Related Articles

How ‘Think Tanks’ Generate Endless War

U.S. “think tanks” rile up the American public against an ever-shifting roster of foreign “enemies” to justify wars which line the pockets of military contractors who kick back some profits to the “think tanks,” explains retired JAG Major Todd E. Pierce.

By Todd E. Pierce

The New York Times took notice recently of the role that so-called “think tanks” play in corrupting U.S. government policy. Their review of think tanks “identified dozens of examples of scholars conducting research at think tanks while corporations were paying them to help shape government policy.”

Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, while the Times investigation demonstrates well that the U.S. is even more corrupt – albeit the corruption is better disguised – than the many foreign countries which we routinely accuse of corruption, the Times failed to identify the most egregious form of corruption in our system. That is, those think tanks are constantly engaged in the sort of activities which the Defense Department identifies as “Information War” when conducted by foreign countries that are designated by the U.S. as an enemy at any given moment.

Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine “business” of the best known U.S. think tanks.

There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological “suggestiveness” to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover.

Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well.

The measure of success from such a disinformation and propaganda effort can be seen when the narrative is adopted by secondary communicators who are perhaps the most important target audience. That is because they are “key communicators” in PsyOp terms, who in turn become provocateurs in propagating the false narrative even more broadly and to its own audiences, and becoming “combat multipliers” in military terms.

It is readily apparent now that Russia has taken its place as the primary target within U.S. sights. One doesn’t have to see the U.S. military buildup on Russia’s borders to understand that but only see the propaganda themes of our “think tanks.”

The Role of Rand

A prime example of an act of waging information war to incite actual military attack is the Rand Corporation, which, incidentally, published a guide to information war and the need to condition the U.S. population for war back in the 1990s.

Rand was founded by, among others, the war enthusiast, Air Force General Curtis LeMay, who was the model for the character of Gen. Buck Turgidson in the movie “Dr. Strangelove.” LeMay once stated that he would not be afraid to start a nuclear war with Russia and that spirit would seem to be alive and well at Rand today as they project on to Vladimir Putin our own eagerness for inciting a war.

The particular act of information warfare by Rand is shown in a recent Rand article: “How to Counter Putin’s Subversive War on the West.” The title suggests by its presupposition that Putin is acting in the offensive form of war rather than the defensive form of war. But it is plain to see he is in the defensive form of war when one looks at the numerous provocations and acts of aggression carried out by American officials, such as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and General Philip Breedlove, and the U.S. and NATO military buildup on Russia’s borders.

Within this Rand article however can be found no better example of psychological projection than this propagandistic pablum that too many commentators, some witless, some not, will predictably repeat:

“Moscow’s provocative active measures cause foreign investors and international lenders to see higher risks in doing business with Russia. Iran is learning a similar, painful lesson as it persists with harsh anti-Western policies even as nuclear-related sanctions fade. Russia will decide its own priorities. But it should not be surprised if disregard for others’ interests diminishes the international regard it seeks as an influential great power.”

In fact, an objective, dispassionate observation of U.S./Russian policies would show it has been the U.S. carrying out these “provocative active measures” as the instigator, not Russia.

Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for “peace,” have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically.

The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: “Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better.”

It begins: “The risk of outright conflict in Europe is higher than it has been for years and the confrontation between Russia and the West shows no sign of ending. To prevent misunderstandings and dangerous incidents, the two sides must improve their methods of communication.”

Unfortunately, that is now true. But the article’s author suggests throughout that each party, Russia and the U.S./NATO, had an equal hand in the deterioration of relations. He wrote: “The West needs to acknowledge that the standoff with Russia is not merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive,” as if Western officials don’t already know that that accusation was only a propaganda theme for their own populations to cover up the West’s aggressiveness.

Blaming Russia

So Americans, such as myself, must acknowledge and confront that the standoff with Russia is not only not “merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive,” but it is rather, that the U.S. is “turning authoritarian, nationalistic,” and even more “assertive,” i.e., aggressive, toward the world.

Suz Tzu wrote that a “sovereign” must know oneself and the enemy. In the case of the U.S. sovereign, the people and their elected, so-called representatives, there is probably no “sovereign” in human history more lacking in self-awareness of their own nation’s behavior toward other nations.

