nations need to round up their generals who signed this, to rat out every single European military who was involved in this shit, and should hang them for high treason. There is simply no other action to take against such a complete betrayal of both their countries and European Union.
This shortly after complete nutcase Aznar called for NATO to invite Israel, Japan and Australia.
These fuckers should die a gruesome death.
It’s time enough for EU to definitively split with EU, create their own integrated military, and then propose non-aggression pacts with both US and Russia, to see how they would react. Though an alliance with Rusia would arguably be as interesting.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Jan 23 2008 0:23 utc | 2

Welcome to 1984 on steroids.

Posted by: mikefromtexas | Jan 23 2008 0:24 utc | 3

Bernhard, add Gates’ uncharacteristic outburst about ten days ago to the above. I think this is bigger than the Neocon faction. This is The Establishment. The launch of a campaign to recreate NATO along lines it can serve better as the empire’s foreign legion.

Posted by: Alamet | Jan 23 2008 2:00 utc | 4

You’d have to think that the ‘masthead generals and admirals’ who put their names to this beat-up must to cop a kick up the khyber from their former services. None of the ‘authors’ have a background in military aviation yet this is obviously a ploy by NATO’s airforce compinent to retain relevance, to be more than a transport division by rebuilding a strategic arm of the airforce.
Choice lies eg: “a new pact drawing the US, Nato and the European Union together in a “grand strategy” to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world”
At present the only danger to world peace is Nato and/or amerika. These are the only ‘brutes’. Their perpetual bullying of sovereign nations that are quietly going about their business has finally provoked a strong reaction. All that needs be done to stop the burgeoning conflict is for amerika/Nato to pull their heads in.
How often must level heads point out that terrorism is a minute cause of preventable death and injury? Compared to non-military firearm discharges, motor vehicle accidents and the real biggie medical misadventure terrorism is piss in the ocean.
A system which could prevent patients from being wrongly prescribed or dispensed drugs which cause them injury rather than ‘cure’ them would save hundreds of times more people than died on 911, every year.
Of course none of that sounds as romantic as loading up with weapons and blowing the shit outta unwhite people. It is a helluva a lot cheaper though, and is far more likely to provoke a successful outcome.
Plus it doesn’t require that hundreds of billions of dollars be blown on deliberately obsolescent weapons systems which are outmoded before their manufacturing process is completed.
These war mongering fools (those of you who can remember military leaders from before, when they were just other kids, back in the old schoolyard, may remember, as I do, exactly how intellectually bereft those types were) try and tell us that a failure to update the arsenal will leave us dangerously exposed.
This is patent bullshit. If amerika, Russia, China and the B-listers of Germany, england, israel amongst others; quit making new weapons there would no longer be a need to make the rest of the world buy the old gear, which is what keeps everything on the edge of destruction.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jan 23 2008 2:18 utc | 5

Good catch there, Tom Griffin…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 23 2008 2:41 utc | 6

This must be The New World Order we’ve heard so much about.

Posted by: R.L. | Jan 23 2008 5:41 utc | 7

Arms sales and security sales are the only income sources that these old retired
generals have, since they don’t have the balls to live in civilian life, working
for a living. You don’t “rise” to general’s rank, dreaming of retirement wearing
a sky-blue jacket, and standing by an open door, streaming with shopping carts.
You dream of making $100M arms sales deals, getting your 3% round-trip kickback.
You dream of being an advisor to a high-profile security firm, making $200,000
sitting around your pool in bermuda shorts, with your white chest hairs curling.
Like the credit freeze, NATO proves the world has caught our kleptocracy disease.
Thrashing around for predecessors, this Neo-Zi Soviet is unlikely to end well 4 US.

Posted by: Four Aechh | Jan 23 2008 5:52 utc | 8

Once again DiD has said it all before (and better than) I could.
There’s something obscene about the sheer bloody chutzpah of the mafia that churns out these reams of scaremongering bumf. They know it’s crap, everyone with half a clue knows it’s crap, the whole thing is such a sham, a charade where all the big players are nudging and winking and trying not to snicker out loud… meantime earnest groundlings (I know at least one) are passing around emails to each other about the Imminent Threat of a New Dar al-Islam blah blah blah.
Oh gawd, can I just fast-forward through the next few years? How the heck can people get fooled over and over and over again by the same damn song and dance?

