Pentagon implements Global Military Policing. Second 9/11 to provide an Opportu

[Guest guest]

A

Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:20:11 -0500

Pentagon implements Global Military Policing. Second 9/11 to

provide an " Opportunity " to Intervene.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle & code=20060424 & article\

Id=2323

 

Pentagon implements Global Military Policing

Second 9/11 to provide an " Opportunity " to Intervene

Michel Chossudovsky, Globalresearch.ca

 

April 24, 2006

 

The following report raises some very serious concerns. It points to

the involvement of US special forces in countries which do not

represent a threat to the US and with which the US is not at war. The

SOCOM program essentially carries out the mandate of the 2000 Project

for a New American Century, which contemplated the sending in of

Special Forces in " non theater war " situations. These operations were

described in the PNAC as part of the so-called " constabulary

functions " .

 

" Constabulary functions "

 

Distinct from theater wars, " constabulary functions " imply a form of

global military policing using various instruments of military

intervention including punitive bombings and the sending in of US

Special Forces, etc. It goes beyond the " preemptive war doctrine " : the

constabulory operations are predicated on US military intervention in

countries which are acknowledged as not constituting a threat to US

national security.

 

The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. The PNAC blueprint also

outlines a consistent framework of war propaganda. One year before

9/11, the PNAC called for " some catastrophic and catalyzing event,

like a new Pearl Harbor, " which would serve to galvanize US public

opinion in support of a war agenda.

 

(See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html ).

 

The PNAC architects seem to have anticipated with cynical accuracy,

the use of the September 11 attacks as " a war pretext incident. "

 

Special Operations Command carries out the PNAC mandate pertaining to

constabulary functions. SOCOM is predicated on a Second 9/11, which

could be used to justify US military intervention in the 'global war

on terrorism " . Its legitimacy rests on the shaky consensus that the

" war on terrorism " is real and that Al Qaeda is an outside enemy of

the US. The initiative goes beyond the pretext or justification. A

second 9/11 now constitutes a golden opportunity to intervene

militarily: " Another attack could create both a justification and an

opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets "

 

National Sovereignty

 

The program is consistent with the 2005 National Security Strategy.

Whereas the preemptive war doctrine envisages military action as a

means of " self defense " against countries categorized as " hostile " to

the US, the new Pentagon doctrine envisages the possibility of

military intervention against countries which do not visibly

constitute a threat to the security of the American homeland.

 

The conduct of the Special Operations Command program raises serious

issues of national sovereignty. It is an imperial project predicated

on US military intervention anywhere in the World, using the war on

terrorism as the sole pretext. It provides legitimacy to US military

intervention in so-called " failed states " or countries which do not

share America's conception of a " free market " economy.

 

The SOCOM program is characterized by a multibillion dollar budget and

some 53,000 special forces. As such, the program overshadows the more

discrete covert operations of the CIA. It also marks the

militarisation of US foreign policy, overshadowing the diplomatic/

intelligence functions of US embassies around the globe

 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 24 April 2006

 

[salient features in the Washington Post report are indicated in italics]

 

 

New Plans Foresee Fighting Terrorism Beyond War Zones

Pentagon to Rely on Special Operations

 

By Ann Scott Tyson

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, April 23, 2006; A01

 

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has approved the military's most

ambitious plan yet to fight terrorism around the world and retaliate

more rapidly and decisively in the case of another major terrorist

attack on the United States, according to defense officials.

 

The long-awaited campaign plan for the global war on terrorism, as

well as two subordinate plans also approved within the past month by

Rumsfeld, are considered the Pentagon's highest priority, according to

officials familiar with the three documents who spoke on the condition

of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about them

publicly.

 

Details of the plans are secret, but in general they envision a

significantly expanded role for the military -- and, in particular, a

growing force of elite Special Operations troops -- in continuous

operations to combat terrorism outside of war zones such as Iraq and

Afghanistan. Developed over about three years by the Special

Operations Command (SOCOM) in Tampa, the plans reflect a beefing up of

the Pentagon's involvement in domains traditionally handled by the

Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department.

 

For example, SOCOM has dispatched small teams of Army Green Berets and

other Special Operations troops to U.S. embassies in about 20

countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America, where

they do operational planning and intelligence gathering to enhance the

ability to conduct military operations where the United States is not

at war.

 

And in a subtle but important shift contained in a classified order

last year, the Pentagon gained the leeway to inform -- rather than

gain the approval of -- the U.S. ambassador before conducting military

operations in a foreign country, according to several administration

officials. " We do not need ambassador-level approval, " said one

defense official familiar with the order.

