Reply to thread

Going to War: The American use of War Pretext Incidents.

http://coat.ncf.ca/articles/links/how_to_start_a_war.htm

Going to War: Unraveling the Tangled Web of American Pretext Stratagems (1846-1989) 

By Richard Sanders, coordinator, Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretext n. [Latin praetextum, to weave before, pretend, disguise; prae-, before + texere, to weave], a false reason or motive put forth to hide the real one; excuse.

Stratagem [Gr. Strategema, device or act of a general; stratos, army + agein, to lead], a trick or scheme used to deceive an enemy in war.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

For more than a year now the U.S. has seemed on the verge of attacking

Iraq.  All that is stopping them is their inability to find a credible

pretext for war.

         Throughout history, war planners have used many forms of deception

to trick their enemies.  Because public support is so crucial to the

process of initiating and waging war, the home population is also subject

to deceitful stratagems. Creating false pretenses to justify war is often a

major step in gaining public support for such deadly ventures.

         Like schoolyard bullies who shout 'He hit me first!', war planners

know that it is irrelevant whether their rival really did 'throw the first

punch.'  As long as the attack can be made to appear unprovoked, the

aggressor can 'respond' with force.  Bullies and war planners are experts

in the art of taunting, teasing and threatening.  If enemies cannot be

goaded into 'firing the first shot,' it is easy enough to fabricate lies

about what happened.  Such lies are used to rationalize schoolyard beatings

or genocidal wars.

         Such expedient artifice has no doubt been used by every military

power in history.  Roman emperors had their cassus belli to conceal real

reasons for waging war.  Over the millenia, although weapons and battle

strategies have changed greatly, the deceitful strategem of using pretext

incidents to ignite war has remained remarkably consistent.  In examining

this history, certain patterns repeatedly emerge, a distinct modus operandi

is detected, and the institutionalized, criminal ploys of war planners can

be seen.

         Perhaps the most commonly used war pretext device is an apparently

unprovoked enemy attack.  Through history, such "attacks" have been

deliberately incited, completely fabricated, allowed to occur, or

engineered and then blamed on the desired enemy.  The event is then

exploited to arouse widespread public sympathy for the victims, to demonise

the attackers and to build widespread support for military "retaliation"

among the general population, as well as among politicians and other

leaders of public opinion.

         War pretext incidents, in themselves, are not sufficient to spark

wars.  Rumours and allegations about the tragic events must also spread

throughout the target population.  Constant repetition of the official

version of what happened, helps to spawn dramatic narratives that are

lodged into public consciousness.  The stories then become accepted without

question and legends are fostered.  The corporate media is central to the

success of such war propaganda.  Politicians rally people around the flag,

lending their special oratory skills to the call for a military

"response."  Demands for "retaliation" then ring out across the land, war

hysteria mounts and, finally, a war is born.

         Every time the U.S. has gone to war, pretext incidents have been

used as triggers to justify military action.  Later, the conventional views

of these controversial events have been challenged and exposed as

untrue.  Historians, investigative journalists and others, have cited

eyewitness accounts, declassified documents and statements made by the

perpetrators themselves to demonstrate that provocative incidents were used

to stage manage the march to war.

         There are dozens of other examples from U.S. history besides those

exposed in these pages.  During the Cold War, dozens of covert and overt

wars were promoted using specific pretext episodes.  However, the crusade

against communism was the generic backdrop for all rationales.

         As the Cold War wound down, the "War on Drugs" was developed as a

new cover story.  Lurking behind U.S. lies about wanting to squash illicit

drug production and trafficking, are the actual reasons for financing and

training so many right-wing, military governments.  The "War on Drugs"

pretext has been used to boost counter-insurgency operations aimed at

destroying those opposed to U.S. corporate profiteering. The CIA has not

only used drugs as a pretext to arm regimes that themselves profit from

illegal drug sales, it has also financed many of its own covert wars using

the highly lucrative trade in heroine and cocaine.

         The latest thematic pretext for war is the so-called "War Against

Terrorism." It is vitally important to expose this latest attempt to

fraudulently conceal the largely economic and geostrategic purposes of

war.  By unraveling the intricate web of pretenses woven to deceive the

public, we can begin to reveal how corporations are the main benefactors of

war.  By throwing light on repeated historical patterns of deception, we

can promote a healthy skepticism about government and corporate media yarns

that are now being spun to promote wars of the future.

         If asked to support wars so that wealthy elites can safely plunder

the natural and human resources of foreign lands, people would likely 'just

say no.' Therefore, over the millennia, war planners have developed a

special martial art - the creation of war pretext incidents.   These

elaborate webs of deceit are woven to create the appearance that wars are

fought for just, moral and humanitarian reasons.

         The knowledge of how people have been repeatedly tricked into

going to war, is like a vaccine.  It can be used to inoculate the public

with healthy doses of distrust for official, war pretext narratives and

other deceptive stratagems.  Through such immunization programs we can help

to counter our society's susceptibility to "war fever" and, hopefully,

prevent the next bout of war from infecting us.

===

1846:  The Mexican-American War

Context

After Mexico's revolution in 1821, Americans demanded about $3 million in

compensation for their losses.1  Mexico abolished slavery in 1829 and then

prohibited further U.S. immigration into Texas, a Mexican state.  In 1835,

Mexico tried to enforce its authority over Texas.  Texans, rallying under

the slogan "Remember the Alamo!", drove Mexican troops out of Texas and

proclaimed independence.   For nine years, many Texans lobbied for U.S.

