 “The
livelihood of millions of people throughout the World is at stake. It
is my sincere hope that the truth will prevail and that the
understanding provided in this detailed study will serve the cause of
World peace. This objective, however, can only be reached by revealing
the falsehoods behind America’s “War on Terrorism” and
questioning the legitimacy of the main political and military actors
responsible for extensive war crimes.” (Michel Chossudovsky, August 2005
)
“America’s War on Terrorism” was launched at 9.30pm on September 11, 2001
* * *
At
eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration
had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on
the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made
prior to the conduct of an indepth police investigation.
That
same evening at 9:30 pm, a “War Cabinet” was formed integrated by a
select number of top intelligence and military advisors. And at 11:00
pm, at the end of that historic meeting at the White House, the “War on
Terrorism” was officially launched.
The
decision was announced to wage war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in
retribution for the 9/11 attacks. The following morning on September
12th, the news headlines indelibly pointed to “state sponsorship” of the
9/11 attacks. In chorus, the US media was calling for a military
intervention against Afghanistan. Barely four weeks later, on the 7th of
October, Afghanistan was bombed and invaded by US troops.Americans were
led to believe that the decision to go to war had been taken on the
spur of the moment, on the evening of September 11, in response to the
attacks and their tragic consequences.
Image: Click to order
Little
did the public realize that a large scale theater war is never planned
and executed in a matter of weeks. The decision to launch a war and send
troops to Afghanistan had been taken well in advance of 9/11. The
“terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event” as it was later described
by CentCom Commander General Tommy Franks, served to galvanize public
opinion in support of a war agenda which was already in its final
planning stage.
The
tragic events of 9/11 provided the required justification to wage a war
on “humanitarian grounds”, with the full support of World public
opinion and the endorsement of the “international community”.
Several
prominent “progressive” intellectuals made a case for “retaliation
against terrorism”, on moral and ethical grounds. The “just cause”
military doctrine (jus ad bellum) was accepted and upheld at face value
as a legitimate response to 9/11,without examining the fact that
Washington had not only supported the “Islamic terror network”, it was
also instrumental in the installation of the Taliban government in 1996.
In
the wake of 9/11, the antiwar movement was completely isolated. The
trade unions and civil society organizations had swallowed the media
lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution
against Afghanistan, an impoverished country of 30 million people.
I
started writing on the evening of September 11, late into the night,
going through piles of research notes, which I had previously collected
on the history of Al Qaeda. My first text entitled “Who is Osama bin
Laden?”, which was completed and first published on September the 12th.
(See Chapter II.)
From
the very outset, I questioned the official story, which described
nineteen Al Qaeda sponsored hijackers involved in a highly sophisticated
and organized operation. My first objective was to reveal the true
nature of this illusive “enemy of America”, who was “threatening the
Homeland”.
The
myth of the “outside enemy” and the threat of “Islamic terrorists” was
the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s military doctrine, used as a
pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not to xii America’s “War on
Terrorism” mention the repeal of civil liberties and constitutional
government in America.
Without
an “outside enemy”, there could be no “war on terrorism”. The entire
national security agenda would collapse “like a deck of cards”. The war
criminals in high office would have no leg to stand on.
It
was consequently crucial for the development of a coherent antiwar and
civil rights movement, to reveal the nature of Al Qaeda and its evolving
relationship to successive US administrations.
Amply
documented but rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, Al Qaeda was a
creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet- Afghan war. This was a
known fact, corroborated by numerous sources including official
documents of the US Congress. The intelligence community had time and
again acknowledged that they had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but
that in the wake of the Cold War: “he turned against us”.
After
9/11, the campaign of media disinformation served not only to drown the
truth but also to kill much of the historical evidence on how this
illusive “outside enemy” had been fabricated and transformed into “Enemy
Number One”.