So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we’ve seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world’s populations.

When that then generates a response from some nation with a tin-pot military relative to our own, with ours paid for by the privileged financial position we’ve put ourselves into post-WWII, our politicians urgently call for even more military spending from the American people to support even more aggression, all in the guise of “national defense.”

Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the “Presidential Policy Guidance” and it is plain to see which nation has become most “authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive.” It is the United States.

The Presidential Policy Guidance “establishes the standard operating procedures for when the United States takes direct action, which refers to lethal and non-lethal uses of force, including capture operations against terrorist targets outside the United States and areas of active hostilities.”

What other nation, besides Israel probably, has a governmental “Regulation” providing for assassinations outside “areas of active hostilities?”

It should readily be evident that it is the U.S. now carrying out the vast majority of provocative active measures and has the disregard for others complained of here. At least for the moment, however, the U.S. can still hide much of its aggression using the vast financial resources provided by the American people to the Defense Department to produce sophisticated propaganda and to bribe foreign officials with foreign aid to look the other way from U.S. provocations.

It is ironic that today, one can learn more about the U.S. military and foreign policy from the Rand Corporation only by reading at least one of its historical documents, “The Operational Code of the Politburo.” This is described as “part of a major effort at RAND to provide insight into the political leadership and foreign policy in the Soviet Union and other communist states; the development of Soviet military strategy and doctrine.”

As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy.

That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. That this U.S. MIC would turn against its own people, the American public, by waging perpetual information war against this domestic target just to enrich their investors, might have been even more than Eisenhower could imagine however.

Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. [This article first appeared at http://original.antiwar.com/Todd_Pierce/2016/08/14/inciting-wars-american-way/ and then at Consortium.news.]

Peace Delegations or Saber-rattling? Exploring Russian-American Relations with Former CIA Intelligence Officer Elizabeth Murray

“Just imagine how our country would feel if there was a massive deployment
of Russian troops on the border of Canada.” – Elizabeth Murray
(Speaking about the recent US-NATO maneuvers of Operation Anakonda on the Russian border involving 31,000 troops, the largest deployment since WWII.)
This week on Love (and Revolution) Radio, we speak with Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy Intelligence Officer for the Near East about the tensions that led her to embark on a recent peace delegation to Russia to find out just what all this saber-rattling is really about. We’ll also ask her about Ukraine, Iraq, and about her decision to leave the CIA and work for peace. A unique story! Tune in!
Here’s your podcast link: http://occupyradio.podomatic.com/entry/2016-08-16T14_00_00-07_00

Announcing 14th annual SAAII Award Ceremony on September 25

——————PRESS RELEASE——————————————————————-

Announcing the 14th annual Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII) award ceremony to be held on Sunday Sept 25th at the Kay Center Chapel, American University, in conjunction with the “No War 2016: Real Security Without Terrorism” Conference.

SAAII is honoring former CIA analyst and case officer John Kiriakou whose CIA career spanned 14 years, beginning in 1990, when he served as a Middle East analyst. He later became a case officer in charge of recruiting agents overseas. In 2002, he led the team that located Abu Zubaydah, alleged to be a high-ranking member of al-Qaeda. It later transpired that Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times.

John Kiriakou was the first U.S. government official to confirm (during a national news interview in December 2007) that waterboarding – which he described as torture – was used to interrogate al Qaeda prisoners. Kiriakou also stated that he found US “enhanced interrogation techniques” immoral, and that Americans are “better than that.”

Kiriakou subsequently faced persecution by the US government for his act of truth-telling, and was sentenced to a 30-month prison term – ostensibly for revealing classified information. To this day Kiriakou remains the sole US government official – past or present – who has gone to jail over the issue of torture in the post-9/11 era. Kiriakou’s claim of US torture practices was later confirmed by President Obama, who in 2014 publicly acknowledged that “we tortured some folks.”

The Sam Adams Associates will present Kiriakou with its traditional Corner-Brightener Candlestick which honors intelligence professionals for shining the light of truth into dark corners.

Kiriakou is currently an associate fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies. The author of two books, he also previously served as a senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as a counterterrorism consultant for ABC News.