annexation.  This was delayed by northerners that opposed adding more slave

territories to the U.S. and feared a war with Mexico.2

         In 1844, Democratic presidential candidate, James Polk, declared

his support for annexing Texas.  The next year, under President John Tyler,

Texas was annexed and Mexico broke off diplomatic relations with the

U.S.  Later that year, when Polk became president, winning with the

thinnest margin ever,3 he sent John Slidell to Mexico offering $25 million

for New Mexico, California and an agreement accepting the Rio Grande

boundary.  Mexican government officials flatly refused to even meet the

U.S. envoy.4

Pretext Incident

John Stockwell, a Texan who led the CIA's covert 1970s war in Angola,

summed up the start of Mexican- American war by saying "they offered two

dollars-a-head to every soldier who would enlist.  They didn't get enough

takers, so they offered a hundred acres to anyone who would be a veteran of

that war.  They still didn't get enough takers, so [General] Zachary Taylor

was sent down to parade up and down the border - the disputed border -

until the Mexicans fired on him....  And the nation rose up, and we fought

the war."5

         President Polk hoped that sending General Taylor's 3,500 soldiers

into Mexico territory, would provoke an attack against U.S. troops.6  "On

May 8, 1846, Polk met with his Cabinet at the White House and told them

that if the Mexican army attacked the U.S. forces, he was going to send a

message to Congress asking for a declaration of war.  It was decided that

war should be declared in three days even if there was no attack."7

         When news of a skirmish arrived, Polk sent a message to Congress

on May 11:  "Mexico has passed the boundary of the U.S. and shed American

blood on American soil."8  Two days later Congress declared war on Mexico.9

Follow Up

Newspapers helped the push for war with headlines like: "'Mexicans Killing

our Boys in Texas.'10

         With public support secured, U.S. forces occupied New Mexico and

California.  U.S. troops fought battles across northern Mexico and stormed

their capital.  A new more U.S.-friendly government quickly emerged

there.  In 1847, with Mexico City and much of northern half of the country

occupied by the U.S. military, the new Mexican leaders had little choice

but to concede defeat.  In early 1847, as part of the Guadalupe Hidalgo

Treaty, Mexico agreed to "sell" about half of their territory to the U.S.

for $15 million. The treaty also forced Mexico to recognize the U.S.

annexation of Texas by making the Rio Grande their new border with the U.S.11

         As a direct result of his exploits, General Taylor, by then a

wealthy slave-owner, became an American war hero.  He used this status to

ride his victory straight into the White House by succeeding Polk as

president in 1849.

Real Reasons

The U.S. secured over a million square miles from Mexico, including Texas,

Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, California and parts of Colorado, Kansas and

Wyoming.

         The war was a boon to U.S. nationalism, it boosted popular support

for a very weak president and added vast new territories to the U.S. where

slavery was allowed.

===

1898: The Spanish-American War

Context

Cubans fought several wars to free themselves from Spanish colonial rule,

including 1868-1878, 1879-1880 and 1895-1898.12  In 1898, Cubans were on

the brink of finally winning their independence.  The U.S. government

agreed to respect Cuba's sovereignty and promised they would not step in.

         "On January 24, [1898] on the pretext of protecting the life and

safety of Mr. Lee, U.S. consul in Havana, and other U.S. citizens in the

face of street disturbances provoked by Spanish extremists, the Maine

battleship entered the bay of Havana."13

Pretext Incident

On February 15, 1898, a huge explosion sank the U.S.S Maine killing 266 of

its crew.14

         In 1975, U.S. Admiral Hyman Rickover's investigation concluded

that there was no evidence of any external explosion.  The explosion was

internal, probably caused by a coal dust explosion. The ship's weapons and

explosives were dangerously stored right next to its coal bunker.15

Follow Up

The Maine's captain cautioned against assumptions of an enemy attack.  The

press denounced him for "refusing to see the obvious."  The Atlantic

Monthly said anyone thinking this was not a premeditated, Spanish act of

war was "completely at defiance of the laws of probability."16   Newspapers

ran wild headlines: "Spanish Cannibalism," "Inhuman Torture," "Amazon

Warriors Fight for Rebels."17 Guillermo Jimpnez Soler notes: "U.S.

intervention in the war was preceded by intensive press campaigns which

incited jingoism, pandering to the most shameless tales and sensationalism

and exacerbated cheap sentimentality.  Joseph Pulitzer of The World and

William Randolph Hearst from The Journal, the two largest U.S. papers...

carried their rivalry to a paroxysm of inflaming public opinion with

scandalous, provocative and imaginary stories designed to win acceptance of

U.S. participation in the first of its holy wars beyond its maritime

borders."18

         U.S. papers sent hundreds of reporters and photographers to cover

the apparent Spanish attacks.  Upon arrival, many were

disappointed.  Frederick Remington wrote to Hearst saying: "There is no war

.... Request to be recalled."  Hearst's cable replied: "Please remain. You

furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war."  For weeks, Hearst's Journal

dedicated eight pages a day to the explosion.19

         Through ceaseless repetition, a rallying cry for retaliation grew

into a roar.  "In the papers, on the streets and in.Congress.  The slogan

was 'Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain.'"20 With the U.S. public and

government safely onboard, the U.S. set sail for war and launched an era of

'gunboat diplomacy.' Anti-war sentiments were drowned out by the cries for

war.  On April 25, 1898, the U.S. Congress declared war on Spain.

Real Reasons

Within four months "the U.S. replaced Spain as the colonial power in the

Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico, and devised a special status for

Cuba.  Never again would the U.S. achieve so much.as in that 'splendid

little war,' as. described at the time by John Hay, future secretary of

state."21

         Historian Howard Zinn says that 1898 heralded "the most dramatic

entrance onto the world scene of American military and economic

power..  The war ushered in what Henry Luce later referred to as the

American Century, which really meant a century of American domination."22

===

1915: World War I

Context

In 1915, Europe was embroiled in war, but U.S. public sentiment opposed

involvement.  President Woodrow Wilson said they would "remain neutral in

fact as well as in name."23

Pretext Incident

On May 7, 1915, a German submarine (U-boat) sank the Lusitania, a British

passenger ship killing 1,198, including 128 Americans.24

         The public was not told that passengers were, in effect, a 'human

shield' protecting six million rounds of U.S. ammunition bound for

Britain.25  To Germany, the ship was a threat.  To Britain, it was bait for

luring an attack.  Why?

