 |
|
|
New Axis
From 1945 to 1990, the USG (US government) had a "2-war" military strategy, sometimes called a win-win strategy. This meant the USG held the manpower and weapons to fight and win two regional wars at a time. If war broke out in one region, a distant enemy could not use this as an opportunity to start his own war unopposed. Now, after the cutbacks, the Pentagon's strategy is "1-1/2 war" or win-hold-win. The idea is to defeat one enemy while holding the other in check until enough forces can be released to defeat them. This win-hold-win strategy has a flaw no one wants to face: the USG has bought itself more than two enemies. Highly diligent in sticking its nose into other people's business, the USG has backed the regimes of Bosnia, Croatia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, South Korea and Taiwan. It has thereby become the enemy of their enemies - Iraq, Iran, Serbia, Syria, North Korea, Libya, China, Sudan.
The USG's backing of the Kremlin probably means we can add Chechnya to this list, for a total of nine enemies [now eleven; see additional excerpts at end of article] scattered across Chaostan. None by themselves would be a match for US forces, but all of them together would be formidable, and if you and I know this, they do, too. Unless the nine [now eleven] are a lot more obtuse than I think they are, they must be secretly planning something. Some of them hate each other, but they hate the USG more. If I'm right that this secret alliance has been formed, we need a name for it. In World War II, the USG's enemies were the Axis, so I'll call this group the New Axis. Mind you, I'm not saying I'm sure the New Axis has been formed, only that it seems logical - if I were them, this is what I'd be doing.
Another secret. One of the first things I learned in the Air Force is that the troops are rarely told the truth about their missions. Few realize their main duty since World War II has been to aid the spread of socialism. Since 1945, the focus of US foreign policy has been to provide military protection for the USG's allies, and this has enabled these allies to spend less on their own defense and more on welfare handouts. We complain about America's welfare boondoggle, but it is a model of frugality compared to those of most other nations that are protected by the USG. Especially the rich Persian Gulf oil states. The primary instrument of this socialist policy has been the aircraft carrier. No other nation has anything like a US super-carrier. The most terrifying weapon ever invented, a carrier is a versatile, self-contained mobile air base that can rain devastation almost anywhere on earth. For decades, White House aides have said that each time the USG runs into a foreign policy problem, the first words out of the president's mouth are, "tell me where the carriers are." Fifty years ago, this socialist strategy was easy. The USG had 105 carriers. It began scrapping them until today it is down to 12, and several of these are always unavailable due to maintenance, training and crew rest.
Each carrier is awesome, but it can only be in one place at a time, and the USG's allies have not strengthened their forces to take up the slack. In fact, many of these socialist regimes have been cutting back their forces, too. The 1990 coalition George Bush assembled in the Mideast is impossible now. Present US military strength is far more than adequate to defend our homeland, but I doubt it is 30% of what's needed to prop up all the tyrants US diplomats have pledged to protect. The March [1996] Taiwan crisis looked to me like a test, a New Axis experiment to see how easily Clinton could be suckered into moving the carrier Nimitz away from the Persian Gulf oil fields. If this is what it was, it worked. The Chinese fired their missiles, and like a guard dog abandoning his post to chase a rabbit, the Nimitz headed for Taiwan. At the same time, Iranian-backed rebels were threatening trouble in Bahrain, so the carrier George Washington, which was in the Mediterranean protecting US troops in Bosnia, had to leave its post to make a mad dash to the Persian Gulf. Apparently the USG does not know its enemies have acquired an amazing device that enables them to coordinate their actions, and this device is faster than a carrier. It's called a telephone. If I am right that the New Axis exists and that it was testing the USG, we can expect more rabbits until these regimes are confident they can scatter US forces at will.
The USG's confrontation with Iraq drew another US aircraft carrier away from the Balkans, which certainly agrees with the "rabbit" theory explained in the 5/96 EWR . . . Notice that at the same time Saddam had two aircraft carriers tied up in the Persian Gulf, the North Koreans launched a submarine-borne commando attack on South Korea. I am not saying I am 100% convinced my New Axis theory is right, but it all fits so far. . . . Incidentally, while Clinton was bombing Iraq over Saddam's attack on the Kurds, NATO member Turkey was slaughtering Kurds, too.[ 1 ] No one said a word against it. In the next "terrorist" attack on the US, we can add Kurds to the ever growing list of suspects.
Western diplomats have told "someone" Serbia has been smuggling arms to Libya. (Serbs are Eastern Orthodox Christian and Libyans are Moslem, but they have a common enemy, the USG, which is why I include them in the New Axis.) This is not proof the New Axis exists, but it is more evidence.
Let me emphasize again that present US military forces are entirely adequate to protect America, if they were in America, and they are probably enough to fight two small foreign wars. But what if I am right about the New Axis? Suppose that, all on the same day:
Are these regimes smart enough to coordinate their moves this way? What do you think? Could US forces handle it? No chance, they are spread way too thin. Outgoing defense secretary William Perry admitted to ARMY TIMES, "Our force structure is stretched pretty close to the limit in carrying out the missions and tasks that we have."[ 2 ] If you and I know about this, so do the regimes of the New Axis. Why would the New Axis do it? Revenge. If I am right that the New Axis exists, then, whether they know it or not, US officials are faced with two choices: (1) at some point be forced to launch an emergency crash program to make mountains of weapons, or (2) stop sticking their noses into other peoples' business. Which do you think they'll choose?
