Friday, November 23, 2007

Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report

September 23, 2007 at 08:53:46

Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report

by Alan Miller

Official Account of 9/11 a “Joke” and a “Cover-up”

September 23, 2007 – Seven CIA veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and have called for a new investigation. “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke,” said Raymond McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates during the seventies. “There are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions,” he said. McGovern, who is also the founder of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), is one of many signers of a petition to reinvestigate 9/11.[1]

Raymond McGovern

During his 27-year CIA career, McGovern personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIA’s Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then President George H. W. Bush. However, McGovern returned the award[2] in 2006 in protest of the current George W. Bush Administration’s advocacy and use of torture.

In his blurb for 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, McGovern wrote[3]: “It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole “war on terror” was based on a prior deception. This book hence confronts the American people---indeed the people of the world as a whole---with an issue second to none in importance and urgency. I give this book, which in no way can be dismissed as the ravings of ‘paranoid conspiracy theorists,’ my highest possible recommendation.”

William Christison, a 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis also describes the 9/11 Commission Report as a “joke” and offers even more outspoken criticism. In a 2006 audio interview[4] he said, "We very seriously need an entirely new very high level and truly independent investigation of the events of 9/11. I think you almost have to look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all.”

William Christison

Earlier this year, in an endorsement of David Ray Griffin’s book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Christison wrote[5], “[There’s] a strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.” And in an online essay[6] in late 2006, he wrote, “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. … The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them.”

Prior to his retirement from the CIA in 1979, Christison served as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, overseeing 200 analysts who collected intelligence and provided analysis on all regions and every country in the world. Prior to that, he served as one of only a handful of NIO’s in the intelligence community. NIO’s are responsible for the intelligence community efforts in a particular area and are the principal advisors to the Director of Central Intelligence. Christison was NIO for Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Africa.

Melvin Goodman, PhD, is another former senior CIA official who calls the 9/11 Commission Report a “coverup” and who signed the petition to reinvestigate 9/11.[7] Goodman was the Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs and served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004.

Melvin Goodman, PhD

In testimony before a 2005 Congressional briefing on the 9/11 Commission Report[8], Goodman said, “I want to talk about the [9/11] Commission itself, about the flawed process of the Commission and finally about the conflict of interest within the Commission that is extremely important to understand the failure of the Commission. … The final report is ultimately a coverup. I don't know how else to describe it." Goodman is currently Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and Adjunct Professor of Government at Johns Hopkins University.

Robert Baer is another well known CIA veteran who has questioned the official account of 9/11. A 21-year CIA veteran and specialist in the Middle East, Baer was awarded the Career Intelligence Medal upon his retirement in 1997. After retirement, he wrote two best-selling non-fiction books about the CIA, See No Evil and Sleeping with the Devil, the former of which was the basis for the Academy Award-winning movie Syriana, starring George Clooney. Baer was also the writer and on-camera commentator for the Emmy Award-nominated documentary Cult of the Suicide Bomber.

Robert Baer

Baer has repeatedly questioned whether al-Qaida could have accomplished 9/11 alone. The 9/11 Commission Report categorically found al-Qaida to be entirely responsible for 9/11, stating, "Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government -- or government official -- supplied any funding." However, this 9/11 Commission finding directly contradicts the earlier finding of the Joint House-Senate Select Intelligence Committee's 2002 Report[9] (p.415) of "sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers.”

In a 2002 essay[10] for The Guardian, Baer wrote, "Did bin Laden act alone, through his own al-Qaida network, in launching the attacks? About that I'm far more certain and emphatic: no." In subsequent interviews, Baer has suggested that support for the attacks could have come from Saudi Arabia and Iran.

In 2006, during an interview by Thom Hartmann[11], Baer, after commenting on the financial profits being made from 9/11, was asked: “What about political profit? There are those who suggest that ... someone in that chain of command ... had pretty good knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen -- and really didn't do much to stop it -- or even obstructed efforts to stop it because they thought it would lend legitimacy to Bush's ... failing presidency.” Baer replied: “Absolutely.” Hartmann then asked, “So you are personally of the opinion ... that there was an aspect of 'inside job' to 9/11 within the U.S. government?" To which Baer replied, "There is that possibility, the evidence points at it." When Hartmann continued, "And why is it not being investigated?” Baer replied, "Why isn't the WMD story being investigated? Why hasn't anybody been held accountable for 9/11? We held people accountable after Pearl Harbor. Why has there been no change in command? Why have there been no political repercussions? Why has there been no -- any sort of exposure on this? It really makes you wonder."

In his blurb for the revised and updated edition of David Ray Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Baer wrote[12]: "Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation …, we will never know what happened on 9/11.”

"I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war,” wrote well-known intelligence analyst Robert David Steele in 2006 in a review of the book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley[13]. Steele is the author of numerous books on the intelligence services and is currently the CEO of, a proponent of Open Source Intelligence. Steele has 25 years of combined service in the CIA and the U.S. Marine Corps. He also served as the second ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988 - 1992 and was a member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University. Steele continued, “I have to tell anyone who cares to read this: I believe it. I believe it enough to want a full investigation that passes the smell test of the 9/11 families as well as objective outside observers.”

Robert David Steele

In a subsequent interview on the Alex Jones Show[14], Steele said, "The U.S. government did not properly investigate this [9/11] and there are more rocks to be turned over," and added, "I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that, as far as I'm concerned, means that this case has not been properly investigated. There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition."

In late 2004, a group of 25 intelligence service and law enforcement veterans sent a joint letter to Congress[15] expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation. Their letter was apparently entirely ignored. Among the signers were four CIA veterans; Raymond McGovern and Melvin Goodman (both mentioned above) and Lynne Larkin and David MacMichael.

Lynne Larkin was a CIA Operations Officer who served in several CIA foreign stations before being assigned to the CIA's Counter-Intelligence Center. There, she co-chaired a multi-agency task force, which, among other functions, provided direction to other federal agencies for coordinating intelligence efforts among the many intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Lynne Larkin

David MacMichael, PhD, is a former Senior Estimates Officer at the CIA with special responsibility for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the CIA's National Intelligence Council. Prior to joining the CIA, he served as a U.S. Marine Corps officer for ten years and for four years as a counter-insurgency advisor to the government.

David MacMichael

Their letter read:

"[W]e the undersigned wish to bring to the attention of the Congress and the people of the United States what we believe are serious shortcomings in the report and its recommendations. …

Omission is one of the major flaws in the Commission’s report. We are aware of significant issues and cases that were duly reported to the commission by those of us with direct knowledge, but somehow escaped attention. …

The omission of such serious and applicable issues and information by itself renders the report flawed, and casts doubt on the validity of many of its recommendations. ...

The Commission, with its incomplete report of "facts and circumstances", intentional avoidance of assigning accountability, and disregard for the knowledge, expertise and experience of those who actually do the job, has now set about pressuring our Congress and our nation to hastily implement all its recommendations. …

We the undersigned, who have worked within various government agencies (FBI, CIA, FAA, DIA, Customs) responsible for national security and public safety, call upon you in Congress to include the voices of those with first-hand knowledge and expertise in the important issues at hand. We stand ready to do our part.”

And they and thousands of dedicated, loyal, and experienced military officers, intelligence service and law enforcement veterans, and government officials still stand ready to provide assistance for a thorough, impartial, and honest investigation into the terrible acts of 9/11.

Statements questioning the official account of 9/11 and calls for a new investigation by hundreds of credible individuals can be found at


[1] Petition to Reinvestigate 9/11. Oct. 26, 2004

[2] I Do Not Wish to be Associated with Torture by Ray McGovern March 2, 2006

[3] Ray McGovern’s blurb for 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott. March, 2007

[4] William Christison interviewed by George Kenney on Electric Politics. Sept. 29, 2006

[5] William Christison’s blurb for David Ray Griffin’s book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking March 2007

[6] Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11 by William Christison Aug. 16, 2006

[7] Petition to Reinvestigate 9/11. Oct. 26, 2004

[8] The 911 Commission Report – One Year Later, a Congressional Briefing July 22, 2005

[9] Congressional Reports: Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 December, 2002

[10] See No Evil (part 2) by Robert Baer in The Guardian January 12, 2002,,631434,00.html

[11] Robert Baer interviewed on The Thom Hartmann Show June 9, 2006

[12] Robert Baer’s blurb for the revised and updated edition of David Ray Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking March 2007

[13] Robert David Steele’s review of the book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley Oct. 7, 2006

[14] Robet David Steele interviewed on The Alex Jones Show Oct. 27, 2006

[15] Letter to Congress signed by 25 intelligence service and law enforcement Sept. 13, 2004

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

Alan Miller is author of the website

Contact Author

Contact Editor

View Other Articles by Author

Basic Statistics for U.S. Imperialism

Basic Statistics for United States Imperialism


1—list of interventions for “regime change”