Posted by: DeAnander | Jan 23 2008 6:06 utc | 9

Ackerman in Prospect: Petraeus ’12

General David Petraeus has a sterling reputation, the love of the press, and the adoration of the GOP. Don’t be surprised if a Democratic presidential win in ’08 starts an effort to recruit Petraeus as the Republican candidate in ’12.
…

Posted by: b | Jan 23 2008 8:25 utc | 10

Well, De and Debs, do what you do … and the rest of us do too. Our words resonate as you know.
It helps to hear from time to time about the trapped Gazans breaking out into Egypt (for what — hopefully fresh air and water, food and medicine) even though they “sent women to the front line” from Debka, or Canada being overheard warning their diplomats about countries that torture including US and Israel.
On the other hand, Canada’s Manley Afghanistan panel advises us to not continue doing what we are doing, instead we need more helicopters and NATO troops, or else we should just leave. Something like that. I haven’t read it but the commentary is all over the map.
Interesting that Canadians apparently have respect for the military, maybe because we all know someone in the regular force or reserve who has gone into a peacekeeping mission, or more likely nowadays, kosovo or afghanistan.
But the question of what are we doing there hasn’t been publicly debated for over a year or more although the gov’t is still working it through.
As for pre-emptive nuclear strikes, we all read the book and saw the movies, Failsafe and Dr. Strangelove.
My apologies to the current young generation who get to grow up amidst the threat of fookin’ nuclear weapons … drove my generation nuts, good luck to you. If it gets really bad I recommend a drink at the bar.
Because the whole secret of nuclear bombs is that they don’t actually work, their value as a potential threat is gigatons more than the incredible awkwardness of attempting actual use.

Posted by: jonku | Jan 23 2008 8:49 utc | 11

CLimate change has always been closely related with human conflichts. One only has to think of the climate shift some 2,000 years ago that drove the Germanic tribes from their homelands and put them in conflict with Rome, driving the Romans to a state of near panic when one legion after the other was wiped out by the advancing hordes.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jan 23 2008 8:50 utc | 12

Sigh, and what will the response of Russians be?
According to a contributer at Wired, Russia still has on-line a doomsday, well not a device but a “preparedness” where all the shit they have can be launched in the event an ancient computer says they have been attacked and Moscow has been taken out.
I read in a sci-fi story once where multi-megaton class nuclear mines were set off under water off the US coasts — of course no foreign sub could penertrate our super hi-tech defenses.
All the bombs are in the hands of terrorists

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Jan 23 2008 9:58 utc | 13

But look around and tell me who has worked to weaken and split Yugoslavia.
It always seemed the West, particularly Germany and the US, wanted to peel away industry intensive Croatia and Slovenia for some coveted predatory privatization scams. Anyone able to confirm or validate that notion with cites? Appreciated.
The main post reminds me of the German Seargent’s comment on his superior in an old production concerning Operation Bernhard, “He’s quite mad, you know.” Someday political science will have a cure for nations afflicted by these people. CluelessJoe seems to be on it.

Posted by: Pvt. Keepout | Jan 23 2008 16:11 utc | 14

This “lawless imperialism” becomes a lot more comprehensible if you get some of the background.
A woman by the name of Svali spent her first 38 years under the direct influence of the Illuminati before finally breaking out to tell the story. It is fascinating:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310049.shtml
Do yourself the favor of reading her story (interview), then see if all these war crimes we are witnessing don’t make more sense, as applied to the objectives of the hidden PTB.
This piece also tosses out some insight on the ranking of several World Powers, European, Asian, North American, in the current and future One World structure. Hapsburg is first (naturally), then British, Russian, Chinese, and finally U.S.A. Us New-Worlders don’t really rank so high do we?
If you look at some of the moves being made today, and compare them to plans that Svali became privy to 10+, 20+ years ago, it fits almost perfectly. One detail she mentions is that about one percent of the population now is actively working on this transition; that comes to about three million partners in crime in the U.S. alone.
It helps to spread the word of course, but shock, awe, disgust, sputtering helplessly probably won’t do much to counteract this force.

Posted by: rapt | Jan 23 2008 16:23 utc | 15

So Brzezinski suckered the Russkies into Afgh.
The radical muslims were long supported by the US, eh, freedom fighters! The usual opportunism. Cf. Bosnia, Kosovo.. To enfeeble the Russians.
Link from top o’ goog, global research. link
Then the US fell into the same trap, world hegemon after the fall of the wall, etc. For that effort, it managed to rope in NATO, who was looking for action, to show its muscle, and doing the usual bit of hegemon worship or… some call it appeasement.
Hysteria: Bin Laden, Unocal with its pipelines, other interests, be the top of the top, etc.
The US people: Kill those dose scum muslims, harborin’ terrarists! (Anyhow the Afghanis are expendable. Primitives.)
Fine. Dandy. Cool. Kill!
Get them to participate in a US TV show, handing over Mullah Omar (fat chance, he has a moped!…) and a soon dead Binny…for the zombie popcorn eaters glued to the blue box.
And meanwhile, huge profits can be made by corps, defended by US/nato soldiers, funded for by the tax payer. Any justifications will fly, the amounts are huge, the criminal orgs. gets in the game, the money goes straight to offshore accounts.
There is no military victory to be had, it is not wished or expected.

Posted by: Tangerine | Jan 23 2008 20:02 utc | 16

Jonathan Schell has an column in the Feb issue of Harper’s magazine that provides some interesting/hot air/useless rhetorical(?) background on the subject of US nuclear policy.
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/0081890

Posted by: Bruce F | Jan 23 2008 20:31 utc | 17

Back to Main