Evidence of the New Axis is piling up. Syria has, for the first time in 15 years, opened its borders with traditional foe Iraq. DEFENSE NEWS Defense News reports that Iraq's official newspaper, BABEL, has called for normalization of relations among old enemies Iran, Iraq and Syria. Worse, the Taliban in Afghanistan is clearly anti-West, and probably a candidate for membership in the New Axis.
Also, in 1990, the Pakistani regime paid $658 million for 28 F-16 jet fighters. Clinton [refused] to deliver the planes, or refund the money, because Pakistan is Moslem and has become nuclear capable. Pakistanis [were] enraged. On May 20 [1997], an official at Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs made the shocking revelation that China is now "a key ally" of Pakistan. Pakistan is an ally of the Taliban, too. So, the New Axis may have 11 members, six of which stretch in an unbroken line from the Mediterranean to the Pacific. Two are nuclear capable (China and Pakistan) and 5 are probably working on it, or have bought nukes on the black market (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea). If they make the moves I suggested in the 5/96 EWR, they will scatter US forces the way the old Axis scattered the British in 1941, and this will give them the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Stay tuned. . . . Look at the map and get out a globe. Am I right that the New Axis has been formed? I don't know, but assuming I am, here is something to keep you awake nights. The old Axis of the 1940s was mainly Germany, Italy and Japan. Despite the Allies' unimaginable amount of weapons and troops, the task of invading and conquering the Axis was horrific, as anyone who was at Iwo Jima, Anzio or Omaha Beach can tell you.
Compare the sizes and populations of the three old Axis nations with those of the New Axis. Germany, Italy and Japan together would fit inside Iran. China alone has four times the population of the old Axis. The US could not use nukes. The New Axis has them, too. If I am right that the New Axis exists, then they will own most of the world's oil, not to mention a lot of the other natural resources. It's only a matter of time, and maybe not much. By siding with Europe against the New Axis, Washington is living in a fool's paradise.
Conventional wisdom says wars break out when rulers find themselves beset by domestic troubles and they need a foreign crisis to divert their people's attention. This assumption leads to the further assumption that prosperous nations are not inclined to war.
The people may not want war, but their rulers are another matter. After studying dozens of wars, historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote THE CAUSES OF WAR in 1973. Blainey found that nations are most likely to go to war when the economy is strong and rulers feel powerful and capable of garnering even more prestige by winning a war. Politics is, after all, about power -- the thrill of kicking the bejeezers out of someone -- and to a power seeker, a strong economy combined with a strong military is an irresistible temptation. In the Roaring '90s, the US economy has been booming, and with the fall of the Soviet Empire, the USG has become the world's only superpower. Clinton now has Army troops deployed on 1,229 missions in 100 countries, plus the deployments of the Navy, Air Force and Marines (ARMY TIMES, 11 Aug 97). The Roman Empire has been revived.
This while the USG's NATO allies have been reducing their military strength. The USG spends more on its military forces than all its allies combined (ARMY TIMES, 11 Aug 97). The USG also has far more military strength than any of its enemies, but only if we assume these enemies have not formed an alliance, which I suspect they have. . . . The future? My guess is Clinton is thinking about a war with one of these powers, probably Iran, and the limited imagination of the Clinton gang cannot grasp the possibility that the other ten nations of the New Axis would see this as an opportunity to make the war into a giant Vietnam. Listen for news about Iran being tied to the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia last year. This connection could be used as the excuse for an attack on Iran. If it is, oil could go to $100 per barrel overnight.
The new Iranian cruise missiles mean the USG is fast losing the ability to defend Saudi Arabia against Iran and Iraq. Does Prince Abdullah see these missiles as the handwriting on the wall? Is he doing the only thing Saudi rulers can do, switching sides?
If so, the New Axis will get the Persian Gulf on a silver platter. More evidence: WORLD PRESS REVIEW reports that Saudi Arabia's Consultative Council has been revised to include more Shiite Moslems and Sunni fundamentalists -- the kinds of people likely to oppose ties with the US, and favor ties with Syria, Iraq and Iran. Saudi Arabia is the leader of the Gulf's Arab oil dictatorships. If all these people go over to the New Axis, this will give the New Axis 70% or more of the world's oil deposits.
Like Christianity, Islam has various factions, the main ones being the Sunni and Shiite. Saudi Arabia is the center of the Sunni, Iran the Shiite. THE ECONOMIST Jan 10,1998, p.37 reports that ever since the December [1997] Islamic conference I told you about in the 1/98 EWR (order from Back Issues), Saudi Arabia and Iran are "now being cozily called 'the two wings of Islam.'" I doubt the Saudi rulers have gone over to the New Axis yet, but they must be on the verge.
For months I have been telling you about my suspicion that Clinton's Persian Gulf "allies" secretly plan to switch sides and join the New Axis. Now the Feb. 23 NAVY TIMES reports that Kuwait is planning to hold joint military exercises with, guess who -- Iran. This is a very big development and the mainstream press is ignoring it.
I have long warned you that the New Axis might start wars in Kosovo and other areas as diversions to pull US forces away from the Persian Gulf. Kosovo's Moslem guerrillas have been receiving weapons smuggled from Moslem Albania, and rumor says some guerrillas were trained in Iran. If Kosovo becomes the next big war, watch the Persian Gulf, and consider buying more oil.
|
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
| |
|
|
|
Copyright © 2001-2001
Anti New World Order - Under Siege. All Rights Reserved.
|
|||||||||