2—list of air warfare campaign

3—list of client states

4—list of states held by debt-leverage imperialism

5—list of foreign base host

6—list of murder toll

7—list of unsavory rightists supported

8—list of perverted international bodies

9—list of interventions for opposing liberation

10—list of interventions pre-1941

11—list of covert operations

12—list of front organizations

13—list of low intensity conflicts

14—list of proxy wars

15—list of foreign policy doctrines

16—list of propaganda campaigns


Useful Periodicals

Relevant Hyperlinks

1.Chronological list of interventions, with the purpose of effecting “regime change,” attempted or materially supported by the United States—whether primarily by means of overt force (OF), covert operation (CO), or subverted election (SE):

a) OF and SE imply, necessarily, prior and continuing CO.

b) OF = directly applied state terrorism by the United States repressive apparatus i.e. the Departments of War/Defense, Energy, Treasury, and State. N.B. the formation of the National Security Council (1947) and the Office of Homeland Security (2002).

c) CO = reconnaissance, classical coups d’etat, legal harassment, disinformation (through media, legal, NGO, student, labor, and other front groups), bribery, sabotage, assassination, proxy warfare, running ratlines for fascist émigré groups, and assorted other clandestine activities.

d) SE = a particular species of CO, comparatively non-violent, high plausible deniability, usually involves dumping tons of cash and campaign technologies into the hands of rightist groups during elections, sowing discord in leftist parties, buying up media space in order to destabilize electorates, tampering directly with ballot results, and hiring jackboots to actively threaten and brutalize voters in the last resort. NB many subverted elections are preceded by lengthy terror campaigns (e.g. Nicaragua, El Salvador, Yugoslavia, etc).

It should go without saying that the following entries are simplified; only the major “payoff” year is listed, where applicable. Most attempted overthrows were preceded by lengthy preparations—vast right wing conspiracies, indeed. NB that this list remains under construction; new data will be added in the next installment.

[Date – place (head of targeted state/candidate in subverted election; political affiliation): outcome (means)]

The * indicates that I’m not clever enough to have found the absent data yet. Apologies.

“Neutralist” refers to a given regime’s desire to avoid taking sides with either power bloc in the cold war. It should be readily apparent that such is an unforgivable sin against the foreign policy establishment in the United States.

“Nationalist” refers to a given regime’s desire to nationalize foreign-owned means of production within its national boundaries. It should be readily apparent that such is an unforgivable sin against the foreign policy establishment in the United States.

1893 – Hawaii (Liliuokalani; monarchist): success (OF)

1912 – China (Piyu; monarchist): success (OF)

1918 – Panama (Arias; center-right): success (SE)

1919 – Hungary (Kun; communist): success (CO)

1920 – USSR (Lenin; communist): failure (OF)

1924 – Honduras (Carias; nationalist): success (SE)

1934 – United States (Roosevelt; liberal): failure (CO)

1945 – Japan (Higashikuni; rightist): success (OF)

1946 – Thailand (Pridi; conservative): success (CO)

1946 – Argentina (Peron; military/centrist): failure (SE)

1947 – France (*; communist): success (SE)

1947 – Philippines (*; center-left): success (SE)

1947 – Romania (Gheorghiu-Dej; stalinist): failure (CO)

1948 – Italy (*, communist): success (SE)

1948 – Colombia (Gaitan; populist/leftist): success (SE)

1948 – Peru (Bustamante; left/centrist): success (CO)

1949 – Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): success (CO)

1949 – China (Mao; communist): failure (CO)

1950 – Albania (Hoxha; communist): failure (CO)

1951 – Bolivia (Paz; center/neutralist): success (CO)

1951 – DPRK (Kim; stalinist): failure (OF)

1951 – Poland (Cyrankiewicz; stalinist): failure (CO)

1951 – Thailand (Phibun; conservative): success (CO)

1952 – Egypt (Farouk; monarchist): success (CO)

1952 – Cuba (Prio; reform/populist): success (CO)

1952 – Lebanon (*; left/populist): success: (SE)

1953 – British Guyana (*; left/populist): success (CO)

1953 – Iran (Mossadegh; liberal nationalist): success (CO)

1953 – Costa Rica (Figueres; reform liberal): failure (CO)

1953 – Philippines (*; center-left): success (SE)

1954 – Guatemala (Arbenz; liberal nationalist): success (OF)

1955 – Costa Rica (Figueres; reform liberal): failure (CO)

1955 – India (Nehru; neutralist/socialist): failure (CO)

1955 – Argentina (Peron; military/centrist): success (CO)

1955 – China (Zhou; communist): failure (CO)

1955 – Vietnam (Ho; communist): success (SE)

1956 – Hungary (Hegedus; communist): success (CO)

1957 – Egypt (Nasser; military/nationalist): failure (CO)

1957 – Haiti (Sylvain; left/populist): success (CO)

1957 – Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): failure (CO)

1958 – Japan (*; left-center): success (SE)

1958 – Chile (*; leftists): success (SE)

1958 – Iraq (Feisal; monarchist): success (CO)

1958 – Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)

1958 – Sudan (Sovereignty Council; nationalist): success (CO)

1958 – Lebanon (*; leftist): success (SE)

1958 – Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): failure (CO)

1958 – Indonesia (Sukarno; militarist/neutralist): failure (SE)

1959 – Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)

1959 – Nepal (*; left-centrist): success (SE)

1959 – Cambodia (Sihanouk; moderate/neutralist): failure (CO)

1960 – Ecuador (Ponce; left/populist): success (CO)

1960 – Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)

1960 – Iraq (Qassem; rightist /militarist): failure (CO)

1960 – S. Korea (Syngman; rightist): success (CO)

1960 – Turkey (Menderes; liberal): success (CO)

1961 – Haiti (Duvalier; rightist/militarist): success (CO)

1961 – Cuba (Castro; communist): failure (CO)

1961 – Congo (Lumumba; leftist/pan-Africanist): success (CO)

1961 – Dominican Republic (Trujillo; rightwing/military): success (CO)

1962 – Brazil (Goulart; liberal/neutralist): failure (SE)

1962 – Dominican Republic (*; left/populist): success (SE)

1962 – Indonesia (Sukarno; militarist/neutralist): failure (CO)

1963 – Dominican Republic (Bosch; social democrat): success (CO)

1963 – Honduras (Montes; left/populist): success (CO)

1963 – Iraq (Qassem; militarist/rightist): success (CO)

1963 – S. Vietnam (Diem; rightist): success (CO)

1963 – Cambodia (Sihanouk; moderate/neutralist): failure (CO)

1963 – Guatemala (Ygidoras; rightist/reform): success (CO)

1963 – Ecuador (Velasco; reform militarist): success (CO)

1963 – United States (Kennedy; liberal): success (CO)

1964 – Guyana (Jagan; populist/reformist): success (CO)

1964 – Bolivia (Paz; centrist/neutralist): success (CO)

1964 – Brazil (Goulart; liberal/neutralist): success (CO)

1964 – Chile (Allende; social democrat/marxist): success (SE)

1965 – Indonesia (Sukarno; militarist/neutralist): success (CO)

1966 – Ghana (Nkrumah; leftist/pan-Africanist): success (CO)

1966 – Bolivia (*; leftist): success (SE)

1966 – France (de Gaulle; centrist): failure (CO)

1967 – Greece (Papandreou; social democrat): success (CO)

1968 – Iraq (Arif; rightist): success (CO)

1969 – Panama (Torrijos; military/reform populist): failure (CO)

1969 – Libya (Idris; monarchist): success (CO)

1970 – Bolivia (Ovando; reform nationalist): success (CO)

1970 – Cambodia (Sihanouk; moderate/neutralist): success (CO)

1970 – Chile (Allende; social democrat/Marxist): failure (SE)

1971 – Bolivia (Torres; nationalist/neutralist): success (CO)

1971 – Costa Rica (Figueres; reform liberal): failure (CO)

1971 – Liberia (Tubman; rightist): success (CO)

1971 – Turkey (Demirel; center-right): success (CO)

1971 – Uruguay (Frente Amplio; leftist): success (SE)

1972 – El Salvador (*; leftist): success (SE)

1972 – Australia (Whitlam; liberal/labor): failure (SE)

1973 – Chile (Allende; social democrat/Marxist): success (CO)

1974 – United States (Nixon; centrist): success (CO)

1975 – Australia (Whitlam; liberal/labor): success (CO)

1975 – Congo (Mobutu; military/rightist): failure (CO)

1975 – Bangladesh (Mujib; nationalist): success (CO)

1976 – Jamaica (Manley; social democrat): failure (SE)

1976 – Portugal (JNS; military/leftist): success (SE)

1976 – Nigeria (Mohammed; military/nationalist): success (CO)

1976 – Thailand (*; rightist): success (CO)

1976 – Uruguay (Bordaberry; center-right): success (CO)

1977 – Pakistan (Bhutto: center/nationalist): success (CO)

1978 – Dominican Republic (Balaguer; center): success (SE)

1979 – S. Korea (Park; rightist): success (CO)

1979 – Nicaragua (Sandinistas; leftist): failure (CO)

