PDFPrint

Last week these “Comments” quoted President Putin of Russia in 2014 accusing the United States of America of having “ruined all systems of global collective security.” What was he referring to?

In the 1980’s Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev of the USA and Russia respectively, realising the danger of the store of nuclear weapons on each side capable of ending life on earth, together made agreements to reduce the weapons they had, and to abstain from producing any more armaments of specifically perilous kinds that they did not yet have. These agreements served well to relax tensions and to keep the peace between the two nations until the end of the Cold War in 1989 and beyond, but the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Soviet Russia created a new situation on the world stage – the USA was now the only super-power. Would it have the wisdom not to misuse its now overwhelming military might?

A number of leaders inside the USA called for a severe reduction in military expenditure – what was it needed for any longer? – but as far back as 1961 the outgoing President Eisenhower had famously warned US citizens in his farewell address to the nation against its “military-industrial complex” exerting too great an influence on public policy. By the “MIC” he meant the informal triangular alliance that had arisen between the USA’s armed forces, heavy industry and Congress, and the danger was that together they would want war for the sake of the immense profits to be made from the production of expensive weapons – in 2011 the USA spent more on its armed forces than the next 13 nations combined.

The truth is that a capitalist economy thrives on war, insofar as weapons can be expensive to produce, and if they are destroyed and have to be replaced, that is all the more turnover for the producers. So at the end of the Cold War, there were at least three arguments for maintaining the heavy expenditure on weapons: the USA must still be ready to defend itself against threats that can arise, the economy needs the turnover, and the world needs a policeman. Within reason, each of the arguments is valid, but the Plan which US leaders (especially Dick Cheney) worked out in the 1990’s to guide US policy was not necessarily reasonable, because it was a plan for the US to rule the world. It calls for the US to maintain its overwhelming military superiority and prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge it on the world stage. It calls for dominion over friends and enemies alike. It says not that the US must be more or most powerful, but that it must be absolutely powerful. The Plan has turned disarming back into rearming.

(For the Cheney Plan, see http://​www.​informationclearinghouse.​info/​article1544.​htm).

That a plan expressed in such terms suffers from dangerous pride and overweening ambition should be obvious to anyone with the least knowledge of human nature. Under President Clinton (1992–2000) the Plan was slowed down, but as soon as Dick Cheney came back to power with the Republicans as Vice-President, the wicked idea of a new Pearl Harbour as a contrived event to mobilise the people behind a policy they would never in their right minds approve of, was put into practice – 9/11, one of the greatest lies of all history, which can only have been engineered by the secret government (the true “Deep State”) from deep within the public government, but which eminently succeeded at the time in furthering Cheney’s Plan. 9/11 immediately made the military invasion of Iraq possible, and how many more wars of aggression since then. It also made the worldwide police State take gigantic strides forward.

But lies are the sure footprint of Satan. It would follow from the huge lie of 9/11 that there is something satanic about Cheney’s Plan with its design for military domination of the world by the USA, all in the name of “democracy.” For a sane view of insane US policy heading straight for World War III, read at PaulCraigRoberts.org the sanity of a former official high under President Reagan in the US government, who watched at first hand and admired how Reagan and Gorbachev succeeded in working together to protect world peace. And let us pray for both Trump and Putin. With all their respective faults, both are surely gifts of God for which we need to be grateful to God.

Kyrie eleison.