         A week before the attack, British Admiralty leader, Winston

Churchill wrote to the Board of Trade's president saying it is "most

important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hopes

especially of embroiling the U.S. with Germany."26 Churchill, had

previously asked Commander Joseph Kenworthy, of Naval Intelligence

(Political Section), to report on the "political results of an ocean liner

being sunk with American passengers on board."27

         For his book, Freedom of the Seas (1927), Commander Kenworthy

wrote: "The Lusitania was deliberately sent at considerably reduced speed

into an area where a U-boat was known to be waiting and with her escorts

withdrawn."28

         Patrick Beesly's history of WWI British naval intelligence, notes:

"no effective steps were taken to protect the Lusitania." British

complicity is furthered by their foreknowledge that:

         U-boat commanders knew of the Lusitania's route,

         a U-boat that had sunk two ships [the Candidate and the Centurion]

in recent days was in the path of the Lusitania,

         although destroyers were available, none escorted the Lusitania or

hunted for U-boats,

         the Lusitania was not specifically warned of these threats.29

Follow Up

U.S. newspapers aroused outrage against Germany for ruthlessly killing

defenceless Americans.  The U.S. was being drawn into the war.  In June

1916, Congress increased the size of the army.  In September, Congress

allocated $7 billion for national defense, "the largest sum appropriated to

that time."30

         In January 1917, the British said they had intercepted a German

message to Mexico seeking an alliance with Germany and offering to help

Mexico recover land ceded to the U.S.  On April 2, Wilson told Congress:

"The world must be safe for democracy."  Four days later the U.S. declared

war on Germany.31

Real Reasons

Influential British military, political and business interests wanted U.S.

help in their war with Germany.  Beesly concludes that: "Unless and until

fresh information comes to light, I am reluctantly driven to the conclusion

that there was a conspiracy deliberately to put the Lusitania at risk in

the hope that even an abortive attack on her would bring the U.S. into the

war. Such a conspiracy could not have been put into effect without Winston

Churchill's express permission and approval."32

         In Churchill's WWI memoirs, The World Crisis, he states: "There

are many kinds of maneuvres in war, some only of which take place on the

battlefield.... The maneuvre which brings an ally into the field is as

serviceable as that which wins a great battle."33

         In WWI, rival imperialist powers struggled for bigger portions of

the colonial pie.  "They were fighting over boundaries, colonies, spheres

of influence; they were competing for Alsace-Lorraine, the Balkans, Africa

and the Middle East."34  U.S. war planners wanted a piece of the action.

         "War is the health of the state," said Randolph Bourne during

WWI.  Zinn explains: "Governments flourished, patriotism bloomed, class

struggle was stilled."35

===

1941: World War II

Context

U.S. fascists opposed President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) from the

start.  In 1933, "America's richest businessmen were in a panic.  Roosevelt

intended to conduct a massive redistribution of wealth.[and it] had to be

stopped at all costs.  The answer was a military coup.secretly financed and

organized by leading officers of the Morgan and du Pont empires." A top

Wall Street conspirator, Gerald MacGuire, said: "We need a fascist

government in this country.to save the nation from the communists who want

to tear it down and wreck all that we have built."36

         The Committee on Un-American Activities said: "Sworn testimony

showed that the plotters represented notable families - Rockefeller,

Mellon, Pew, Pitcairn, Hutton and great enterprises - Morgan, Dupont,

Remington, Anaconda, Bethlehem, Goodyear, GMC, Swift, Sun."37

         FDR also faced "isolationist" sentiments from such millionaires,

who shared Hitler's hatred of communism and had financed Hitler's rise to

power, as George Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush, predecessors of the

current president.38   William R.Hearst, newspaper magnate and mid-wife of

the war with Spain, actually employed Hitler, Mussolini and Goering as

writers.  He met Hitler in 1934 and used Readers' Digest and his 33

newspapers to support fascism and to oppose America's entry into the war.39

Pretext Incident

On December 7, 1941, Japanese bombers attacked the U.S. Pacific Fleet in

Pearl Harbour, Hawaii, killing about 2,460.40 FDR, and his closest

advisors, not only knew of the attack in advance and did not prevent it,

they actually took deliberate actions to provoke it.  Lt. Arthur McCollum,

head of the Far East desk for U.S. Navy intelligence, wrote a detailed

eight-step plan on October 7, 1940 that was designed to provoke an

attack.41 FDR immediately set this covert plan in motion.  Soon after

implementing the final step, Japan attacked Pearl Harbour.  (See "Smoking

Gun," page 11.)

         After meeting FDR on October 16, 1941, Secretary of War Henry

Stimson wrote: "We face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to

be done so as to be sure Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first

bad move - overt move."42

         In Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, Robert

Stinnett notes: "On November 15, 1941,... [Japanese] Admiral Yamamoto's

forces moved to the attacking points, both for the Philippines and Pearl

Harbor, and Wake and Guam.... General George Marshall, ...the Army's Chief

of Staff, called in Washington bureau chiefs of the major newspapers...and

magazines. This included the New York Times, the New York Herald Tribune,

Newsweek and Time magazines, pledged these bureau chiefs to secrecy, and

told them that we had broken the Japanese codes, and expected war to start

in the first week of December, 1941.  The General obviously had... a

decoded message from the Japanese Chief of Naval Operations, who on

November 5 said that war would start with England, The Netherlands and

America the first week of December. This was a message intercepted in

Hawaii, not given to Admiral Kimmel [commander of the U.S. Fleet based at

Pearl Harbour] or General Short [head of the U.S. Army defense on Hawaii],

but given to General Marshall in Washington."43

         On November 25, after meeting with FDR, Stimson wrote: "The

question was: how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position

of firing the first shot."44

         The U.S. had cracked Japanese diplomatic and military codes.45  A

Top Secret Army Board report (October 1944), shows that the U.S. military

knew "the probable exact hour and date of the attack."46  On November 29,

1941, the Secretary of State revealed to a reporter that the attack's time

and place was known.  This foreknowledge was reported in the New York Times

(Dec. 8, 1941).47

Follow Up

On the day after Pearl Harbour was bombed, FDR signed the U.S. declaration

of war on Japan. With media support, "Remember Pearl Harbour!" became an

American rallying cry.  On December 11, Germany and Italy declared war on

the U.S.

         As the war wound down, decoded messages revealed to the U.S.

military that Japan would soon surrender.  They knew the use of atomic

bombs to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki was militarily

unnecessary.  Although nuclear weapons are commonly believed to have ended

WWII, they were actually the opening salvo of another war, the Cold War

against the USSR.