1980 – Bolivia (Siles; centrist/reform): success (CO)

1980 – Iran (Khomeini; Islamic nationalist): failure (CO)

1980 – Italy (*; leftist): success (SE)

1980 – Liberia (Tolbert; rightist): success (CO)

1980 – Jamaica (Manley; social democrat): success (SE)

1980 – Dominica (Seraphin; leftist): success (SE)

1980 – Turkey (Demirel; center-right): success (CO)

1981 – Seychelles (René; socialist): failure (CO)

1981 – Spain (Suarez; rightist/neutralist): failure (CO)

1981 – Panama (Torrijos; military/reform populist); success (CO)

1981 – Zambia (Kaunda; reform nationalist): failure (CO)

1982 – Mauritius (*; center-left): failure (SE)

1982 – Spain (Suarez; rightist/neutralist): success (SE)

1982 – Iran (Khomeini; Islamic nationalist): failure (CO)

1982 – Chad (Oueddei; Islamic nationalist): success (CO)

1983 – Mozambique (Machel; socialist): failure (CO)

1983 – Grenada (Bishop; socialist): success (OF)

1984 – Panama (*; reform/centrist): success (SE)

1984 – Nicaragua (Sandinistas; leftist): failure (SE)

1984 – Surinam (Bouterse; left/reformist/neutralist): success (CO)

1984 – India (Gandhi; nationalist): success (CO)

1986 – Libya (Qaddafi; Islamic nationalist): failure (OF)

1987 – Fiji (Bavrada; liberal): success (CO)

1989 – Panama (Noriega; military/reform populist): success (OF)

1990 – Haiti (Aristide; liberal reform): failure (SE)

1990 – Nicaragua (Ortega; Christian socialist): success (SE)

1991 – Albania (Alia; communist): success (SE)

1991 – Haiti (Aristide; liberal reform): success (CO)

1991 – Iraq (Hussein; military/rightist): failure (OF)

1991 – Bulgaria (BSP; communist): success (SE)

1992 – Afghanistan (Najibullah; communist): success (CO)

1993 – Somalia (Aidid; right/militarist): failure (OF)

1993 – Cambodia (Han Sen/CPP; leftist): failure (SE)

1993 – Burundi (Ndadaye; conservative): success (CO)

1994 – El Salvador (*; leftist): success (SE)

1994 – Rwanda (Habyarimana; conservative): success (CO)

1994 – Ukraine (Kravchuk; center-left): success (SE)

1996 – Bosnia (Karadzic; centrist): success (CO)

1996 – Russia (Zyuganov; communist): success (SE)

1996 – Congo (Mobutu; military/rightist): success (CO)

1996 – Mongolia (*; center-left): success (SE)

1998 – Congo (Kabila; rightist/military): success (CO)

1998 – United States (Clinton; conservative): failure (CO)

1998 – Indonesia (Suharto; military/rightist): success (CO)

1999 – Yugoslavia (Milosevic; left/nationalist): success (SE)

2000 – United States (Gore; conservative): success (SE)

2000 – Ecuador (NSC; leftist): success: (CO)

2001 – Afghanistan (Omar; rightist/Islamist): success (OF)

2001 – Belarus (Lukashenko; leftist): failure (SE)

2001 – Nicaragua (Ortega; Christian socialist): success (SE)

2001 – Nepal (Birendra; nationalist/monarchist): success (CO)

2002 – Venezuela (Chavez; reform-populist): failure (CO)

2002 – Bolivia (Morales; leftist/MAS): success (SE)

2002 – Brazil (Lula; center-left): failure (SE)

We should keep in mind that the goals of the imperialist in each of these instances are multiple: acquisition of access to local “markets” of all varieties; imposition of neoliberal policy; destruction of any potential alternative to the techno-fascist ruling order; provision of incentive for a sprawling parasitical and parastatal medical-intelligence-military-industrial complex (MIMIC); production of official “villains” for propaganda purposes; intimidation of non-combatants (as in the year 1945), and continuing political hegemony of the transnational elite based in DC.

2 Chronological List of U.S. Air Warfare Campaigns:

Japan (1943-45): conventional; incendiary; nuclear

China (1945-49): conventional; biological

Korea (1950-53): conventional; biological; chemical; incendiary

China (1951-52): conventional; biological; chemical

Guatemala (1954): conventional

Indonesia (1958): conventional

Cuba (1959-61): conventional; (biochemical attacks in other years)

Guatemala (1960): conventional

Vietnam (1961-73): conventional; chemical; biological; cluster

Congo (1964): conventional

Peru (1965): conventional

Laos (1964-73): conventional; chemical; biological; cluster

Guatemala (1967-69): conventional

Cambodia (1969-70): conventional; chemical; biological

Cambodia (1975): conventional

El Salvador (1980-89): conventional

Nicaragua (1980-89): conventional

Grenada (1983): conventional

Lebanon (1983-4): conventional

Syria (1984): conventional

Libya (1986): conventional

Iran (1987): conventional

Panama (1989): conventional; chemical; biological

Iraq (1991-2002): conventional; chemical; biological; cluster; DU

Kuwait (1991): conventional; chemical; biological; cluster; DU

Somalia (1993): conventional

Bosnia (1993-95): conventional; cluster; DU

Sudan (1998): conventional; biological

Afghanistan (1998): conventional

Yugoslavia (1999): conventional; chemical; biological; cluster; DU

Afghanistan (2001-02): conventional; chemical; biological; cluster; DU

3.Chronological list of US client states: [under construction]

1847 – Liberia: to present

1848 – Mexico: to 1911

1893 – Hawaii: to 1959

1899 – Cuba: to 1959

1903 – Dominican Republic: to present

1903 – Honduras: to present

1912 – China: to 1949

1922 – Italy: to 1941

1928 – Portugal: to 1974

1933 – Germany: to 1941

1939 – Spain: to present

1943 – Italy: to present

1944 – Saudi Arabia: to present

1945 – France: to 1965

1945 – Japan: to present

1945 – West Germany: to 1960

1945 – South Korea: to present

1945 – Burma: to 1962

1946 – Thailand: to present

1947 – Greece: to 1964

1947 – Turkey: to present

1948 – Israel: to present

1949 – Taiwan: to present

1950 – Colombia: to present

1952 – Australia: to present

1952 – Lebanon: to present

1952 – New Zealand: to 1985

1953 – Iran: to 1979

1954 – Guatemala: to present

1954 – Pakistan: to present

1959 – Paraguay: to present

1955 – South Vietnam: to 1975

1957 – Haiti: to present

1957 – Jordan: to present

1960 – Congo/Zaire: to present

1963 – Iraq: to 1990

1964 – Bolivia: to present

1964 – Brazil: to present

1965 – Greece: to present

1965 – Peru: to present

1966 – Central African Republic: to present

1969 – Oman: to present

1970 – Egypt: to present

1970 – Cambodia: to 1979

1970 – Uruguay: to present

1975 – Morocco: to present

1976 – Portugal: to present

1978 – Kenya: to present

1978 – S. Africa: to 1990

1979 – Yemen: to present

1979 – Somalia: to 1991

1982 – Chad: to present

1982 – Mexico: to present

1984 – Brunei: to present

1988 – Burma: to present

1992 – Angola: to 2002

1993 – Azerbaijan: to present

1993 – Eritrea: to present

1993 – Nigeria: to present

1994 – Ukraine: to present

1995 – Ethiopia: to present

2000 – Kyrgyzstan: to present

2001 – Afghanistan: to present

[all of Latin America (sans Mexico, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Cuba 1964-1990); a legion of others ]

4.Chronological list of states held in the manacles of debt-leverage imperialism:

N.B. these states are held in the thralldom of “odious debt” imposed upon them by (typically) quasi-fascistic regimes who 1) often enough were empowered via United States state terrorism and 2) accepted the terms of United States dominated Bretton Woods restructuring programs.

Many countries found themselves in dire monetary and fiscal straits in the early 1980s—after the Nixon shocks, the various oil embargoes, and the Volcker interest rate hikes. At this time of the debt crisis, the IMF and World Bank became “lenders of last resort” for regimes unable to meet balance of payments obligations to imperialist-controlled banks—but such lending comes with a cost: dismantle any and all policies that don’t adhere to the mystical mantras of neoliberalism (ie such policies as protectionism, capital regulation, state industry, wage control, labor and environmental regulation, resistance to currency devaluation, autochthonous/non-export production, etc had to go); such is the nature of the structural adjustment program (SAP).

Note further that these policies were the Reaganites’ answer to the “Crisis of Democracy” (as defined by the geniuses in the Trilateral Commission) that was occurring on a global scale and to the relative loss of US geopolitical power in the late 1970s. In order to disrupt the G-77, UNCTAD, and other international movements modeled on the success of OPEC, the debt crisis and its neoliberal response were engineered for the sake of ushering in a new world order of managed friggin’ chaos. It is good to recall that a number of countries that have refused SAP have been attacked (e.g., Serbia) and/or destabilized (e.g., Belarus). It is also prudent to realize that many an “ethnic,” “religious,” or otherwise vaguely described “civil” war has been caused directly by SAP (e.g., Somalia, Yugoslavia).