The Balkans Connection
My research on the Balkans conducted since the mid-1990s enabled me
to document numerous ties and connections between Al Qaeda and the US
Administration. The US military, the CIA and NATO had supported Al Qaeda
in the Balkans. Washington’s objective was to trigger ethnic conflict
and destabilize the Yugoslav federation, first in Bosnia, then in
Kosovo.
In
1997, the Republican Party Committee (RPC) of the US Senate released a
detailed report which accused President Clinton of collaborating with
the “Islamic Militant Network” in Bosnia and working hand in glove with
an organization linked to Osama bin Laden. (See Chapter III.) The
report, however,was not widely publicized. Instead, the Republicans
chose to discredit Clinton for his liaison with White House intern
Monica Lewinsky.
The
Clinton Administration had also been providing covert support to the
Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a paramilitary group supported by Al
Qaeda, which was involved in numerous terrorist attacks. The Defense
Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service,
more commonly known as MI6, together with former members of Britain’s
22nd Special Air Services Regiment (SAS) were providing training to the
KLA, despite its extensive links to organized crime and the drug trade.
Meanwhile, known and documented, several Al Qaeda operatives had
integrated the ranks of the KLA. (See Chapter III).
In
the months leading up to 9/11, I was actively involved in research on
the terror attacks in Macedonia, waged by the self-proclaimed National
Liberation Army (NLA) of Macedonia, a paramilitary army integrated by
KLA commanders. Al Qaeda Mujahideen had integrated the NLA. Meanwhile,
senior US military officers from a private mercenary company on contract
to the Pentagon were advising the terrorists.
Barely
a couple of months prior to 9/11, US military advisers were seen
mingling with Al Qaeda operatives within the same paramilitary army. In
late June 2001, seventeen US “instructors” were identified among the
withdrawing rebels. To avoid the diplomatic humiliation and media
embarrassment of senior US military personnel captured together with
“Islamic terrorists”by the Macedonian Armed Forces, the US and NATO
pressured the Macedonian government to allow the NLA terrorists and
their US military advisers to be evacuated.
The
evidence, including statements by the Macedonian Prime Minister and
press reports out of Macedonia, pointed unequivocally to continued US
covert support to the “Islamic brigades” in the former Yugoslavia. This
was not happening in the bygone era of the Cold War, but in June 2001,
barely a couple of months prior to 9/11. These developments, which I was
following on a daily basis, immediately cast doubt in my mind on the
official 9/11 narrative which presented Al Qaeda as the mastermind
behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. (Chapter
IV.) xiv America’s “War on Terrorism”
The Mysterious Pakistani General
On
the 12th of September, a mysterious Lieutenant General, head of
Pakistan’s Military Intelligence (ISI), who according to the US press
reports “happened to be in Washington at the time of the attacks”, was
called into the office of Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitrage.
The
“War on Terrorism” had been officially launched late in the night of
September 11, and Dick Armitage was asking General Mahmoud Ahmad to help
America “in going after the terrorists”. Pakistani President Pervez
Musharraf was on the phone with Secretary of State Colin Powell and the
following morning, on the 13th of September, a comprehensive agreement,
was reached between the two governments.
While
the press reports confirmed that Pakistan would support the Bush
administration in the “war on terror”, what they failed to mention was
the fact that Pakistan`s military intelligence (ISI) headed by General
Ahmad had a longstanding relationship to the Islamic terror network.
Documented by numerous sources, the ISI was known to have supported a
number of Islamic organizations including Al Qaeda and the Taliban. (See
Chapter IV.)
My
first reaction in reading news headlines on the 13th of September was
to ask: if the Bush administration were really committed to weeding out
the terrorists, why would it call upon Pakistan`s ISI, which is known to
have supported and financed these terrorist organizations?
Two
weeks later, an FBI report, which was briefly mentioned on ABC News,
pointed to a “Pakistani connection” in the financing of the alleged 9/11
terrorists. The ABC report referred to a Pakistani “moneyman” and
“mastermind” behind the 9/11 hijackers.