He has been the recipient of several exemplary performance awards while at the CIA; also the 2012 Joe A. Callaway Award for Civic Courage, as a “national security whistleblower who stood up for constitutional rights and American values, at great risk to his personal and professional life”; the “Peacemaker of the Year” award in 2013 by the Peace and Justice Center of Sonoma County; a 2013 “Giraffe Hero Commendation,” awarded to people who stick their necks out for the common good; and in 2015, the PEN Center USA, the West Coast branch of PEN International (a human rights and literary arts organization that promotes the written word and freedom of expression), gave John Kiriakou its First Amendment Award for his role in exposing waterboarding as torture used during President George W. Bush’s “war on terror.”

The SAAII award event will commence promptly at 4 pm on Sept 25 in the Kay Center Chapel, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC, with a reception planned from 5:30 to 6 pm in the Kay Center Lounge. The event is free and open to the public. Besides John Kiriakou, speakers will tentatively include former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson, former NSA official Thomas Drake and retired Colonel Larry Wilkerson (bios below).

SAAII invites all who wish to attend the September 25th award ceremony to also register for the World Beyond War’s “No War 2016: Real Security Without Terrorism” conference, which features an impressive roster of prominent non-profit leaders, academic professionals and peace activists and has generously incorporated this event into its program (details here). Individuals can register here for all or part of the 3-day conference (Sept 23-25).

Event speakers will include the following:

Lawrence B. “Larry” Wilkerson is a retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell. Wilkerson has been vocal in his criticism of U.S. foreign policy. He is a Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William & Mary in Virginia, and the 2009 SAAII recipient.

Thomas Drake is a decorated United States Air Force and Navy veteran who became a Senior Executive at the N ational Security Agency, where he witnessed not only widespread waste, fraud, and abuse, but also gross violations of our 4th Amendment rights. He was a material witness and whistleblower regarding a multi-year Department of Defense Inspector General audit of the failed multi-billion dollar NSA program known as TRAILBLAZER, for which NSA management opted instead of THINTHREAD, a much less costly (and 4th Amendment-observant) intelligence data collection, processing, and analysis system that had been tested and was ready for wider deployment. Drake received the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling in 2011 and also received the SAAII award that year.

Larry C. Johnson is a former CIA analyst who moved in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, anti-terrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm with expertise in counterterrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management and investigating money laundering. Mr. Johnson works with US military commands in scripting terrorism exercises, briefs on terrorist trends, and conducts undercover investigations on product counterfeiting, smuggling and money laundering. He has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and on national news programs.

The No-State Solution to the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Twelve years ago, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion at the request of the United Nations General Assembly on the legality of the wall Israel has constructed in the West Bank. The ICJ affirmed that all of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are “occupied Palestinian territory”, and that Israel’s wall, as well as its settlements, violate the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The ICJ’s ruling helps to underscore the prejudicial nature of the discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Western mainstream media—and particularly in the US. The media never fail to elevate Israel’s policy aims to the same level of legitimacy as international law. For example, we can frequently read in the New York Times, the Washington Post, et al, that East Jerusalem or areas where Israeli settlements are located are “disputed” territory—thus placing equal weight to Israel’s position as the entire rest of the planet, which recognizes Israel’s settlements as illegal and East Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory.

Needless to say, this is not balanced journalism, but extremely prejudicial to the rights of the Palestinians living under foreign military occupation. When the illegality of the settlements is alluded to by the mainstream media (all too infrequently), they typically obscure it by saying something like: “Most countries do not recognize the legitimacy of Israel’s settlements.” This leaves readers with the impression that the matter is controversial, that there is debate about it within the international community, that there are two legitimate points of view. It affords validity to Israel’s position when it has none. Translated from newspeak, what that means is that every single government on planet Earth other than Israel itself recognizes the settlements as a violation of international law.

The media bend over backwards to accommodate and attempt to legitimize Israel’s criminal policies. How can the media get away with such outrageously biased reporting? Furthermore, why is the US mainstream media so prejudiced against the rights of the Palestinians?

The answer is simple: the policy of the US government is one of unconditionally supporting Israel’s violations of international law and the human rights of the Palestinian people.