Real Reasons

Because powerful U.S. interests were so opposed to U.S. involvement in

WWII, FDR needed a particularly emotive, war pretext incident.  American

warplanners used WWII to maneuver the U.S. into a position of superiority

over former imperial rivals in Europe. In Parenti's words, the U.S. "became

the prime purveyor and guardian of global capitalism."48 As the only nation

wielding nuclear weapons, the U.S. also became the world's sole superpower.

===

1950: The Korean War

Context

There is "extensive evidence of U.S. crimes against peace and crimes

against humanity" committed after they occupied south Korea in September

1945.  The U.S. was guilty of creating "a police state.using many former

collaborators with Japanese rule, provok[ing] tension. between southern and

northern Korea, opposing and disrupting any plans for peaceful

reunification.  The U.S. trained, directed and supported ROK [South Korea]

in systematic murder, imprisonment, torture, surveillance, harassment and

violations of human rights of hundreds of thousands., especially.

nationalists, leftists, peasants seeking land reform, union organizers

and/or those sympathetic to the north."49

         University of Hawaii professor, Oliver Lee, notes a "long pattern

of South Korean incursions" into the north.  In 1949, there were more than

400 border engagements.  A U.S. Army document states: "Some of the

bloodiest engagements were caused by South Korean units securing and

preparing defensive positions that were either astride or north of the 38th

parallel [the border between the two Koreas].  This provoked violent North

Korean actions."50

Pretext Incident

On June 25, 1950, the North Korean military were said to have moved three

miles into South Korea territory.

         Dr. Channing Liem, the former South Korean ambassador to the UN

(1960-1961) wrote that for the U.S., "the question, 'who fired the first

shot?' carried special significance.. Assistant Secretary of State for UN

Affairs. [revealed] before the Senate Appropriations Committee, 1950, the

U.S. devised a plan prior to the start of the war to gain approval from the

UN to send its troops to Korea under the UN flag in the event that South

Korea was attacked.  It was imperative, therefore, that the 'first shot' be

fired by the North, or at least that such an argument could be made."51

         South Korean President Syngman Rhee triggered the war "with behind

the scene support of John Foster Dulles," the former-U.S. Secretary of

State who met Rhee (June 18, 1950) just days before the pretext

incident.  Dulles told Rhee that "if he was ready to attack the communist

North, the U.S. would lend help, through the UN..  He advised Rhee.to

persuade the world that the ROK [South Korea] was attacked first, and to

plan his actions accordingly."52

         In 1955, Albert Einstein told Liem that "the U.S. was manipulating

the UN.. [which] was being exploited by the great powers at the expense of

the small nations..  [Einstein] went on to say [that] great powers do not

act on the basis of facts only but manufacture the facts to serve their

purposes and force their will on smaller nations."53

         I.F.Stone exposed how a U.S. diplomat deceived the UN Secretary

General into believing there had been an unprovoked attack by North Korean .54

         North Korea claimed that the attack began two days earlier when

Southern divisions launched a six-hour artillery attack and then pushed 1-2

kilometers north across the border.  The North then responded to "halt the

enemy's advance and go over to a decisive counterattack."55

Follow Up

Secretary of State, Dean Acheson was "quick to seize the opportunity to

blame the war on North Korea regardless of the evidence."  North Korea was

accused of "brutal, unprovoked aggression."56

         The public was told that this 'invasion' was the first step in

Soviet plans for world domination. Anyone opposing the war was labeled a

communist. The paranoia of McCarthyism was booming.

         On June 27, 1950, Truman orders U.S. troops to support South

Korea, Congress agrees and the UN Security Council approves the plan.57

    About 3 million civilians were killed in the war, two-thirds in North

Korea.58

Real Reasons

A month before the pretext, Rhee suffered a terrible electoral defeat.  To

maintain his faltering grip on power, he desperately required more U.S.

backing.  By going to war with North Korea, Rhee not only garnered

much-needed U.S. military and diplomatic assistance, he diverted public

attention away from growing scandals that plagued his repressive regime.

         The war was also used to triple the Pentagon budget, boost NATO's

military build-up and create a new military role for the UN that could be

manipulated by the U.S.

===

1964: The Vietnam War

Context

Long before WWII, Vietnamese fought for independence from French Indochina.

Resistance continued when Japanese troops occupied the colony during the

war.  Much of the region reverted to French control after the war.  As

early as 1950, the U.S. aided French efforts to defeat the Ho Chi Minh's

revolutionary forces.  When France lost a decisive battle in 1954, the

Geneva Accord recognized the independence of Vietnam, Laos and

Cambodia.  Vietnam was "temporarily" divided.  Ngo Dinh Diem's repressive

regime in South Vietnam was backed by thousands of U.S. military

"advisors."  A military coup overthrew Diem in November 1963.59

         That same month, President Kennedy - who had resisted escalating

the war - was assassinated.  President Johnson took power and began

intensified U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Pretext Incident

On July 30, 1964, enemy torpedo boats supposedly attacked a U.S. destroyer,

the USS Maddox, in North Vietnam's Gulf of Tonkin.  This lie of an

"unprovoked attack" against a "routine patrol" threw the U.S. headlong into

war.

         The Maddox was actually involved in "aggressive intelligence

gathering in coordination with actual attacks by South Vietnam and the

Laotian Air Force against targets in North Vietnam."60  They wanted to

provoke a response "but the North Vietnamese wouldn't bite.  So, Johnson

invented the attack."61

         The U.S. task force commander for the Gulf of Tonkin "cabled

Washington that the report was the result of an 'over-eager' sonarman who

picked up the sounds of his own ship's screws and panicked."62

Follow Up

On August 5, 1964, although he knew the attack had not occurred, Johnson

couldn't resist this opportunity for a full-scale war. Johnson went on

national TV to lie about the Tonkin incident and to announce a bombing

campaign to "retaliate."  The media repeated the lie ad nauseam.  The

fabricated assault was "used as justification for goading Congress into

granting the president the authorization to initiate a protracted and

highly lucrative war with North Vietnam."63  Johnson asked Congress for

powers "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against

the forces of the U.S. and to prevent further aggression."64  Johnson

escalated the Vietnam war by signing the "Gulf of Tonkin resolution" on

August 10, 1964.