 

Overall, the plans underscore Rumsfeld's conviction since the

September 2001 terrorist attacks that the U.S. military must expand

its mission beyond 20th-century conventional warfare by infantry,

tanks, ships and fighter jets to fighting non-state groups that are,

above all, difficult to find.

 

The plans each run more than 100 pages and cover a wide range of overt

and clandestine military activities -- such as man-hunting and

intelligence gathering on terrorist networks; attacks on terrorist

training camps and recruiting efforts; and partnering with foreign

militaries to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries. Together, they amount

to an assignment of responsibilities to different military commands to

conduct what the Pentagon envisions as a " long war " against terrorism.

 

The main campaign plan sets priorities, allocates resources such as

manpower and funding, and coordinates operations among regional

military commands to implement the Pentagon's broader National

Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism, published in

unclassified form in February. It lays out nine key goals, such as

targeting terrorist leaders, safe havens, communications and other

logistical support, and countering extremist ideology.

 

A second detailed plan is focused specifically on al-Qaeda and

associated movements, including more than a dozen groups spread across

the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia and Africa. Such groups

include the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Ansar al-Islam in the Middle

East, Jemaah Islamiya in Indonesia, and the Salafist Group for

Preaching and Combat in Saharan Africa.

 

A third plan sets out how the military can both disrupt and respond to

another major terrorist strike on the United States. It includes

lengthy annexes that offer a menu of options for the military to

retaliate quickly against specific terrorist groups, individuals or

state sponsors depending on who is believed to be behind an attack.

Another attack could create both a justification and an opportunity

that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets,

according to current and former defense officials familiar with the plan.

 

This plan details " what terrorists or bad guys we would hit if the

gloves came off. The gloves are not off, " said one official, who asked

not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject.

 

The Pentagon declined to comment on the counterterrorism plans or

their approval, citing longstanding policy. " We do not discuss

contingency plans or future operations, " said Cmdr. Greg Hicks, a

Defense Department spokesman. SOCOM's deputy commander, Vice Adm. Eric

T. Olson, said earlier this month in Senate testimony that the plans

had been approved.

 

Special Operations Command, led by Gen. Doug Brown, has been building

up its headquarters and writing the plans since 2003, when Rumsfeld

first designated it as the lead command for the war on terrorism. Its

budget has grown 60 percent since 2003 to $8 billion in fiscal 2007.

President Bush empowered the 53,000-strong command with coordinating

the entire military's efforts in counterterrorism in 2004.

 

" SOCOM is, in fact, in charge of the global war on terror, " Brown said

in testimony before the House last month. In this role, SOCOM directs

and coordinates actions by the military's regional combatant commands.

SOCOM, if directed, can also command its own counterterrorist

operations -- such as when a threat spans regional boundaries or the

mission is highly sensitive -- but it has not done so yet, according

to Olson, and other officials say that is likely to be the exception

to the rule.

 

To extend its reach to more countries, SOCOM is increasing by 13,000

the number of Special Operations troops, including Special Forces

soldiers skilled in language and working with indigenous militaries,

and Delta Force operatives and Navy SEAL teams that form clandestine

" special mission units " engaged in reconnaissance, intelligence

gathering and man-hunting. Already, SOCOM is seeing its biggest

deployments in history, with 7,000 troops overseas today, but the

majority have been concentrated in Iraq and Afghanistan, with 85

percent last year in the Middle East, Central Asia or the Horn of Africa.

 

But SOCOM's more robust role -- while adding manpower, specialized

skills and organization to the fight against terrorism -- has also led

to some bureaucratic tensions, both inside the military with the joint

staff and regional commands, as well as with the CIA and State

Department. Such tensions are one reason SOCOM's plan took years.

 

When SOCOM first dispatched military liaison teams abroad starting in

2003, they were called " Operational Control Elements, " a term changed

last year because " it raised the hackles of regional commanders and

ambassadors. It was a bad choice of language, " said one defense

official, adding: " Who can pick on Military Liaison Elements? "

 

State Department officials, meanwhile, said that although, for the

most part, cooperation with the military teams has been good, they

remain concerned over continued " gray areas " regarding their status.

" Special Ops wants the flexibility and speed to go in there. . . . but

there's understandably questions of how you do that and how you have

clear lines of authority, " one U.S. official said. There remains

" continuing discussion, to put it politely, in terms of how this is

going to work, " the official said. SOCOM says the teams work for the

regional commanders.

 

Copyright the Washington Post 2006