Moreover note that the meaning of “debt crisis” is that subjugated nations that were unable to meet balance of payments obligations to imperialist-controlled banks threatened the survival of such banks, and thus this privately held debt was transferred to public institutions, thereby socializing risk while insuring the sanctity of corporate profit. (I.e., “crisis” does not here refer to those horrors being inflicted on subjugated peoples.)

[Year of initial SAP implementation – nations]

1980 – Jamaica

1981 – Brazil; Mauritius; Uganda

1982 – Mexico; Ecuador; Bangladesh; Central African Republic; Argentina; Tanzania

1983 – Chile; Ghana; Kenya; Malawi; Niger; Somalia

1984 – Congo/Zaire; Mauritania; Senegal

1985 – Bolivia; Botswana; Costa Rica; Gambia; Guinea; Sao Tome

1986 – Madagascar; Nigeria; Philippines; Sierra Leone; Tunisia

1987 – Zambia; Algeria; Guinea-Bissau; Mozambique; Sudan; Yugoslavia

1988 – Equatorial Guinea; Guyana; Hungary; Pakistan; Sri Lanka

1989 – Cameroon; El Salvador; Jordan; Lesotho; Trinidad; Venezuela; Congo (RC); Togo

1990 – Colombia; Czech Republic; Nicaragua; Peru; Rwanda

1991 – Angola; Burkina Faso; Cote d’Ivoire; Egypt; Ethiopia; India; Romania; Zimbabwe

1992 – Latvia; Reunion; Ukraine; Belarus; Azerbaijan; Georgia; Armenia; Kazakhstan; Uzbekistan; Moldova

1993 – Benin; Gabon; Russia; S. Africa; Surinam

1994 – Eritrea; Cambodia; Haiti; Mali

1995 – Seychelles; Swaziland; Tajikistan

1996 – Bosnia-Herzegovina; Comoros; Uruguay

1997 – Bulgaria; Djibouti; Indonesia

1998 – Mongolia; Paraguay; S. Korea; Thailand; Yemen

1999 – Kosovo

5.Rough chronological list of foreign territories “hosting” US military installations. The range of years for each group attempts to indicate when the country in question first began its role as “host” for US military facilities. NB I’m still corroborating these. [under construction]

“Mahan Doctrine” group (1898-1904): Guam; Puerto Rico; Philippines; Cuba; Hawaii, Panama

“Monroe Doctrine-Crisis of Capital” group (1905-1935): Antarctica; Azores; Galapagos; Haiti; Liberia; Nicaragua; Samoa

“Welt Krieg” group (1939-1953): Antigua; Australia; Bahamas; Belgium; Bermuda; British Guiana; Burma; Denmark; France; Germany; Greece; Greenland; Iceland; Indonesia; Iran; Italy; Jamaica; Japan; Johnston Atoll; Korea; Marshall Islands; Midway Islands; Morocco; Netherlands; Newfoundland; New Zealand; Okinawa; Portugal; Spain; St. Lucia; Taiwan; Thailand; Trinidad; Turkey; United Kingdom; Vietnam

“Post-Monroe Doctrine-War on Drugs/Depopulation” group (1954-2002): Aruba, Bolivia; Brazil; Colombia; Costa Rica; DRC; Ecuador; El Salvador; Ghana; Guatemala; Honduras; Ivory Coast; Nigeria; Peru; Rwanda; Senegal

“Carter Doctrine” group (1978-1981): Bahrain; Diego Garcia; Egypt; Israel; Kenya; Oman; Somalia

“New World Order-Persian Gulf” group (1990-1991): Kuwait; Qatar; Saudi Arabia; UAE; Yemen

“New World Order-Balkans” group (1991-2001): Albania; Bosnia; Croatia; Hungary; Kosovo; Macedonia

“Afghanistan War/Caspian Basin” group (2000-2002): Afghanistan; Azerbaijan; Georgia; India; Kazakhstan; Kyrgyzstan; Pakistan; Tajikistan; Uzbekistan

6. Chronological list of US murder toll: [under construction]

The murder toll has been achieved by either direct violence (e.g. the firebombing and nuking of Japan or the firebombing of Dresden) or indirect/proxy “low intensity conflict” (e.g. Rwanda in the 90s or Nicaragua in the 80s). (I have not here accounted for the deaths attributable to SAP.) Some extremely conservative estimates—

Native Americans (1776-2002): 4M

West Africans (1776-1865): 4M

Philippines (1898-1904): 600K

Germany (1945): 200K

Japan (1945): 900K

China (1945-60): 200K

Greece (1947-49): 100K

Korea (1951-53): 2M

Guatemala (1954-2002): 300K

Vietnam (1960-75): 2M

Laos (1965-73): 500K

Cambodia (1969-75): 1M

Indonesia (1965): 500K

Colombia (1966-2002): 500K

Oman (1970): 10K

Bangladesh (1971): 2M

Uganda (1971-1979): 200K

Chile (1973-1990): 20K

East Timor (1975): 200K

Angola (1975-2002): 1.5M

Argentina (1976-1979): 30K

Afghanistan (1978-2002): 1M

El Salvador (1980-95): 100K

Nicaragua (1980-90): 100K

Mozambique (1981-1988): 1M

Turkey (1984-2002): 50K

Rwanda (1990-1996): 1M

Iraq (1991-2002): 1M

Somalia (1991-1994): 300K

Yugoslavia (1991-2002): 300K

Liberia (1992-2002): 150K

Burundi (1993-1999): 200K

Sudan (1998): 100K

Congo (1998-2002): 3M

We should also take note that the United States bears more than superficial responsibility for the Nazi Holocaust: e.g., the turning away of Jewish, Romani, and other refugees; funding the concentration camp system; underwriting the Third Reich’s military; delay in opening a western front; policies of appeasement before the war; siding with the fascists during the Spanish Civil War; turning down Stalin’s offer to attack Germany jointly in 1938; providing theoretical inspiration for lebensraum, final solutions, anti-communism, anti-Semitism, etc; rebuilding Germany after the war with the fascist infrastructure still intact; saving war criminals; general ideological support; and so forth.

7.Alphabetical list of rightwing dictators, reactionary movements, and other reprehensible figures empowered/materially supported by the US: [under construction] It seems as though the number one criterion for getting a job as the head of a client state is a willingness to butcher leftists. Indeed, the use of unsavory rightists by the United States began neither with the anti-Castro Cuban émigré community, nor with the Afghan mujaheddin alumni, oh Nelly no!

[the dates provided are sloppily done, I concede. At times, they are just the general duration of the given regime (e.g., Selassie). Most others are the duration of US support while the regime lasted (e.g., Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc.)]

Abacha, Sani (Nigeria: 1993-2000)

Afwerki, Isaias (Eritrea: 1993-2002)

Amin, Idi (Uganda: 1971-1979)

Arévalo, Marco (Guatemala: 1985-1991)

Bakr, Ahmad (Iraq: 1968-1979)

Banzer Suarez, Hugo (Bolivia: 1971-1978)

Bao Dai (Vietnam: 1949-1955)

Barak, Ehud (Israel: 1999-2001)

Barre, Siad (Somalia: 1979-1991)

Batista, Fulgencio (Cuba: 1940-44/1952-1959)

Begin, Menachem (Israel: 1977-1983)

Ben-Gurion, David (Israel: 1948-1953, 1955-1963)

Betancourt Bello, Rumulo (Venezuela: 1959-1964)

Bokassa, Jean-Bedel (Central African Republic: 1966-1976)

Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal (Brunei: 1984-2002)

Botha, P.W. (South Africa: 1978-1989)

Branco, Humberto (Brazil: 1964-1966)

Carmona, Pedro (Venezuela: 2002)

Cedras, Raoul (Haiti: 1991)

Chamoun, Camille (Lebanon: 1952-1958)

Chiang Kai-shek (China: 1928-1949/Taiwan: 1949-1975)

Christiani, Alfredo (El Salvador: 1989-1994)

Chun Doo Hwan (S. Korea: 1980-1988)

Cordova, Roberto (Honduras: 1981-1985)

Diaz, Porfirio (Mexico: 1876-1911)

Diem, Ngo Dinh (S. Vietnam: 1955-1963)

Doe, Samuel (Liberia: 1980-90)

Duvalier, Francois (Haiti: 1957-1971)

Duvalier, Jean Claude (Haiti: 1971-1986)

Eshkol, Levi (Israel: 1963-1969)

Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz (Saudi Arabia: 1969-2002)

Feisal, King (Iraq: 1939-1958)

Franco, Francisco (Spain: 1937-1975)

Fujimori, Alberto (Peru: 1990-2002)

Habre, Hissen (Chad: 1982-1990);

Hassan II (Morocco: 1961-1999)

Hitler, Adolf (Germany: 1933-1939)