         By 1975, about four million people had been killed by the U.S. war

in Southeast Asia.

Real Reasons

As during the Spanish-American war, the American business elite sought to

acquire colonies from a failing imperial power, in this case, France.  U.S.

corporations wanted access to region's markets and resources, like tin,

tungsten and rubber.65  The war also gave a huge boost to the

military-industrial complex in the U.S.

         President Dwight D. Eisenhower propounded the 'Domino Theory' in

1954.66  If South Vietnam 'fell,' then other countries would too, 'like a

set of dominos.'  The Vietnam War was a threat to all revolutionaries and

their supporters.

===

1979: Covert War in Afghanistan

Context

In 1973, the Afghan monarchy was overthrown. The new government, led by

Mohammad Daoud - one of the king's cousins - was supported by the People's

Democratic Party (PDP) and other leftist parties and organizations.

         The U.S. and Iran pressured Daoud to sever ties the U.S.SR.  The

U.S. offered $2 billion in aid and urged Afghanistan to join the Regional

Cooperation for Development, which included Iran, Pakistan and Turkey,

America's main client states in the region.

         The Daoud regime began moving steadily into the U.S. orbit.  They

killed a PDP leader, arresting many others and purged hundreds of their

sympathizers from government positions.  In April 1978, the PDP, aided by

military supporters, revolted against Daoud and took power. The stated goal

of this "April revolution" was to drag Afghanistan out of feudal existence.

Life expectancy was about 40, infant mortality was about 25%, sanitation

was primitive, there was widespread malnutrition and illiteracy was more

than 90%.

         In William Blum's classic summary of the CIA's covert wars,

Killing Hope, he outlines some of the revolutionary government's social and

economic programs:

         "The new government under President Taraki declared a commitment

to Islam within a secular state, and to non-alignment in foreign affairs.

It said the coup was not foreign inspired and that they were not Communists

but rather nationalists and revolutionaries. They pushed radical reforms,

they talked about class struggle, they used anti-imperialist rhetoric, they

supported Cuba, they signed a friendship treaty and other cooperative

agreements with the Soviets and they increased the number of Soviet

civilian and military advisers in Afghanistan.... In May 1979, British

political scientist Fred Halliday said 'probably more has changed in the

countryside over the last year than in the two centuries since the state

was established.'"67

         The most significant of these changes included the cancellation of

peasant's debts to landlords, the building of hundreds of schools and

medical clinics, the outlawing of child marriage and the marital exchange

of women for money or commodities, the legalization of trade unions and

women's education.

         This new government was not, of course, acceptable to the U.S.,

which allied itself with large landowners, tribal chiefs, Afghan

businessmen and royalty.  Within two months, the new government was under

attack by conservative Islamist guerrillas (mujahideen).

Pretext Incident

In his memoirs, former CIA director Robert Gates (1991-1993) said that the

U.S. provoked the December 1979 Soviet intervention in Afghanistan by

giving military assistance to the mujahideen. Gates recalls a meeting, nine

months earlier, on March 30, 1979, when Under Secretary of Defense Walter

Slocombe said "there was value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going,

'sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire.'"68

         In 1998, this U.S. effort to entrap the Soviets in the Afghan

civil war, was confirmed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's National Security

Advisor (1977-1981).  Brzezinski bragged that by covertly arming and

financing the mujahideen, the U.S. deliberately drew the Soviets into the

war: "According to the official version of history, the CIA assistance to

the Mujahideen began during 1980, i.e. after the Soviet army had invaded

Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, kept secret until now,

is very different: it was July 3, 1979 when President Carter signed the

first directive on the clandestine assistance to opponents of the

pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. On that day, I wrote a note to the President in

which I explained that in my opinion this aid would bring about a military

intervention by the Soviets..... We did not push the Russians to intervene,

but we knowingly increased the probability that they would."69

         In March 1979, Afghan President Taraki visited Moscow to request

Soviet help to fight the mujahideen. The Soviets did promise some military

aid, but they would not commit ground troops. As Soviet Premier Alexei

Kosygin told Taraki: "The entry of our troops into Afghanistan would

outrage the international community, triggering a string of extremely

negative consequences. Our common enemies are just waiting for the moment

when Soviet troops appear in Afghanistan. This will give them the excuse

they need to send armed bands into the country."70

         Blum notes that "prior to the Soviet invasion, the CIA had been

beaming radio propaganda into Afghanistan and cultivating alliances with

exiled Afghan guerrilla leaders by donating medicine and communications

equipment. U.S. foreign service officers had been meeting with Mujahideen

leaders to determine their needs at least as early as April 1979. And, in

July, President Carter had signed a 'finding' to aid the rebels covertly,

which led to the U.S. providing them with cash, weapons, equipment and

supplies, and engaging in propaganda and other psychological operations in

Afghanistan on their behalf."71

Follow Up

The U.S. government and corporate media, characterized the mujahideen as

"freedom fighters" and the Soviets simply as invaders of a defenseless

country.  Blum describes the propaganda offensive: "The Carter

administration jumped on the issue of the Soviet 'invasion' and launched a

campaign of righteous indignation, imposing what Carter called 'penalties'

- from halting the delivery of grain to the Soviet Union to keeping the

U.S. team out of the 1980 Olympics in Moscow.   On this seemingly

clear-cut, anti-communist issue, the U.S. public and media easily fell in

line with the president. The Wall Street Journal (Jan. 7, 1980) called for

a 'military' reaction, the establishment of U.S. bases in the Middle East,

'reinstatement of draft registration,' development of a new missile and

giving the CIA more leeway."72

         After the Soviets were drawn into the Afghan trap, the U.S.

rapidly escalated their support for the mujahideen. It is widely considered

to have been "the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA."73

After the Soviets sent in their troops, the CIA poured billions of dollars

into arming a dozen mujahideen factions throughout the 1980s.