(Rest of article at Counterpunch)

Take it from a whistleblower: Chilcot’s jigsaw puzzle is missing a few pieces (by Katherine Gun)

We now know more about the shameful behaviour that led to the Iraq war. But with my experience at GCHQ, I could have helped the inquiry

Following the damning Chilcot report, much will be said about the decision to go to war in Iraq. But one thing will be missing: the information I leaked in the runup to the war. It won’t get an airing because I was never questioned or asked to participate in the Chilcot inquiry.

The Iraq inquiry delivered a comprehensively damning verdict on Tony Blair and the decision to join the US-led invasion, but some questions remain

Back in early 2003, Tony Blair was keen to secure UN backing for a resolution that would authorise the use of force against Iraq. I was a linguist and analyst at GCHQ when, on 31 Jan 2003, I, along with dozens of others in GCHQ, received an email from a senior official at the National Security Agency. It said the agency was “mounting a surge particularly directed at the UN security council (UNSC) members”, and that it wanted “the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises”.

In other words, the US planned to use intercepted communications of the security council delegates. The focus of the “surge” was principally directed at the six swing nations then on the UNSC: Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria, Guinea and Pakistan. The Chilcot report has eliminated any doubt that the goal of the war was regime change by military means. But that is what many people already suspected in 2003.

I was furious when I read that email and leaked it. Soon afterwards, when the Observer ran a front-page story: “US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war”, I confessed to the leak and was arrested on suspicion of the breach of section 1 of the Official Secrets Act. I pleaded not guilty and, assisted by Liberty and Ben Emmerson QC, offered a defence of necessity – in other words, a breach of the law in order to prevent imminent loss of human life. This defence had not and, to my knowledge, has still not, been tested in a court of law.

I believed that on receiving the email, UK parliamentary members might question the urgency and motives of the war hawks, and demand further deliberations and scrutiny. I thought it might delay or perhaps even halt the march towards a war that would devastate Iraqi lives and infrastructure already crushed by a decade of unrelenting sanctions. A war that would send UK and US service men and women into harm’s way, leaving hundreds of them dead, disfigured and traumatised. Unfortunately, that did not happen. It couldn’t, for now we know via Chilcot that Blair promised George W Bush he would be “with him, whatever”.

It took eight months before the Crown Prosecution Service announced I would be charged. It had a change of heart two and a half months later, after my legal team demanded to see all the legal advice to Blair in the runup to the war. I left the Old Bailey with a huge weight gone from my shoulders. It was a day I will never forget.

Chilcot’s report does not apportion blame. But it does provide ample evidence of what many of us knew all along: that this was an illegal war, that military intervention was by no means a last resort, that all avenues were not exhausted and that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the UK. Furthermore, the post-invasion plan for Iraq looked like it had been scribbled on the back of a beer mat. Blair was warned by the intelligence services that the threat levels to the UK would increase, that Iraqi weapons would fall into the hands of al-Qaida. The consequences of his lack of concern about these things can be felt to this day.

We know a lot more now than we knew before, but what about the email I leaked? Who did the NSA talk to in the UK to OK it? Did it talk to anyone? How did an NSA official feel bold enough to write to UK civil servants anticipating their cooperation in an attempt to undermine the UN’s diplomatic processes, in a secret effort to garner information to secure “results favourable to US goals”? How far did the surveillance operation proceed? Whose communications did they intercept and record? What, if anything did they discover and did they use any information they may have gathered? Was this email sent to other organisation or agencies besides GCHQ? It seems reasonable to ask why this crucial information was not included in the Chilcot inquiry?

It was a huge relief when the CPS dropped its charges. But I had admitted the leak. Why did it decline to offer evidence? The catastrophe of the Iraq invasion and occupation is painfully evident today. Terrorism and risk has spread across the globe as many said it would. So much for “keeping us safe” and protecting our freedoms.

Chilcot has shone a light on what happened, but it is clear there are still bits of the puzzle that are missing. Now that we know better, will we do better?

(Katharine Gun is a former mandarin specialist at GCHQ and whistleblower. She leaked an email about US plans to spy on the UN, and was charged under the Official Secrets Act. She is the recipient of the 2003 Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence. Original op-ed at The Guardian.)