Hussein, King (Jordan: 1952-1999)

Hussein, Saddam (Iraq: 1979-1990)

Kabila, Laurent (CDR: 1997-1998)

Karzai, Hamid (Afghanistan: 2001-2002)

Khan, Ayub (Pakistan: 1958-1969)

Koirala, B. (Nepal: 1959-1960)

Lon Nol (Cambodia: 1970-1975)

Marcos, Ferdinand (Philippines: 1965-1986)

Martinez, Maximiliano (El Salvador: 1931-1944)

Meir, Golda (Israel: 1969-1974)

Meles Zenawi (Ethiopia: 1995-2002)

Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire: 1965-1997)

Moi, Daniel (Kenya: 1978-2002)

Montt, Efrain (Guatemala: 1982-1983)

Mubarak, Hosni (Egypt: 1981-2002)

Museveni, Yoweri (Uganda: 1986-2002)

Musharaf, Pervez (Pakistan: 1999-2002)

Mussolini, Benito (Italy: 1922-1939)

Netanyahu, Benjamin (Israel: 1996-1999)

Noriega, Manuel (Panama: 1983-1989)

Odria, Manuel (Peru: 1948-1956)

Omar, Mohamed (Afghanistan: 1996-2001)

Ozal, Turgut (Turkey: 1989-1993)

Pahlevi , Rezi (Iran: 1953-1979)

Papadopoulos, George (Greece: 1967-1973)

Park Chung Hee (S. Korea: 1960-1979)

Pastrana, Andres (Colombia: 1998-2002)

Peres, Shimon (Israel: 1977, 1984-1986, 1995-1996)

Perez Jimenez, Marcos (Venezuela: 1952-58)

Pinilla, Gustavo (Colombia: 1953-1957)

Pinochet, Augusto (Chile: 1973-1990)

Pol Pot (Cambodia: 1975-1998)

al-Qaddafi, Muammar (Libya: 1969-1971)

Rabin, Yitzhak (Israel: 1974-1977, 1992-1995)

Rabuka, Sitiveni (Fiji: 1987, 1992-1999)

Al Sadat, Anwar (Egypt: 1970-1981)

Selassie, Halie (Ethiopia: 1941-1974)

Salazar, Antonio (Portugal: 1932-1968)

Saud, Abdul Aziz (Saudi Arabia: 1944-1969)

Seaga, Edward (Jamaica: 1980-1989)

Shamir, Yitzhak (Israel: 1983-1984; 1986-1992)

Sharett, Moshe (Israel: 1953-1955)

Sharon, Ariel (Israel: 2001-2002)

Smith, Ian (Rhodesia: 1965-1979)

Somoza Sr., Anastasio (Nicaragua: 1936-1956)

Somoza Jr., Anastasio (Nicaragua: 1963-1979)

Stroessner, Alfredo (Paraguay: 1954-1989)

Suharto, General (Indonesia: 1966-1999)

Syngman Rhee (S. Korea: 1948-1960)

Tolbert, William (Liberia: 1971-1980)

Trujillo, Rafael (Dominican Republic: 1930-1960)

Tubman, William (Liberia: 1944-1971)

Uribe, Alvaro (Colombia: 2002)

Videla, Jorge (Argentina: 1976-1981)

Yeltsin, Boris (Russia: 1991-1999)

Zaim, Hosni (Syria: 1949)

Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed (Pakistan: 1977-1988)

other nasty nasties:

RPF (contra French client Rwanda);

SPLA contra Islamist Sudan, (a French client);

clients in Cameroon, Congo, Ivory Coast, Togo and Benin, after subverted elections (contra French proxies);

AFDL (Kabila);

Dalai Lama (Tibet);

bin Laden’s al Qaida;

Savimbi’s UNITA

Nazi war criminals and collaborators knowingly rescued in the years after WW2 by US intelligence for use as covert assets against the USSR:

R. Gehlen; O. Skorzeny; A. Brunner; O. von Bolschwing; W. von Braun; M. Lebed; A. Vlasov; I. Docheff; K. Dragonovich; I. Bogolepov; C. Bolydreff; A. Berzins; H. Herwarth; K. Barbie; I. Demjanjuk; W. Dornberger; V. Hazners; B. Maikovskis; E. Laipenieks; N. Nazarenko; L. Pasztor; R. Ostrowsky; L. Kairys; P. Shandruk; T. Soobzokov; S. Stankievich; and literally thousands of others.

8.List of “international” bodies designed/employed/perverted by the United States: [under construction]




9.Chronological list of interventions by the United States, with the purpose of opposing (or aiding opposition to) popular resistance movements—whether by means of overt force (OF) or covert operation (CO):

[Date – place (targeted movement): outcome (means)]

1776-1865 – United States (numerous slave rebellions): success (OF)

1782-1787 – United States (Wyoming Valley): success (OF)

1786-1787 – United States (Shay’s Rebellion): success (OF)

1790-1795 – United States (Ohio Valley tribes): success (OF)

1794-1794 – United States (Whiskey Rebellion): success (OF)

1798-1800 – United States (Alien & Sedition trials): success (CO)

1799-1799 – United States (Fries’ Rebellion): success (OF)

1805-1806 – United States (Boston union “conspiracy”): success (CO)

1806-1807 – United States (Burr’s Insurrection): success (OF)

1810-1821 – Spanish Florida (Africans, Natives, etc): success (OF)

1811-1811 – United States (Tecumseh’s Confederacy): success (OF)

1813-1814 – United States (Creeks): success (OF)

1822-1822 – United States (Vesey’s Rebellion): success (CO)

1823-1824 – United States (Arikara): success (OF)

1826-1827 – United States (Philadelphia union “conspiracy”): success (CO)

1827-1827 – United States (Fever River & Winnebago): success (OF)

1831-1831 – United States (Turner’s rebellion): success (OF)

1831-1831 – United States (Sac & Fox): success (OF)

1832-1832 – United States (Black Hawks): success (OF)

1833-1834 – Argentina (rebellion): success (OF)

1835-1835 – United States (Murrel’s Uprising): success (CO)

1835-1836 – Peru (rebellion): success (OF)

1835-1842 – United States (Seminoles): success (OF)

1836-1837 – United States (Sabine, Osage): success (OF)

1836-1844 – Mexico (anti-Texans, Natives, etc): success (OF)

1837-1838 – United States (massive strikes): success (OF)

1838-1839 – United States (Mormons): success (OF)

1842-1842 – United States (Dorr’s Rebellion): success (OF)

1847-1855 – United States (Cayuse): success (OF)

1850-1851 – United States (Mariposa tribes): success (OF)

1851-1859 – United States (Washington tribes): success (OF)

1852-1853 – Argentina (rebellion in Buenos Aires): success (OF

1854-1856 – China (rebellion): success (OF)

1855-1856 – United States (Sioux): success (OF)

1855-1858 – United States (Seminoles): success (OF)

1855-1858 – Nicaragua (Walker’s invasion): success (OF)

1855-1860 – United States (“Bleeding Kansas”): success (OF)

1857-1857 – United States (Cheyenne): success (OF)

1857-1858 – United States (Mormons): success (OF)

1858-1858 – Uruguay (rebellion in Montevideo): success (OF)

1858-1859 – United States (Comanche): success (OF)

1859-1859 – United States (Brownists at Harper’s Ferry): success (OF)

1860-1860 – Angola (rebellion in Kissembo): success (OF)

1860-1861 – Colombia (rebellion): success (OF)

1861-1865 – United States (confederate rebellion): success (OF)

1861-1865 – United States (Navajo): success (OF)

1861-1886 – United States (Apache): success (OF)

1862-1864 – United States (Sioux): success (OF)

1863-1863 – United States (draft riots): success (OF)

1863-1864 – United States (massive strikes): success (OF)

1864-1864 – United States (Sand Hill Massacre): success (OF)

1865-1865 – Panama (rebellion): success (OF)

1865-1867 – United States (Sioux): success (OF)

1867-1867 – Formosa (rebellion): success (OF)

1867-1875 – United States (Comanche): success (OF)

1868-1868 – Japan (rebellion): success (OF)]

1868-1868 – United States (Washita/South Plains tribes): success (OF)

1868-1868 – Uruguay (rebellion): success (OF)

1871-1871 – Korea (rebellion): success (OF)

1872-1873 – United States (Modocs): success (OF)

1874-1875 – United States (Red River War): success (OF)

1874-1874 – United States (Kiowa): success (OF)

1876-1877 – United States (Sioux/Cheyenne): success (OF)

1877-1877 – United States (St Louis general strike, others): success (OF)

1877-1877 – United States (Nez Perce): success (OF)

1878-1878 – United States (Idaho tribes): success (OF)

1878-1879 – United States (Cheyenne): success (OF)

1879-1880 – United States (Ute): success (OF)

1885-1885 – United States (New York textile strikes): failure (OF)

1886-1886 – United States (massive strikes, Haymarket): success (OF)

1888-1888 – Korea (rebellion): success (OF)