Subsequent
reports indeed suggested that the head of Pakistan’s military
intelligence, General Mahmoud Ahmad, who had met Colin Powell on the
13th of September 2001, had allegedly ordered the transfer of 100,000
dollars to the 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta. What these reports
suggested was that the head of Pakistan’s military intelligence was not
only in close contact with senior officials of the US Government, he was
also in liaison with the alleged hijackers.
My
writings on the Balkans and Pakistani connections, published in early
October 2001 were later incorporated into the first edition of this
book. In subsequent research, I turned my attention to the broader US
strategic and economic agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East.
There
is an intricate relationship between War and Globalization. The “War on
Terror” has been used as a pretext to conquer new economic frontiers
and ultimately establish corporate control over Iraq’s extensive oil
reserves.
Click image to order:
The Disinformation Campaign
In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the disinformation campaign went into full gear.
Known
and documented prior to the invasion, Britain and the US made extensive
use of fake intelligence to justify the invasion and occupation of
Iraq. Al Qaeda was presented as an ally of the Baghdad regime. “Osama
bin Laden” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction” statements circulated
profusely in the news chain. (Chapter XI.)
Meanwhile,
a new terrorist mastermind had emerged: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. In Colin
Powell’s historic address to the United Nations Security Council,
detailed “documentation” on a sinister relationship between Saddam
Hussein and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was presented, focussing on his ability
to produce deadly chemical, biological and radiological weapons, with
the full support and endorsement of the secular Baathist regime.
A
Code Orange terror alert followed within two days of Powell’s speech at
the United Nations Security Council, where he had been politely
rebuffed by UN Weapons Inspector Dr. Hans Blix.
Realty
was thus turned upside down. The US was no longer viewed as preparing
to wage war on Iraq. Iraq was preparing to attack America with the
support of “Islamic terrorists”. Terrorist mastermind Al-Zarqawi was
identified as the number one suspect. Official statements pointed to the
dangers of a dirty radioactive bomb attack in the US.
The
main thrust of the disinformation campaign continued in the wake of the
March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. It consisted in presenting the
Iraqi resistance movement as “terrorists”. The image of “terrorists
opposed to democracy” fighting US “peacekeepers” appeared on television
screens and news tabloids across the globe.
Meanwhile,
the Code Orange terror alerts were being used by the Bush
administration to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation across
America. (See Chapter XX.) The terror alerts also served to distract
public opinion from the countless atrocities committed by US forces in
the Afghan and Iraqi war theaters, not to mention the routine torture of
so-called “enemy combatants”.
Following
the invasion of Afghanistan, the torture of prisoners of war and the
setting up of concentration camps became an integral part of the Bush
administration’s post 9/11 agenda.
The
entire legal framework had been turned upside down. According to the US
Department of Justice, torture was now permitted under certain
circumstances. Torture directed against “terrorists” was upheld as a
justifiable means to preserving human rights and democracy. (See
chapters XIV and XV.) In an utterly twisted logic, the Commander in
Chief can now quite legitimately authorize the use of torture, because
the victims of torture in this case are so-called “terrorists”, who are
said to routinely apply the same methods against Americans.
The
orders to torture prisoners of war at the Guantanamo concentration camp
and in Iraq in the wake of the 2003 invasion emanated from the highest
levels of the US Government. Prison guards, interrogators in the US
military and the CIA were responding to precise guidelines.
An
inquisitorial system had been installed. In the US and Britain the “war
on the terrorism” is upheld as being in the public interest. Anybody
who questions its practices—which now include arbitrary arrest and
detention, torture of men, women and children, political assassinations
and concentration camps—is liable to be arrested under the antiterrorist
legislation.
The London 7/7 Bomb Attack
A new threshold in the “war on terrorism”was reached in July 2005,
with the bomb attacks on London’s underground, which resulted tragically
in 56 deaths and several hundred wounded.
