|
The Pentagon's "Second 911"
by Michel Chossudovsky
 One essential feature of "defense" in the case of a second major attack on America, is "offense", according to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff: "Homeland security is one piece of a broader strategy [which] brings the battle to the enemy."( DHS, Transcript of complete March 2005 speech of Secr. Michael Chertoff)
In the month following last year's 7/7 London bombings, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". Implied in the contingency plan is the certainty that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11.
"Another [9/11] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity to retaliate against some known targets"
This "contingency plan" uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11",
which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation
against Iran, while pressure was also exerted on Tehran in relation to
its (non-existent) nuclear weapons program.
What is diabolical
in this decision of the US Vice President is that the justification
presented by Cheney to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in
a hypothetical terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:
The
plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both
conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more
than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected
nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are
hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by
conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq,
the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the
act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air
Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the
implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an
unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career
by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive
Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)
Are we
to understand that US, British and Israeli military planners are
waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to extend the war beyond the
borders of Lebanon, to launch a military operation directed against
Syria and Iran?
Cheney's proposed "contingency plan" did not
focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the
presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive
bombings could immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an
investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in
October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the alleged support of the
Taliban government to the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that one
does not plan a war in three weeks: the bombing and invasion of
Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer
points out in an incisive review article:
"At a deeper level,
it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in
Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing
wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by
the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system....
( Keefer, February 2006 )
In a timely statement, barely a few
days following the onslaught of the bombing of Lebanon, Vice President
Cheney reiterated his warning: "The enemy that struck on 9/11 is
fractured and weakened, yet still lethal, still determined to hit us
again" (Waterloo Courier, Iowa, 19 July 2006, italics added).
"Justification and Opportunity to Retaliate against ...the State Sponsors [of Terrorism]"
In
April 2006, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld launched a
far-reaching military plan to fight terrorism around the World, with a
view to retaliating in the case of a second major terrorist attack on
America.
"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.
(Washington Post, 23 April 2006)
This plan is predicated on the possibility of a Second 911 and the need to retaliate if and when the US is attacked:
"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. (italics added, WP 23 April 2006)
The presumption of
this military document, is that a Second 911 attack "which is lacking
today" would usefully create both a "justification and an opportunity"
to wage war on "some known targets [Iran and Syria]".
The
announcement on August 10 by the British Home Office of a foiled large
scale terror attack to simultaneously blow up as many as ten airplanes,
conveys the impression that it is the Western World rather than the
Middle East which is under attack.
Realities are twisted
upside down. The disinformation campaign has gone into full gear. The
British and US media are increasingly pointing towards "preemptive
war" as an act of "self defense" against Al Qaeda and the State
sponsors of terrorism, who are allegedly preparing a Second 911. The
underlying objective, through fear and intimidation, is ultimately to
build public acceptance for the next stage of the Middle East "war on
terrorism" which is directed against Syria and Iran.
Michel Chossudovsky is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the
author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research
on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The
CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles
on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not
modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For
publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms
including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca
contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in
an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and
social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for
research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted
material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission
from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2006
The url address of this article is here
 |
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