1888-1893 – Hawaii (rebellion contra Dole): success (OF)

1888-1889 – Samoa (rebellion): success (OF)

1890-1891 – United States (Pine Ridge, Wounded Knee): success (OF)

1891-1891 – Haiti (Navassa uprising): success (OF)

1891-1892 – Chile (rebellion): success (OF)

1892-1892 – United States (Idaho miners): success (OF)

1893-1894 – United States (massive strikes): success (OF)

1894-1894 – Nicaragua (Bluefields unrest): success (OF)

1894-1894 – United States (Chicago rail/Pullman strikes): success (OF)

1894-1895 – Brazil (rebellion): success (OF)

1894-1896 – Korea (post Sino-Japanese war rebellion): success (OF)

1896-1899 – Nicaragua (rebellions): success (OF)

1898-1900 – United States (Chippewa at Leech Lake): success (OF)

1898-1902 – Philippines (nationalist resistance): success (OF)

1899-1899 – Samoa (Mataafa): success (OF)

1899-1901 – United States (Idaho miners): success (OF)

1900-1941 – China (Boxers, communists, etc): success (OF)

1901-1901 – United States (Creek uprising): success (OF)

1901-1901 – United States (Steel strikes): failure (OF)

1901-1902 – Colombia (rebellions): success (OF)

1901-1913 – Philippines (Moslem Moro rebellion): success (OF)

1903-1903 – Honduras (rebellion): success (OF)

1903-1904 – Dominican Republic (rebellion): success (OF)

1904-1909 – United States (Kentucky tobacco farmers): success (OF)

1906-1909 – Cuba (rebellion): success (OF)

1907-1911 – Honduras (leftists, Bonilla): success (OF)

1909-1911 – United States (NY/Triangle textile strikes): failure (OF)

1911-1912 – China (rebellions): success (OF)

1912-1925 – Nicaragua (leftists): success (OF)

1913-1919 – Mexico (various rebellions, Villa): failure (OF)

1914-1914 – United States (Ludlow Massacre): success (OF)

1914-1924 – Dominican Republic (various factions): success (OF)

1915-1934 – Haiti (Sam, etc): success (OF)

1916-1917 – United States (Arizona miners strike): success (OF)

1917-1918 – United States (IWW): success (CO)

1917-1919 – United States (Espionage Act trials): success (CO)

1917-1922 – Cuba (rebellions): success (OF)

1918-1920 – Panama (strikes, election protests, etc): success (OF)

1919-1919 – Honduras (rebellion): success (OF)

1919-1920 – United States (Palmer Raids): success (CO)

1919-1920 – Costa Rica (Tinoco, etc): success (CO)

1919-1920 – United States (Great Steel Strike, others): success (OF)

1920-1921 – United States (West Virginian miners): success (OF)

1920-1928 – United States (prison rebellions): success (OF)

1920-1920 – Guatemala (Unionists): success (OF)

1922-1922 – Turkey (Nationalists): success (OF)

1922-1923 – United States (massive strikes): success (OF)

1924-1925 – Honduras (rebellions): success (OF)

1925-1925 – Panama (general strike): success (OF)

1926-1933 – Nicaragua (Sandino, others): success (OF)

1931-1932 – El Salvador (Marti): success (OF)

1932-1932 – United States (DC Bonus Strikers): success (OF)

1933-1933 – Cuba (rebellion): success (OF)

1935-1935 – Philippines (Sakdal Uprising): success (OF)

1938-1957 – United States (leftists: HUAC, McCarthyism): success (CO)

1943-1946 – United States (unprecedented strikes): success (OF)

1944-1951 – Greece (EAM/ELAS/KKE): success (CO)

1945-1949 – China (maoism): failure (OF)

1945-1954 – Vietnam (Viet Minh): failure (CO)

1946-1947 – S. Korea (mass resistance to US military rule): success (OF)

1947-1950 – Turkey (TKP): success (CO)

1948-1948 – S. Korea (democratic resistance): success (OF)

1948-1954 – Philippines (Huks): success (CO)

1950-1951 – United States (Puerto Rican independence): success (OF)

1950-1953 – United States (many prison rebellions): success (OF)

1952-1975 – Japan (general anti-US protests): success (OF)

1952-1957 – Japan (protestors in Okinawa): success (OF)

1953-1963 – Syria (ASRP/Baathists): failure (CO)

1954-1962 – Algeria (FLN): failure (CO)

1956-1971 – United States (Cointelpro-CPUSA): success (CO)

1956-1975 – South Vietnam (NLF): failure (OF)

1957-1959 – Lebanon (leftists): success (OF)

1957-1958 – Jordan (leftists/anti-monarchists): success (OF)

1959-1960 – Haiti (rebels contra Duvalier): success (OF)

1960-1971 – United States (Cointelpro-Puertorriquenos): success (CO)

1960-1966 – Peru (leftist rebels/PCP): success (CO)

1960-1963 – Venezuela (FALN; leftist): success (CO)

1962-1969 – United States (Cointelpro-SWP): success (CO)

1963-1965 – El Salvador (various rebels): success (CO)

1964-1964 – Panama (Canal activists): success (OF)

1965-1968 – United States (mass urban race riots): failure (OF)

1965-1966 – Dominican Republic (Bosch supporters): success (OF)

1965-1966 – Indonesia (PKI): success (CO)

1965-2000 – East Timor (independence movement): failure (CO)

1966-1973 – United States (massive antiwar protest): failure (OF)

1966-2002 – Colombia (FARC/ELN): success (CO)

1966-1988 – Namibia (SWAPO): failure (CO)

1966-1967 – Guatemala (leftists): success (CO)

1967-1971 – United States (Cointelpro-SCLC, BPP, CORE, etc): failure (CO)

1967-1967 – United States (Detroit black workers): success (OF)

1967-1971 – Uruguay (Tupamaros): success (CO)

1967-1968 – United States (San Quentin prison rebellions): success (OF)

1967-1969 – Japan (protestors in Okinawa): success (OF)

1968-1969 – United States (MLK assassination riots): success (OF)

1968-1971 – United States (Cointelpro-SDS): success (CO)

1969-1970 – United States (IAT at Alcatraz): success (OF)

1969-1970 – Oman (Dhufar Rebellion): success (CO)

1969-2002 – Philippines (maoism): success (CO)

1970-1970 – United States (several prison rebellions): success (OF)

1970-1970 – United States (campus uprisings: KSU, etc): success (OF)

1970-1970 – Jordan (Palestinian resistance): success (CO)

1970-1972 – Bangladesh (independence movement): failure (CO)

1970-1972 – Trinidad (rebellions): success (OF)

1971-1971 – United States (post-Jackson murder prison riots): success (OF)

1972-1973 – Nicaragua (Sandinistas): success (OF)

1973-1973 – United States (Lakota at Wounded Knee): success (OF)

1973-1976 – United States (Cointelpro-AIM): success (CO)

1974-2002 – Israel (PLO): success (CO)

1974-2002 – Turkey (PKK): success (CO)

1977-1978 – United States (coal miners): failure (OF)

1980-2002 – Peru (MRTA/Shining Path): success (CO)

1981-1992 – El Salvador (FMLN, etc): success (CO)

1981-1990 – Honduras (PCH, FPR, etc): success (CO)

1981-1981 – United States (air controllers strike): success (OF)

1982-1983 – Morocco (MOL): success (CO)

1982-1984 – Lebanon (leftist & Moslem resistance): failure (OF)

1986-1990 – Bolivia (peasants): success (OF)

1989-1989 – St. Croix (Black rebellion): success (OF)

1992-1992 – United States (LA uprising): success (OF)

1994-2002 – Mexico (EZLN/Zapatistas): success (CO)

1995-1998 – Japan (protestors in Okinawa): success (OF)

1996-2002 – Nepal (CPN): success (CO)

10. US as “isolationist” pre-1941? hahahahaha! DoS-confessed conflicts & interventions up to WW2 (NB other unconfessed exist—tracking them is the tricky part).