On
both sides of the Atlantic, the London 7//7 attacks were used to usher
in far-reaching police state measures. The US House of Representatives
renewed the USA PATRIOT Act “to make permanent the government’s
unprecedented powers to investigate suspected terrorists”. Republicans
claimed that the London attacks showed “how urgent and important it was
to renew the law.”
Barely
a week prior to the London attacks, Washington had announced the
formation of a “domestic spy service” under the auspices of the FBI. The
new department—meaning essentially a Big Brother “Secret State
Police”—was given a mandate to “spy on people in America suspected of
terrorism or having critical intelligence information, even if they are
not suspected of committing a crime.” Significantly, this new FBI
service is not accountable to the Department of Justice. It is
controlled by the Directorate of National Intelligence headed by John
Negroponte, who has the authority of ordering the arrest of “terror
suspects”.
Meanwhile,
in the wake of the 7/7 London attacks, Britain’s Home Office, was
calling for a system of ID cards, as an “answer to terrorism”. Each and
every British citizen and resident will be obliged to register personal
information, which will go into a giant national database, along with
their personal biometrics: “iris pattern of the eye”, fingerprints and
“digitally recognizable facial features”. Similar procedures were being
carried out in the European Union.
War Criminals in High Office
The
anti-terrorist legislation and the establishment of a Police State
largely serve the interests of those who have committed extensive war
crimes and who would otherwise have been indicted under national and
international law.
In
the wake of the London 7/7 attacks, war criminals continue to
legitimately occupy positions of authority,which enable them to xviii
America’s “War on Terrorism” redefine the contours of the judicial
system and the process of law enforcement. This process has provided
them with a mandate to decide “who are the criminals”, when in fact they
are the criminals. (Chapter XVI).
From
New York and Washington on September 11 to Madrid in March 2004 and to
London in July 2005, the terror attacks have been used as a pretext to
suspend the writ of habeas corpus. People can be arbitrarily arrested
under the antiterrorist legislation and detained for an indefinite
period.More generally, throughout the Western World, citizens are being
tagged and labeled, their emails, telephone conversations and faxes are
monitored and archived. Thousands of closed circuit TV cameras, deployed
in urban areas, are overseeing their movements. Detailed personal data
is entered into giant Big Brother data banks. Once this cataloging has
been completed, people will be locked into watertight compartments.
The
witch-hunt is not only directed against presumed “terrorists” through
ethnic profiling, the various human rights, affirmative action and
antiwar cohorts are also the object of the antiterrorist legislation.
The National Security Doctrine
In 2005, the Pentagon released a major document entitled The National
Defense Strategy of the United States of America (NDS), which broadly
sketches Washington’s agenda for global military domination. While the
NDS follows in the footsteps of the Administration’s “preemptive” war
doctrine as outlined in the Project for a New American Century (PNAC),
it goes much further in setting the contours of Washington’s global
military agenda. (See Chapter XIX.)
Whereas
the preemptive war doctrine envisages military action as a means of
“self defense” against countries categorized as “hostile” to the US, the
2005 NDS goes one step further. It envisages the possibility of
military intervention against “unstable countries” or “failed nations”,
which do not visibly constitute a threat to the security of the US.
Meanwhile,
the Pentagon had unleashed a major propaganda and public relations
campaign with a view to upholding the use of nuclear weapons for the
“Defense of the American Homeland” against terrorists and rogue enemies.
The fact that the nuclear bomb is categorized by the Pentagon as “safe
for civilians” to be used in major counter-terrorist activities borders
on the absurd.
In
2005, US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) drew up “a contingency plan to be
used in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack”. The plan
includes air raids on Iran using both conventional as well as tactical
nuclear weapons.
America’s “War on Terrorism”
The first ten chapters,with some changes and updates, correspond to
the first edition of the book published in 2002 under the titleWar and Globalization: The Truth behind September 11.
