“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military-Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
U.S. President, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, during his farewell address to the nation, January 1961.
In a Cornell University report by Milton Leitenberg entitled Deaths in Wars and Conflicts in the 20th Century, it was estimated that around 231,000,000 people were killed in or as a result of wars and conflicts during those ten decades.
The massively destructive consequences of Mankind’s acquiescence to the merger of the state, big business and the armed forces, an octopus-like network that former U.S. President Eisenhower dubbed, the “Military-Industrial-Complex”, cannot be underestimated. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the Neo-Con think-tank which openly envisaged “…a new Pearl Harbour” as the catalyst for the dramatic expansion of U.S. imperialism, is the embodiment of what Eisenhower was warning the American people about.
As a decorated World War II general and Commander in Chief, Eisenhower’s dual perspective was formed as he watched the internationalists carve up a broken post-war Europe for their own financial and political gain, while lobbying for more wars in Korea, Vietnam and the Middle East, when the people of the world had already had more than enough bloodshed.
To understand the significance of the five star general’s farewell speech, we must try to imagine former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, warning us about the unbridled power of the international bankers on leaving Downing Street in 2007, as opposed to taking an executive position with J.P. Morgan, complete with a seven figure salary, as a reward for his Prime Ministerial sanctioning of the illegal wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Irrespective of any of the alleged tyrannies of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, it still managed to temporarily neutralise the formidable power of the CIA-MI6-MOSSAD-controlled international heroin trade, with a success rate of 93% in the prevention of large-scale poppy cultivation and the imposition of heavy taxation of the opium it allowed to be exported.
Knowledge of these facts is integral to the understanding of why the so-called ‘failed state’ was occupied by coalition forces, as the search for Osama bin Laden, the alleged facilitator of the 9/11 attacks, or according to many young Muslims, a CIA enemy construct, continued without tangible progress
It was also suggested by Benazir Bhutto, in an interview with David Frost only weeks before she was assassinated, that bin Laden was already dead and the name of his murderer is well known in Pakistan. The interview was broadcast on Al Jazeera English television on November 2nd 2007.
The Afghan and Iraq wars, if the history of the region has anything to teach us, have been waged over the control and supply of opium and energy. They have also enabled the construction of permanent U.S. military bases in the Middle East, in preparation for the decades of potential conflict eagerly anticipated by the Neo-Conservatives and their military-industrial benefactors.
The lack of any tangible exit strategies suggests that there was never any real intention to end the occupations. Senator John McCain, the failed Republican candidate for the White House in November 2008, openly conceded in his election campaign that he has no problem with the idea that the Iraq occupation might last one hundred years. It is certainly no surprise that his candidacy was endorsed and bankrolled by Lord Rothschild.
In February 2008, Opinion Research Business (ORB) estimated that as many as one million Iraqi civilians had already lost their lives in the conflict, while the White House continues to insist the real figure is a fraction of that. It is an undisputed fact, however, that more than two million Iraqi’s have fled their country since the beginning of the occupation. So much for the liberation of Iraq.
With 30% of the planet’s oil sailing down the Iranian controlled Strait of Hormuz, the familiar Washington drum-beat for war means that bloody conflict might already be inevitable, unless Iran can count on the extremely effective deterrent of having powerful energy partners in the Russian and Chinese governments.
Meanwhile, the Military-Industrial Complex continues to lobby hard for war, despite the declaration by the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in late 2007, that Iran ceased development of militaristic nuclear capacity in 2003. The implication is clear; the MIC intends to prevent Iran from producing nuclear energy, which is why Henry Kissinger compared the potential conflict with the Falklands War at Bilderberg 2006.
The international banksters who commissioned the War on Terror already know that the multi-trillion dollar cost to the U.S. tax-slave will almost certainly never be paid back. The War on Terror is, by design, an un-winnable war against invisible enemies. The aggressors do not want the war to be won, they want it to be sustained long enough to establish their hegemonic dominance over the entire Middle East, to strip western citizens of their remaining rights and freedoms in the name of peace and security, to maximise the profits of the Military-Industrial Complex and to officially unveil global currency and governance under the flag of the bankster-controlled United Nations.
Most chillingly, there is also evidence to suggest that the Middle East is ear-marked for a pre-emptive nuclear strike, in the name of protecting Israel and the west from the terrorist activities, which are and always have been largely manufactured by the secret services of the states that claim to be the victims of such attacks.
The brief outbreak of war between Washington’s proxy state, Georgia, and the Russian Federation in August 2008, seemed very much like a blatant attempt by NATO to provoke the reawakening superpower into a militaristic stand-off that would trigger World War III. Since that did not happen it is logical to conclude that Russia has no interest in taking the bait. Long may that continue, one way or another.
If, as it was suggested on the BBC news website, the IRA’s decision in October 2001 to decommission its weapons and call an end to its armed conflict with the British government was a knee-jerk reaction to the declaration of the War on Terror in the aftermath of 9/11, then the same cannot be said of ETA’s war with Spain, despite the bombing of Madrid.
The IRA’s decision was much more likely a result of the pseudo-secularisation of a quasi-religious war that spanned many decades. Once it became obvious that peace would only be reached with acknowledgement that Britain should not have been there in the first place, it needed to be agreed by all parties, including Ian Paisley’s Ulster Unionists, that the Irish Republican Army were a political movement legitimised by the occupation and the separation of the land and peoples.
It is simply not sustainable to suggest that the same cannot be said of the current occupation of Iraq, which will always inspire violent resistance, because it not only allows but actively encourages extremists to flourish, Shias and Sunnis are too busy fighting about religion to unite in effective opposition, the Turkish army continue to hunt Kurdish separatists in the mountains and black ops allegedly orchestrate enough roadside and urban bombings to justify the continuation of the looting of natural resources and the murder of innocent peoples.
Nevertheless, unless Mankind rises up and unites to change the course of history that has been mapped out for us, the presence of hostile military forces will remain an arguable justification for acts of terrorism against the west and its allies, providing the fuel for decades of catastrophic, quasi-religious civil wars in the Middle East. For the Military-Industrial-Complex that would represent Mission Accomplished.