Contra major European powers—

France: 1798-1800, 1806-10

Germany: 1917-18, 1941-45

Great Britain: 1775-1783, 1812-1815

Spain [and colonies]: 1806-10, 1812, 1813, 1814, 1816-18, 1898

USSR: 1918-22

Contra minor powers, colonies, marginal states, non-European major powers—

Abyssina: 1903-4

“Africa” [west coast]: 1820-23, 1843 [allegedly contra “slave trade”]

Amelia Is.: 1812, 1817

Algeria/Algiers: 1815 [the 2nd Barbary War]

Angola: 1860

Argentina: 1833, 1852-3, 1890

“Bering Sea”: 1891 [contra alleged “seal poaching” LOL]

Brazil: 1894

“Caribbean”: 1814-25 [contra alleged “piracy”]

Chile: 1891

China: 1843, 1854-6, 1859, 1866, 1894-5, 1898-9, 1900, 1911, 1912-41

Colombia: 1868, 1873, 1895, 1902

Costa Rica: 1921

Cuba: 1822-25, 1906-9, 1912, 1917-22, 1933

Dominican Republic: 1799, 1903-4, 1914

Egypt: 1882

Falklands: 1831-2

Fiji: 1840, 1855, 1858 [the most curious in the bunch, IMHO]

Formosa: 1867

Greece: 1827

Greenland: 1941 [“defense” agreement]

Guatemala: 1920

Haiti: 1888, 1891, 1914, 1915-34

Hawaii: 1870, 1874, 1893

Honduras: 1903, 1907, 1911, 1912, 1919, 1924-5

Iceland: 1941 [“defense” agreement]

Italy: 1941-43

Japan: 1853-4, 1863, 1868, 1941-45

Johanna Is.: 1851

Kingsmills Is.: 1841

Korea: 1871, 1888, 1889, 1894-6, 1904-5

Libya/Tripoli: 1801-1805, 1815 [the 1st and 3rd Barbary Wars]

Marquesa Is.: 1813-4

Mexico: 1806, 1836, 1842, 1844, 1846-8, 1859, 1866, 1870, 1873, 1876, 1913-9

Morocco: 1904

Nicaragua: 1853, 1854, 1857, 1869, 1894, 1896, 1898-9, 1910, 1912-25, 1926-33

Panama: [Colo] 1856, 1860, 1865, 1885, 1901, [indep] 1903-14, 1918-21, 1925

Paraguay: 1859

Peru: 1835-6

Philippines: 1899-1901

Puerto Rico: 1824, 1899

Samoa: 1841, 1888-9, 1899

Smyrna: 1849

Sumatra: 1832, 1838-9

Surinam: 1941

Turkey: 1851, 1858-9, 1912, 1917-8, 1919, 1922

Uruguay: 1855, 1858, 1868

Yugoslavia: 1919

Scanning the official public acknowledgment list here, we clearly see that the US had extreme paranoia about China, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Panama: Open Doors, “uncooperative” neighbors, and two potential canal zones. Also, check the rationale in the official Defense Dept. record for each of the above conflict dates. Many, many times, we have the “to protect US interests [or “nationals”] during a crisis” as the proposed justification. Caveat lector.

11.Noteworthy Covert Operations conducted by the United States. We should keep in mind that the dates given are the confessed dates of operation. In no way does this account for programs that continued to run after they were officially terminated, nor does it reckon with the same practices under different names—or no names at all. It should go without saying that this isn’t a complete listing.

Overcast (1945-46): OSS rescuing Nazi military scientists for US use

Crowcass: 1945-48): locating thousands of Nazis for later use

Paperclip (1946-1954): continuation and expansion of Overcast

Mockingbird (1947-2002): CIA control of mass media

Bloodstone (1948-50): infiltrating fascists into the USSR

Gladio (1949-90): terrorist actions to discredit the left; assassination, etc.

MK-Ultra (1953-1963): CIA experiments with LSD, etc on non-volunteers

Cointelpro (1956-71): FBI destabilization of CP, AIM, SDS, civil rights, etc.

Celeste (1960-61): CIA assassination of UN secretary-general Dag Hammarskjold

Mongoose (1961-63): assassinating Castro

Merrimac (1967-68): CIA surveillance of DC

Resistance (1967-68): CIA spying on US student movements

Chaos (1968-1974): CIA domestic espionage on students, activists, etc

Garden Plot (1968-2002): DoD plans for mass repression/concentration camps

Grillflame (1971-1991): CIA “ESP troopers” i.e. over-horizon radar

Echelon (1972-2002): NSA electronic surveillance of all communication

Condor (1975-1977): Security arrangement in S. America to kill leftists

Cyclone (1979-2002): funding violent Islamic fundamentalist groups

Promis (1981-2002): CIA, etc surveillance of financial transactions

JCET (1991-2002): “foreign internal defense” training programs

Roots (1993-1999): CIA sows fascistic propaganda in Yugoslavia

Storm (1995): ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Krajina

Carnivore (1999-2002): FBI surveillance of www posts, listservs, etc

Magic Lantern (2001-2002): FBI surveillance of PC keystrokes.

Tips (2002-): DoJ civilian informants and denunciations

12. Prominent Front Organizations used to advance US imperialist interests:

Adolph Coors Foundation: rightist propaganda slush-fund

AFL-CIO: CIA controlled labor organization

African American Institute: CIA front group

American Council for International Commission of Jurists: CIA front

American Enterprise Foundation: rightist think-tank

American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees: CIA front

American Foreign Policy Council: rightist think-tank

American Friends of the Middle East: CIA front group

American Newspaper Guild: CIA front group

American Society of African Culture: CIA front group

Brookings Institution: rightist think-tank

CANF: anti-Castro lobbyist

Cato Institute: rightist think-tank

Carnegie Endowment: rightist think-tank

Center for Security Policy: rightist think-tank

Center for Strategic and International Studies: rightist think-tank

Competitive Enterprise Institute: rightist think-tank

Ethics and Public Policy Center: rightist think-tank

Ford Foundation: CIA front group

Freedom Forum: rightist think-tank

Fund for International Social and Economic Education: CIA front group

Heritage Foundation: rightist think-tank

Hoover Institution: rightist think-tank

Hudson Institute: rightist think-tank

Institute for Historical Review: neo-fascist lobbyist; Holocaust denier

Institute for International Economics: rightist think-tank

Institute for International Labor Research: CIA front group

International Development Foundation: CIA front group

International Institute for Strategic Studies: rightist think-tank

John Birch Society: virulent anti-communist publicist

John M. Olin Foundation: rightist propaganda slush-fund

Koch Family Foundations: rightist propaganda slush-fund

Liberty Lobby: neo-fascist agitprop

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation: rightist propaganda slush-fund

Manhattan Institute: rightist think-tank

National Education Association: CIA front group

National Endowment for Democracy: CIA front group

National Student Association: CIA front group

Progress and Freedom Foundation: rightist think-tank

Progressive Policy Institute: rightist think-tank

RAND Corporation: rightist think-tank

Reason Foundation: rightist think-tank

Scaife Family Foundations: rightist propaganda slush-fund

Smith Richardson Foundation: rightist propaganda slush-fund

Soros Foundation: CIA front group

USAID: official humanitarian front used to control food politics

USIA: primary disseminator of official “white propaganda”

Voice of America: CIA-controlled radio

13.“Low intensity wars” conducted by the United States and its proxies (“medium intensity warfare” = direct and usually acknowledged involvement of US military apparatus; “high intensity warfare” = Dr. Strangelove stuff: “nuclear combat toe-to-toe with the Russkies,” &c).

The primary goal of low intensity conflict is to use proxies, intelligence, and special forces to destabilize a region and its official government. The purpose of destabilization is to achieve 1) access to resources amidst the chaos, 2) delegitimation of an “enemy” political/economic system, 3) influence over specific local groups, and 4) depopulation of regions inhabited by “untermenschen.”

All leftists should learn about low intensity warfare; it is by far and away one of the most disgusting and useful tools in the imperialist repertoire. Don’t let the words “low intensity” trick you: rivers are dammed with corpses and the fields are sown with the blood of the targeted nation.

1950s: Poland; Ukraine; Russia, China; Thailand; Burma

1960s: Congo; Vietnam; Laos; Cambodia; Thailand; Burma

1970s: Congo; Vietnam; Laos; Cambodia

1980s: Congo; Cambodia; Nicaragua; Afghanistan; Mozambique; Angola; Ethiopia; Yemen; Western Sahara

1990s: Congo; Cambodia; Afghanistan; Yugoslavia; Nigeria; Sierra Leone; Guinea-Bissau; Colombia; Liberia; Sudan; Central African Republic; Equatorial Guinea

14.Proxy Wars fought by the United States, which typically involves the use of clients, dupes, mercenaries, unofficial “volunteers,” and official, though disavowable, special forces. [under construction]

contra Soviet Union: stock-in-trade Cold War superpower jousting

contra France: after the Soviet Union ended all activities in Africa, the US began its bid to force French proxies out of North Africa.

contra Germany: during the 1990s, Germany and the US used multiple proxies to fight over control of the Balkans, with its precious “Corridor 8,” thereby ruining the entire region.

contra China: from Cold War crimes to New World Order harassment, the US has used many proxies against the Chinese: Thai, Tibetan, Burmese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Islamic, Taiwanese.

15. Foreign policy doctrines more or less practiced by the United States.

Monroe Doctrine – western hemisphere = US property; non-whites = untermenschen

McKinley Doctrine – Open Door Policy i.e., China, Pacific = potentially, possibly, most likely US property; non-whites = untermenschen

Roosevelt Corollary – western hemisphere = US property, and we mean it this time! non-whites = untermenschen

Taft Doctrine – Dollar Diplomacy i.e., western hemisphere = US property, and we mean economically, politically, and all other ways; the Middle East = potentially, possibly, most likely, US property

Wilson Doctrine – 14 Points internationalism (i.e., great powers should respect each other; to hell with the rest); western hemisphere = US property, and we really mean it this time! non-whites = untermenschen

Roosevelt Doctrine – “Good Neighbor Policy!” i.e., western hemisphere = US property, and we really really really fucking mean it.