         The CIA's Afghan war was very similar to its covert war against

the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.  Both sets of contras (or

counter-revolutionaries) used terror tactics to attack literacy programs,

schools, health clinics, co-ops and other social and economic programs of

the government. Both contras were also heavily involved in the drug

trade.  The anti-Sandinista contras financed much of their terror by moving

cocaine into the U.S., while the Afghan contras grew opium for heroine

production and trade. "There's no doubt about it. The rebels keep their

sales going through the sale of opium." David Melocik, Drug Enforcement

Agency Congressional Affairs liaison. Dr. David Musto of the White House

Strategy Council on Drug Abuse warned: "We were going into Afghanistan to

support the opium growers in their rebellion against the Soviets."74

Real Reasons

The main goal of the CIA's covert war against Afghanistan was to "'bleed'

the Soviet Union, just as the U.S. had been bled in Vietnam."75  As

Brzezinski said: "For almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war

unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the

demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire."76

         When asked if he regretted arming the mujahideen, Brzezinski said:

"Regret what? This secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the

effect of luring the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to

regret it? The day the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to

President Carter, in substance: 'We now have the opportunity to give the

U.S.SR its war of Vietnam.' In fact, Moscow had to conduct an unbearable

war for almost ten years, a conflict which led to the demoralization and

finally the break up of the Soviet empire."

Interviewer: "Do you regret supporting Islamic fundamentalism, having given

weapons and advice to... terrorists?"

Brzezinski: "What is most important from the point of view of the history

of the world? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet empire? A few excited

Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and end of the cold war?"77

         Besides being an effort to destroy the Soviet Union, the Afghan

war was also waged in order to send a threatening message to other Third

World countries. In August 1979, three months before the Soviet

intervention, a classified State Department Report stated: "the United

States's larger interests... would be served by the demise of the

Taraki-Amin regime, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future

social and economic reforms in Afghanistan.... the overthrow of the D.R.A.

[Democratic Republic of Afghanistan] would show the rest of the world,

particularly the Third World, that the Soviets' view of the socialist

course of history as being inevitable is not accurate."78

===

1989: Invasion of Panama

Context

The Panama Canal has dominated Panama's history.  U.S. military invasions

and interventions occurred in 1895, 1901-1903, 1908, 1912, 1918-1920, 1925,

1950, 1958, 1964 and 1989.96 In November 1903, U.S. troops ensured Panama's

secession from Colombia.  Within days, a treaty gave the U.S. permanent and

exclusive control of the canal.97

         Panama's former military leader, Manuel Noriega, was recruited by

U.S. military intelligence in 1959, attended the U.S. Army School of the

Americas in 1967 and led Panama's military intelligence the next year.  By

1975, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency knew of his drug dealing.  Noriega

met, then-CIA Director, George Bush in 1976.98

         In 1977, Presidents Jimmy Carter and Omar Torrijos, signed a

treaty to return the canal to Panamanian control in 1999.  However, other

Americans worked to undermine the treaty using "diplomatic.and political

pressure, through to economic aggression and military invasion."99

         In the early-1980s, Noriega's drug smuggling helped fund the

contras in Nicaragua.  He took control of Panama's National Guard in 1983

and helped rig elections in 1984.  Noriega eventually fell out of U.S.

favour, and so they indicted him for drug crimes in 1988.100

         On April 14, 1988, Reagan invoked "war powers" against Panama.  In

May, the Assistant Defense Secretary told the Senate: "I don't think anyone

has totally discarded the use of force."101

Pretext Incident

On December 16, 1989, the U.S. corporate media reported on an "unprovoked

attack on a U.S. soldier who did not return fire."102  The soldier was

killed when driving "through a military roadblock near a sensitive military

area."103   Panama's government said "U.S. officers. fired at a military

headquarters, wounding a soldier and. a 1-year-old girl.  A wounded

Panamanian soldier. confirmed this account to U.S. reporters."104  The U.S.

soldiers said they would "frequently hassle Panama's forces at

roadblocks....claimed that they were lost, yelled obscenities at the

Panamanian soldiers, and quickly sped off."105        The wife of a U.S.

officer was reportedly arrested and beaten.

Follow Up

George Bush called the Panamanian military's alleged attack on U.S.

soldiers an "enormous outrage"106 and said he "would not stand by while

American womanhood is threatened."107  Noam Chomsky has questioned why Bush

"stood by" when a U.S. nun was kidnapped and sexually abused by police in

the U.S.-backed military dictatorship of Guatemalan only weeks prior to the

pretext incident in Panama.  Chomsky also pointed out that two U.S. nuns

were killed by U.S.-backed contras in Nicaragua on January 1, 1990, and

that a U.S. nun was wounded by gunmen in U.S.-backed El Salvador around the

same time.108

         As the pretext evolved, the media demonized Noriega and focused on

the need to arrest him for drug smuggling. The media turned the "'Noriega'

issue into an accepted justification for the invasion..  Colonel Eduardo

Herrera, ex-Director of [Panama's] 'Public Forces,'.said: "If the real

interest of the U.S. was to capture Noriega, they could have done so on

numerous occasions.  [They] had all his movements completely controlled."109

         On December 20, 1989, "Operation Just Cause" began.  More than

4,000 were killed.  U.S. crimes included indiscriminate attacks,

extrajudicial executions, arbitrary detentions, destruction of property

(like leveling the Chorrillo neighbourhood), use of prohibited weapons,

erasing evidence and the use of mass burials.110

         A U.S.-friendly president, Guillermo Endara, was soon sworn in on

a U.S. military base in Panama.

Real Reasons

A right-wing, U.S. think tank stated in 1988 that: "once [Panama] is

controlled by a democratic regime.. discussions should begin with respect

to a realistic defense of the Canal after.2000.  These discussions should

include the maintenance, by the U.S., of a limited number of military

installations in Panama.to maintain adequate projection of force in the

western hemisphere."111

         The invasion of Panama also:

* rectified "Bush's 'wimpy' foreign relations image,"

* gave a "spectacular show of U.S. military might in the final months

before the Nicaraguan elections, hinting. that they might want to vote for

the 'right' candidate,"

* signalled "that the U.S..[would] intervene militarily where the control

of illegal drugs was ostensibly at stake,"

* "demonstrated the new U.S. willingness to assume active, interventionist

leadership of the 'new world order' in the post-Cold War period,"112

* led to the abrogation of the Carter-Torrijos Treaty and the complete

dismantling of Panama's military, and

* allowed the U.S. to test new weapons systems, such as the brand new B-2

bomber (worth U.S.$2.2 billion).