The present expanded edition contains twelve new chapters, which are
the result of research undertaken both prior as well as in the wake of
the invasion of Iraq. (Parts III and IV.) The sequencing of the material
in Parts III and IV corresponds to the historical evolution of the post
9/11 US military and national security agendas. My main objective has
been to refute the official narrative and reveal—using detailed evidence
and documentation—the true nature of America’s “war on terrorism”.
Part
I includes four chapters on September 11, focusing on the history of Al
Qaeda and its ties to the US intelligence apparatus. These chapters
document how successive administrations have supported and sustained
terrorist organizations with a view to destabilizing national societies
and creating political instability.
Part II entitled War and Globalization centers on the strategic and economic interests underlying the “war on terrorism”.
Part III contains a detailed analysis of War Propaganda and the Disinformation Campaign, both prior and in the wake of the invasion of Iraq.
Part IV entitled The New World Order includes
a review of the Bush administration’s preemptive war doctrine (Chapter
XIX), a detailed analysis of the post-Taliban narcotics trade protected
by US intelligence, and a review of the 9/11 Commission Report focusing
specifically on “What Happened on the Planes on the Morning of 9/11”.
Chapter
XX focuses on the system of terror alerts and their implications.
Chapter XXI follows with an examination of the emergency procedures that
could be used to usher in Martial Law leading to the suspension of
Constitutional government. In this regard, the US Congress has already
adopted procedures, which allow the Military to intervene directly in
civilian police and judicial functions. In the case of a national
emergency—e.g., in response to an alleged terror attack—there are
clearly defined provisions, which could lead to the formation of a
military government in America.
Finally,
Chapter XXII focuses on the broad implications of the 7/7 London Bombs
Attacks, which were followed by the adoption of sweeping Police State
measures in Britain, the European Union and North America.
Writing
this book has not been an easy undertaking. The material is highly
sensitive. The results of this analysis, which digs beneath the gilded
surface of US foreign policy, are both troublesome and disturbing. The
conclusions are difficult to accept because they point to the
criminalization of the upper echelons of the State. They also confirm
the complicity of the corporate media in upholding the legitimacy of the
Administration’s war agenda and camouflaging US sponsored war crimes.
The
World is at an important historical crossroads. The US has embarked on a
military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. As we go to
press, the Bush Administration has hinted in no uncertain terms that
Iran is the next target of the “war on terrorism”.
Military
action against Iran would directly involve Israel’s participation,
which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle
East, not to mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied
territories.
I
have attempted to the best of my abilities to provide evidence and
detailed documentation of an extremely complex political process.
The
livelihood of millions of people throughout the World is at stake. It
is my sincere hope that the truth will prevail and that the
understanding provided in this detailed study will serve the cause of
World peace. This objective, however, can only be reached by revealing
the falsehoods behind America’s “War on Terrorism” and questioning the
legitimacy of the main political and military actors responsible for
extensive war crimes.
I
am indebted to many people, who in the course of my work have supported
my endeavors and have provided useful research insights. The readers of
the Global Research website at www.globalresearch.ca have been a source of continuous inspiration and encouragement.
Michel Chossudovsky, August 2005
Michel Chossudovsky is
an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the
University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on
Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research. He is the
author of eleven books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005), The Global Economic Crisis, The Great Depression of the Twenty-first Century (2009) (Editor), Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011), The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015).
He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have
been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded
the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on
NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia.
ORDER YOUR COPY OF THIS IMPORTANT TITLE TODAY!
| 
« Le
Conseil de sécurité souligne qu’il ne devrait y avoir aucune activité
militaire des groupes d’opposition armés dans la zone de séparation et
prie instamment les États Membres de signifier clairement aux groupes
d’opposition armés syriens présents dans la zone d’opérations de la
FNUOD qu’ils doivent cesser toute activité risquant de mettre en danger
les soldats de la paix et laisser au personnel des Nations Unies la
liberté dont il a besoin pour s’acquitter de son mandat en toute
sécurité ;
Les articles de cet auteur
Envoyer un message
