pandemonium  new  wars  watch

No. 504

From: Carl Zimmerman,, 18/01/03.

* Uncle Sam Desperately Seeks Reason to Attack Iraq.

* Anything goes to start an attack, even a missing American pilot.  

George Orwell on the Relation Between Freedom & the Rise of 4GW.


   UN inspectors are at a loss: no banned weapons have been detected in Iraq.
   However, the Americans have more trump cards to use. One of them is American Air
   Force pilot Michael Scott Speicher.

   UN inspectors’ work in Iraq has reminded a comic sketch over recent couple of weeks.
   Their futile efforts to find weapons of mass destruction in such original places as a
   spirit factory, a deserted airbase, or two major stores of Baghdad, can only make
   people smile. Inspectors acknowledge that themselves. Chairman of the UN
   Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) Hans Blix informed UN
   Security Council members that the international inspectors failed to find any evidence
   to prove either the availability or the production of weapons of mass destruction.
   Hans Blix stated that the inspectors conducted investigation at 120 Iraqi objects, and
   found no traces of storing or producing chemical or biological weapons. Answering
   journalists’ questions, Blix said that the inspectors did not find a smoking gun in Iraq
   (chemical and biological weapons). Mohamed El Baradei, the chairman of the
   International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), set out the same conclusion regarding
   Baghdad’s alleged nuclear programs a couple of days before Blix’s statement.

   UN sources pointed out that the USA explains the fact of no weapons in Iraq with
   certain gaps in the declarations of Iraqi military programs. American officials are
   intended to use those gaps as a pretext for the army operation against Baghdad. To
   be honest, the American pretext is rather a feeble one, but the United States is
   happy about it anyway. On the other hand, the USA might use another trump card
   that it has – US Air Force pilot Michael Scott Speicher. PRAVDA.Ru published a story in
   March of the last year entitled “The Story of the Missing American Pilot May Be the
   Excuse Needed for the US To Attack Iraq.” The article told the sad story of the
   American pilot Michael Scott Speicher. Here is a short excerpt from it.

   “The Pentagon decided to give an idea to Hollywood to make another blockbuster:
   “Saving Lieutenant Speicher.” The action takes place in Iraq. The Washington Post
   newspaper has recently published information about the fate of a military pilot of the
   US Air Force who went missing in Iraq during Gulf War. According to information from
   the CIA, which the newspaper referred to in the article, Lieutenant Commander
   Michael Speicher was shot down in an F-18 Hornet fighter over Iraq in 1991 and he is
   still in the Iraqi captivity. The CIA notified the US Congress about of this information
   on February 4th.

   “The American special services earlier thought that Speicher had died, but the British
   special services gave this new information to the CIA (which they obtained from their
   sources in Iraq), which said that the American pilot was alive and that he was kept in
   one of Baghdad's jails. As the newspaper wrote, the location of the American pilot
   was so secret that only two people in Iraq have the right to see the captive American
   pilot: the chief of the intelligence service and the elder son of the Iraqi leader, Uday

   “The break between the publication of the material and the reaction of the American
   government was not long. NTV.Ru informed that the American authorities had
   officially acknowledged that pilot Michael Speicher was not dead, but was missing,
   and they finally evinced interest in his fate.”

   However, the interest was gone a bit later. A year after that, the Washington Times
   (not the Washington Post) recollected the American pilot. The USA has the evidence,
   which proves that missing American pilot Michael Speicher is alive, being a captive in
   Iraq. This might be the reason to start the army operation in Iraq. This was
   particularly written in an article by American publicist Bill Gertz, known for his
   anti-Iraqi views.

   We feel very sorry for the pilot, for the government mentions his name only when
   they need to. There can be one conclusion made: the Americans got into a mess with
   the Iraqi inspections. The USA did not find any proof of Baghdad’s ill intentions, so
   there was virtually no reason to launch the attack. By the way, British Prime Minister
   Tony Blair suggested the continuation of UN inspectors’ work in Iraq for several
   months more. This is not a bad idea, really. The States will both preserve its image
   and kowtow to the UN, like “we will not do anything without a sanction.” When they
   find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the world community will make a decision
   to start the military operation against Saddam.

General -  Orwell predicted 4th Generation Warfare (4 views)  notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion Subscribe  
From:  carlzim (PHILOS1)    Jan-15 8:18 pm 
To:  ALL  (1 of 3) 

Based on an online article-- George Orwell (see below) established the connection
between the dominant type of warfare and the state of freedom. Also, he perceived
the outlines of something like Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) being able to subvert
industrial warfare-a bold prediction 3 months after Hiroshima. Orwell's experience in
Spanish Civil War (1936) (re: his book "Homage to Catalonia") may have influenced
his "comment. In that war, the Spanish loyalists sporadically used the petrol bomb, a
non-conventional weapon, vs. Franco's tanks. In the Winter War (1940), the Finns
widely used it as the Molotov cocktail vs. Soviet tanks.
George Orwell on the Relation Between Freedom & the Rise of 4GW

Excerpt from George Orwell, "You and the Atomic Bomb" (1945) [DNI Editor's note:
available at various places
on the Internet.]

January 1, 2003

Chronological archive and full text of attachments:

. "It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of
weapons. In particular, the
connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by
the bourgeoisie has
been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be
brought forward, I
think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the
dominant weapon is
expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the
dominant weapon is
cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks,
battleships and bombing
planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and
hand-grenades are
inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a
simple weapon--so
long as there is no answer to it-gives claws to the weak."

"The great age of democracy and of national self-determination was the age of the
musket and the rifle.
After the invention of the flintlock, and before the invention of the percussion cap,
the musket was a fairly
efficient weapon, and at the same time so simple that it could be produced almost
anywhere. Its
combination of qualities made possible the success of the American and French
revolutions, and made a
popular insurrection a more serious business than it could be in our own day. After
the musket came the
breech-loading rifle. This was a comparatively complex thing, but it could still be
produced in scores of
countries, and it was cheap, easily smuggled and economical of ammunition. Even the
most backward
nation could always get hold of rifles from one source or another, so that Boers,
Bulgars, Abyssinians,
Moroccans--even Tibetans--could put up a fight for their independence, sometimes
with success. But
thereafter every development in military technique has favoured the State as against
the individual, and the
industrialised country as against the backward one. There are fewer and fewer foci of
power. Already, in
1939, there were only five states capable of waging war on the grand scale, and now
there are only
three-ultimately, perhaps, only two. This trend has been obvious for years, and was
pointed out by a few
observers even before 1914. The one thing that might reverse it is the discovery of a
weapon-or, to
put it more broadly, of a method of fighting-not dependent on huge concentrations of

Put another way ... what goes around comes around ... which is why 9-11 proved
America needs to reassert its
industrial might by deploying a national missile defense system-aka the 21st Century
Maginot Line-before it
has even been tested.