Footnotes:

1.      "History of Mexico, Empire and Early Republic, 1821-55," Area

Handbook, U.S. Library of Congress, June 1996.

2.      Shayne M. Cokerdem, "Unit Plan: Manifest Destiny and the Road to

the Civil War."

3.      P.B.Kunhardt, Jr., P.B.Kunhardt III, P.W.Kunhardt, "James Polk,"

The American President, 2000.

4.      "Diplomatic Approaches: U.S. Relations with Mexico: 1844-1846,"

LearnCalifornia.org, 2000.

5.      John Stockwell, "CIA & the Gulf War," Speech, Santa Cruz, CA,

Feb.20, 1991, aired by J. DiNardo, Pacifica Radio.

6.      Betsy Powers, "The U.S.-Mexican War of 1846-48," War,

Reconstruction and Recovery in Brazoria County.

7.      "The White House and Western Expansion," Learning Center, White

House Historical Association.

8.      Powers

9.      White House Historical Association

10.     Stockwell

11.     The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1847.12.       Ed Elizondo,

"History of the Cuban Liberation Wars," Oct.2, 2001.

13.     "Emergence of the U.S. as a world power," Granma, Aug.7, 1998.

14.     Bill Sardi, "Remember the Maine! And the Other Ships Sunk to Start

a War," Oct.16, 2000.

15.     Michael Rivero, "Dictatorship through Deception," New Republic

Forum, Dec. 24, 1999.

16.     Rivero

17.     J. Buschini, "Spanish-American War," Small Planet Communications,

2000.

18.     Soler

19.     Buschini

20.     Buschini

21.     Soler

22.     Howard Zinn, "History as a Political Act," Revolutionary Worker,

December 20, 1998.

23.     Woodrow Wilson, Message to Congress, Aug. 19, 1914, Senate Doc.566,

pp.3-4, WWI Document Archive.

24.     Greg Feldmeth, "The First World War," U.S. History Resources, Mar.

31, 1998.

25.     Colin Simpson, Lusitania, 1972, p.151.

26.     Winston Churchill, cited by Ralph Raico, "Rethinking Churchill,"

The Costs of War: America's Pyrrhic Victories, 1997.

27.     Simpson, p. 128.

28.     Simpson, p. 129.

29.     Patrick Beesly, Room 40: British Naval Intelligence, 1914-18, 1982,

cited by Raico.

30.     Peter Young, "World War I," World Book Encyclopedia, 1967, pp.374-375.

31.     Wendy Mercurio, "WWI Notes, From Neutrality to War," Jan. 2002.

32.     Patrick Beesly, cited by Raico

33.     The World Crisis, cited by Simpson.

34.     Howard Zinn, "War Is the Health of the State," A People's History

of the United States, Sept. 2001.

35.     Zinn

36.     Steve Kangas, "Business Plot to Overthrow Roosevelt," Liberalism

Resurgent, 1996.

37.     Dale Wharton, Eclectica Book Review of Jules Archer's The Plot to

Seize the White House (1973).

38.     Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, "The Hitler Project," George

Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, 1992.

39.     David Nasaw, "Remembering 'The Chief,'" interview, News-hour, Sept.

7, 2000.

40.     Joseph Czarnecki, Richard Worth, Matthias C. Noch and Tony

DiGiulian, "Attack on Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941," The Battles Of The

Pacific.

41.     Steve Fry, "Author: FDR knew attack was coming," The

Capital-Journal, June 12, 2001.

42.     Henry Stimson, cited by Robert Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth

about FDR and Pearl Harbour, 2000.

43.     Robert Stinnett, "Pearl Harbour: Official Lies in an American War

Tragedy?" Speech, Independent Institute, May 24, 2000.

44.     Henry Stimson, cited by Robert Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth

about FDR and Pearl Harbour, 2000.

45.     "The MAGIC Documents: Summaries and Transcripts of the Top-Secret

Diplomatic Communications of Japan, 1938-1945," GB 0099 KCLMA MF 388-401.

46.     Paul Proteus, "Part 1: Pearl Harbour," America's Phoney Wars.

47.     Rivero

48.     Michael Parenti, Against Empire, 1995, p.36.

49.     "Final Judgement of the Korea International War Crimes Tribunal,"

June 23, 2001.

50.     Oliver Lee, "South Korea Likely Provoked War with North,"

Star-Bulletin, June 24, 1994.

51.     Channing Liem, The Korean War - An Unanswered Question, 1993.

52.     Liem

53.     Albert Einstein cited by Channing Liem.

54.     I.F.Stone, Hidden History of the Korean War, 1952, cited by

Channing Liem.

55.     Liem

56.     Lee

57.     Jim Caldwell, "Korea - 50 years ago this week, June 25-28, 1950,"

ArmyLINK News, June 20, 2000.

58. Jon Halliday and Bruce Cumings, Korea: The Unknown War, 1988, p.200,

cited by Robin Miller, "Washington's Own Love Affair with Terror."

59.     Sandra M.Wittman, "Chronology of U.S.-Vietnamese Relations,"

Vietnam: Yesterday and Today.

60.     Rivero

61.     John DiNardo, "The CIA and the Gulf War," aired by Pacifica Radio.

62.     Rivero

63.     DiNardo

64.     Joint Resolution, U.S. Congress, Aug.7, 1964, "The Tonkin Bay

Resolution, 1964," Modern History Sourcebook, July 1998.

65.     Dwight D. Eisenhower, "Domino Theory Principle, 1954," Public

Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954, pp.381-390. (News

Conference, April 7, 1954.)

66.     Eisenhower.

67.     William Blum, "Afghanistan 1979-1992: America's Jihad," Killing

Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II (1995, revised

2001).

