Montelongo Brothers, what happened in Benghazi


US General Wesley Clark: War on Syria Planned in 1991 as Part of Middle East Land Grab

In the above video, General Wesley Clark one of the most highly decorated 4 star generals of the US military openly admits that there has been ‘a policy coup’ in the US government. He explains that he was told, back in 1991, that the US would actively invade and destabilize countries across the Middle East to take control of the region. These are not the words of an outsider conspiracy theorist, but the man who did this job for the US government. Of the list Clark was shown, only Syria is left standing, and the US and UK have all but declared war on Syria this week.

The American Enterprise Institute and the Project for the New American Century

Two right wing think tanks dominate US economic and military policy, and have done for decades. These are The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The following words are taken directly from the September 2000 document ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources in a new Century’, produced by the Project for the New American Century:

“Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project. William Kristol is chairman of the Project, and Robert Kagan, Devon Gaffney Cross, Bruce P. Jackson and John R. Bolton serve as directors. Gary Schmitt is executive director of the Project.

‘As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

"[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States ’global responsibilities.

“Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership. ’

~ From the Project’s Founding Statement of Principles ”

This rag tag group of neoconservatives and neoliberals have taken up strategic position in business, academia and politics in order to deliver the stated aims of their mission. In his video, General Wesley Clark refers to this specific group as taking out a "policy coup" in the aftermath of 9/11.

Some might well go further and suggest 9/11 itself was part of the coup, in a 21st Century version of the Reichstag Fire, a ploy to create a democratic mandate for undemocratic policy. Those who support this argument cite the statement within the above document which states:

"The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." (p51).

Whether one subscribes to the view that 9/11 was an inside job, or not, what is certainly evident is that the key members of the EIA and PNAC fully leveraged the tragedy to fulfill on their ambitions.

In his State of the Union Address in January 2002, US President George W Bush announced an Axis of Evil - containing Iraq, Iran and North Korea (from PNAC’s list). Bush staffed his White House with PNAC supporters - the following were all signatories to PNAC’s statement of principles and in most cases, also members of EIA:

Dick Cheney - Vice President

Scooter Libby - Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff

Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense

Paul Wolfowitz - The Deputy Secretary of Defense under Donald Rumsfeld was PNAC / EIA’s

John R Bolton - US Ambassador to the UN in the lead up to the Iraq war.

Richard Perle - Chair of Bush’s Defense Policy Committee

Francis Fukuyama - Prominent US political scientist. Author of The End of History (this is how neoconservatives and neoliberals become indistinguishable)

Elliot Abrams - Member of the National Security Council

The list goes on ... and many of these figures continue to hold positions on political committees, senior pundit roles in the media, or senior academic positions - shaping political, economic and academic thought more conducive to their aims.

While large portions of the public have been responding emotionally to a series of apparently separate events - the view from the White House has been strategic and coordinated. Both the Bush and Obama White House have engaged in this process of pre-emptively eradicating regimes perceived to threaten their pre-eminent position on the world stage. The UK has become little more than the 51st State, tying its fate to the superpower.

Dropping like flies

It is difficult to find a blood-stained dictatorship in the world that didn’t begin its life as a US / UK sponsored project, or become one over time.

This 2 minute sequence from Michael Moore’s movie Bowling for Columbine ’summarizes this unedifying history perfectly.


Be it Pol Pot, Augusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, or even The Taliban - the US and UK governments have supported countless undemocratic organizations to take over nations, so long as they sign contracts which profit our companies and support our foreign policy agenda. This is not conspiracy, it is verifiable fact. Our governments provide support with weapons, financing, and the most crucial element - legitimacy.

The public are constantly being fed images of a new bad guy in need of immediate extermination. Sometimes, the good guys and the bad guys are switched overnight. Hussein was funded and supported by the West before he became the bad guy. The Taliban were funded and supported by the West and then became the bad guys. Islamic militants such as Al Qaeda are evil in Iraq and Afghanistan, but freedom fighters in Syria. In George Orwell’s 1984, midway through a speech denouncing Eurasia as the enemy of Oceania, the government’s policy changes and war commences with Eastasia. Without missing a beat, the speaker claims that Oceania was never at war with Eurasia, but Eastasia is their perpetual enemy. This is the role of the media in these pleas for intervention, providing little or factually inaccurate history to contextualize the issue. As a result, the very people demanding action against Al Qaeda two years ago in Iraq, are now demanding support for Al Qaeda in Syria.

And Now Syria

In the last 24 hours, US Secretary of State John Kerry has made an emotive speech, all but declaring war on Syria. UK parliament will be recalled from summer recess for British MPs to discuss the UK’s response. There is not a reliable commentator on either side of the argument who believes that Syria will now escape military intervention of some kind from the US.

I wrote a piece in May of this year, predicting this moment - entitled We Are Not the Good Guys: The Compassionate Case Against Foreign Intervention ’. My conclusion has not changed since:

This leaves those who conceive of themselves as Citizens of the World, with a strong commitment to supporting those facing persecution and death anywhere in the world, with a real problem. To do nothing means looking on while people face oppression, suppression and death. To support our governments intervening will likely result in the same or worse, while adding a large bill to the taxpayer and farming out the indigenous economy to our most rapacious corporations.

It is an unenviable position and is obviously less attractive than the easy knee jerk platitudes of the isolationist and humanitarian positions. But that might evidence it as the truest of the three.

To acknowledge that we are not the good guys is not easy, and it does require searching for alternative ways of intervening where we feel compelled to act.

As Syria burns, we will likely face calls to intervene again soon. Our new model of intervention won't be ready by the time these calls come. But that does not mean we need to support an already failed policy. This does not constitute a sin by omission, rather it represents our best worst option right now, backed by a commitment to find something that works.

Those who did the same prior to Iraq were castigated as hard hearted armchair theorists, fiddling while Rome burned. But Iraq is still burning a decade later, and those who cautioned against the invasion were proven right.

It behoves us to consider alternative models for intervention and action, which don’t hand our taxes, and foreign lives and resources, directly into the hands of corporate criminals. It is time to find another way. We do not have to turn our backs, but we do have to change our tactics.

Take action

Richard Falk’s paper The Failures of “Intervention from Above”: Is There and Alternative Model for Humanitarian Intervention ’explores this topic further.

The best we can do for the people of Syria at the moment, is support every peace and humanitarian initiative going. It is our duty, as citizens of the world, to refuse to lend support to the Project for the New American Century acolytes in their regime toppling efforts.