68.     Robert Gates, From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of

Five Presidents & How They Won the Cold War (1997)

69.     Le Nouvel Observatour, January 15, 1998. Translated by Ian Stobie

<middleeastdialogue.org/200111t/editorial.html>

70.     Blum.

71.     Blum.

72.     Blum.

73.     Fred Halliday, New Republic, March 25, 1996.

74.     "Dealing in Death," Wakeup

<www.wakeupmag.co.uk/articles/ciadrugsafghan.htm>

75. Mark Zapezauer, CIA's Greatest Hits

<www.thirdworldtraveler.com/cia%20hits/afghanistan_ciahits.html>

76.     Le Nouvel Observatour, ibid. Trans. Ian Stobie.

77.     Le Nouvel Observatour.

78.     Blum.

79.     Ellen Ray and Bill Schaap, "U.S. Crushes Caribbean Jewel." Covert

Action Information Bulletin (CAIB), winter 1984, p.8

80.     Jeff Hackett, "Burying 'Gairyism.'" Bibliographies.

81.     Preface to Maurice Bishop speech "In Nobody's Backyard," April 13,

1979, The Militant, Mar.15 1999.

82.     Ray and Schaap, pp.3-5

83.     Ray and Schaap, p.6

84.     Clarence Lusane, "Grenada, Airport '83: Reagan's Big Lie," CAIB,

Spring-Summer 1983, p.29.

85.     Ray and Schaap, pp.10-11

86.     Ray and Schaap, p.5

87.     Alan Scott, "The Last Prisoners of the Cold War Are Black," letter,

The Voice (Grenada), April 20, 2001.

88.     Capt. M.T.Carson, U.S.MC, (Marine Officer Instructor), "Grenada

October 1983," History of Amphibious Warfare (Naval Science 293), Naval

Reserves Officer Training Corps, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.

89.     Carson.

90.     Ray and Schaap, p.8.

91.     Carson.

92.     "Failures of U.S. Foreign Policy," Alternativeinsight, Sept.1, 2001.

93.     Carson.

94.     Alternativeinsight, Sept.1, 2001.

95.     Anthony Arnove and Alan Maass, "Washington's war crimes," Socialist

Worker, Nov.16, 2001.

96.     Zoltan Grossman, "One Hundred Years of Intervention," 2001.

97.     Commission for Defence of Human Rights in Latin America (CODEHUCA),

This is the Just Cause, 1990, p.115.

98.     Richard Sanders, "Manuel Noriega," Press for Conversion!, Dec. 2000.

99.     CODEHUCA, pp.117, 108

100.    Sanders.

101.    CODEHUCA, p.108

102.    Richard K. Moore, "The Police State Conspiracy an Indictment," New

Dawn, Jan.-Dec. 1998.

103.    Noam Chomsky, "Operation Just Cause: the Pretexts," Deterring

Democracy, 1992.

104.    Chomsky.

105.    Jim Huck, The Anointed One: The Rise of George W. Bush.

106. Alex Safian, Myth of Excessive Force, Nov.9, 2000.

107.    Chomsky.

108.    Chomsky.

109.    CODEHUCA, p.106.

110.    CODEHUCA, passim.

111.    "Panama: Test for U.S.-Latin American Foreign Relations,"

Interhemispheric Resource Center, May 1995.

112.    FOR.

==============================================================

The above article "Unravelling the Tangled Web of Pretext Stratagems" was

published in Press for Conversion! January 2003 (Issue #50), the 50-page

quarterly publication of the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT), a

Canadian peace network of individuals and organizations.

The theme of issue #50 is: "Going to War: The American use of War Pretext

Incidents."  As you'll see from the Table of Contents (appended below),

this issue of COAT's magazine highlights about 15 case studies of pretext

incidents that have been used to trigger U.S. wars, invasions and bombing

sprees since 1846.  (It also contains declassified "Top Secret" US military

documents related to "Project Northwoods" which in 1962 detailed plans for

manufacturing pretext incidents that could be used to launch a US war

against Cuba.)

The magazine contains several articles on war pretext incidents that are

not covered in the above article.  It also contains dozens of additional

articles and photos related to the case studies described in the article

above.

Please consider subscribing or perhaps just ordering one or more copies of

this particular issue.  Use the form below to subscribe and/or order copies

of this issue.

=============================================================

Press for Conversion!        Issue #50         January 2003

Published quarterly by the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade

                    Theme of this issue:

   "Going to War: The American use of War Pretext Incidents"

=============================================================

                     Table of Contents:

Unravelling the Tangled Web of Pretext Stratagems

1846:   The Mexican-American War

                 Abraham Lincoln Doubted Polk's Pretext for War

1898:   The Spanish-American War

                 What Happened Aboard the USS Maine?

1915:   World War I

                 The Sinking of the Lusitania

1941:   World War II

                 "Smoking Gun": Provoking the Pearl Harbour Attack

1950:   The Korean War

                 South Korea Likely Provoked War with North

1954:   The Covert War Against Guatemala

                 Arms Shipments on the Alfhem

1959:   CIA Plots Soviet Arms Deal with Cuba

1962:   Plans to Create Pretexts for War with Cuba

                 Operation Northwoods  Top Secret Documents

                 Pretexts to Justify Military Intervention in Cuba

1964:   The Vietnam War

                 Gulf of Tonkin: The Lie that Launched the War

1979:   The Covert War in Afghanistan

1983:   The Invasion of Grenada

                 Military Exercise Practised the Invasion and Pretext

                 "Pretext Hostages" Denied they were in Danger

                 Same Old Recycled Pretext

1986:   The Bombing the Libya

                 La Belle Disco: Debunking the "Libya did it" Theory

1989:   The Invasion of Panama

                 Provoking the Pretext

                 Drugs, Noriega and Bush Sr.

1991:   The Gulf War

                 Incubator Deaths: A Hill & Knowlton Fabrication

                 Nayirah and Other "Eyewitnesses"

1999:   NATO's War Against Yugoslavia in Kosovo

                 What Happened at 'Racak'?

                 The Hoax that Started a War

                 William Walker: CIA Operative?

2001:   The "War Against Terror"

2003:   The Next Iraq War

                 UN Resolution as Cover for U.S. War Plans

                 Iraq calls UN Resolution a Pretext for War

                 Inspectors fear they'll be used as Triggers for War

Future: New Covert U.S. Agency to "Stimulate" Terrorists

=========================================