Truman Doctrine – aid to fascists in Greece, Turkey, the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, western Europe, Eastern Europe, North Africa, etc. i.e., what Kennan called “Containment.”

Eisenhower Doctrine – the Middle East = US property; non-whites = untermenschen; massive retaliation

Nixon Doctrine – enter neocolonialism: overthrowing governments, installing clients, using local elites to manage foreign populations for US advantage i.e., Asia, Africa, western hemisphere = US property, but we’re gonna try to be sneaky about it. Overall, see above.

Carter Doctrine – the Middle East = US property, and we aren’t kidding; trilateralism

Reagan Doctrine – “Rollback”; mutually assured destruction; low intensity warfare; support for rightwing Islamist groups, narcotics smuggling, etc.

Bush I Doctrine – New World Order; “What we say, goes.”

Clinton Doctrine – New World Order; “multilaterally if we can, unilaterally when we must.”

Bush II Doctrine – New World Order; “unilaterally when we can, multilaterally if we must.”

16.Noteworthy propaganda campaigns, hoaxes, and other lies qua casus belli utilized by the United States:

It is well known that German Fascists transformed their buffoonish leader, Hitler, from a national joke into der Fuhrer die Reich by means of a) securing moneys from large industrialists and financiers (they liked his extremely rightwing ideas on race, labor, religion, nationalism, capitalism, imperialism, etc) and b) by using multiple propaganda hoaxes in order to sway domestic opinion.

The Reichstag fire in 1933 allowed for Hitler to be proclaimed leader of the state as well as for the Night of the Long Knives the following year (violence against leftists) and all of the anti-jewish bullshit that came soon after. As we all know, the Reichstag was burned by fascist thugs and blamed on communists; they even got a disabled Dutch guy to “admit” to both arson and communism—smoking gun! woohoo!

In 1938, the Nazis claimed that they needed to perform a “humanitarian intervention” in the Sudetenland (in the modern Czech Republic) in order to stop “ethnic violence.” Of course, it was Nazi thugs carrying out the “ethnic violence” in the first place, but never mind that small detail.

In 1939, the fascists contrived Operation Canned Goods—a faked attack on a German border patrol, which was allegedly a surprise massacre, carried out by Polish military personnel. Evil Slavic Untermenschen Evildoer Terrorists! Too bad, however, that we now know those corpses in German uniform shown on Nazi TV to be dead Poles, kidnapped and murdered; the German public, though, went insane with jingoism, calling for invasions and genocide.

As we shall see, this is a technique learned by the Nazis from the masters of such things in the US (Hitler credited the development of the “Final Solution” to his study of US treatment of Native Americans), and something that was then perfected by the US after it recovered and reconciled with its mad dog Nazi assets during the Cold War.

The overall pattern is using irrelevant, misinterpreted, or completely fabricated events in order to convince all of the clarences (who had nothing to gain from militarism, but who were susceptible to jingoism, racism, ethnocentrism) that…war is a great fucking idea! NB that many of these propaganda hoaxes seem to be more effective now than they were when first produced. Also NB, these are the times that the state was forced, for whatever reasons, to consult with the public—either Congress or the people. Most US crimes are committed without recourse to either, or with only a general, vague acknowledgement: “Oh, that CIA is just protecting Freedom from Evil! We can’t tell you what they’re doing specifically, because that would compromise them to the Forces of Darkness!”

1775 – Britain: so it begins, and the story runs that Evildoer British imperialists took away Our Liberty, &c.; produced Evil Boston Massacres, Stamp Acts, Massachusetts Uprisings; and tried to import tea. While the British were certainly imperialistic, and tea is the mark of the ruling class in colonial times, we should take heed that the first offensive of the American War for Independence was a colonial invasion of Quebec. Huh? You mean, before they even signed the Declaration, the proto-United States was invading other countries? You bet. What’s at stake here is the Proclamation Line and the Quebec Act, both of which prevented the fledgling colonies from expanding. And be sure to recall that during the next US war, a conquest of Canada would again be attempted.

1812 – Britain: ah…tales of “naval impressments.” Too bad that this narrative, of war caused by US sailors being conscripted, like slaves, into the British privateering fleet, is a lie; too bad that the landowners all across the infant US wanted the British, French, Spanish, and natives off the continent so they could expand their holdings, import more slaves, and thereby make more money; too bad that plans for such expansion existed way before the declaration of hostilities. The keys here are Florida, the Caribbean, and the western frontier.

1846 – Mexico: the US is forced to retaliate against the Mexicans, since Mexican troops ruthlessly attacked US regiments, who just happened to be occupying slave-owning Texas. Why would the Evildoers in Mexico do that? Not, I hope, because Texas was part of Mexico? Not, I fear, because Mexicans were anti-slavery (abolished since 1829)? Not, I believe, because the US had aggressively assaulted Mexico multiple times already, including the original secessionist agitation in Texas? No, none of that matters; they’re just Evil.

1898 – Spain: the “Remember the Maine!” incident as well as Hearst newspapers proclaiming that Cuba needed a “humanitarian intervention”—both obvious lies—help sway people in the US to genocidal furor. Enter Empire, the subjugation of the people of Guam, Puerto Rico, and Cuba, and the Philippine genocide.

1917 – Central Powers: the Lusitania incident and the Zimmerman Telegram fire up US war fervor; too bad the Wilson administration provoked the Germans by aiding the British under a flag of “neutrality,” generated tons of anti-German racialist BS, and managed to invade every country in the Caribbean, including Mexico several times. Also, we needn’t forget that the Wilsonian declaration of War was timed perfectly with Lenin’s “April Theses.” All in the name of “protecting democracy,” from Evildoers, no doubt! An honest student of history will note that it’s more like “protecting certain segments of Kapital from others, whilst destroying genuine democratic resistance.”

1918 – USSR: “Communists eat babies!” “Bolsheviks seek to conquer world!’ “International Jewry grabs power in Russia!” “Reds to start war in India next!” “Socialism and incest: partners in Sin!” So ran the newspapers, every day, in every city, after Czarist absolutism was broken by popular resistance, no thanks to the US. Wilson’s administration used such imbecilic pretenses in a failed attempt to “strangle bolshevism in its cradle,” as one imperialist from a different genocidal nation put it. Of course, the real motives behind western intervention weren’t mentioned: Capital Capital Capital Capital.

1941 – Axis Powers: the Pearl Harbor attack was known in advance, no matter how “sudden” or how much “infamy” Roosevelt would later claim for it. NB FDR’s well-planned provocation strategy to ensure that Japan would attack the US, thus allowing the US to dictate terms to the rest of the world, which would be destroyed by war’s end. NB that the overrated Operation Overlord was delayed just long enough for the Soviet Union to be shattered by Kapital’s mad dog Hitler, but just timely enough to prevent the Soviets from taking out all of the fascists in Europe, from the Volga to Gibraltar.

1945 – Japan: event—nukes; propaganda lie—“saving Japanese and American lives”; bitter truth—self-serving genocide and terrorism to intimidate Stalin. Only assholes can believe the US story here.

1950 – DPRK: despite claims that “the Totalitarian North ruthlessly invaded the Free South,” it looks as though a communist North reacted to a long series of provocations carried out by a fascistic South, which included border skirmishes, coordinated raids, and artillery battery. But who cares? America to the rescue! Of fascism!

1952 – East Germany: despite Soviet attempts to get out of Berlin, requiring only assurances from the US that Germany would be a) democratic, b) demilitarized, c) united, and d) neutral, the US insisted on the precarious, ignorant status quo, obviously preferring it to the just Soviet proposal. Up, then, went the Berlin Wall in 1961, which was called an act of tyranny by moronic US commentators, but was intended by the Soviet Union to keep fascists, CIA operatives, saboteurs, assassins, and other agents of Kapital away. This event is largely responsible for much escalation of the Cold War during 50s, which would predictably and wrongly be blamed on the USSR.

1953 – Iran: Commies are gonna get us! Or so it was said by flag-waving retards. The unfortunate truth: a democratic regime thought it was allowed to use its own resources for its own benefit. The US disagreed with Mossadegh.

1954 – Guatemala: Commies are gonna get us! Or so it was said by flag-waving retards. The unfortunate truth: a democratic regime thought it was allowed to use its own resources for its own benefit. The US disagreed with Arbenz.

1964 – Vietnam: the USS Maddox got hit by some lightning, but LBJ thought it’d be a good idea to bow before the banking cartels, the Seven Sisters, the Pentagon, and crusty McCarthyoids, thereby inventing the notion that the (repeat the old script) Red North ruthlessly invaded the Free South—or, at least they ruthlessly attacked an innocent US naval vessel in international waters. Turns out that there was no attack, that the ship was in Hanoi’s waters, and was not-at-all-innocently deploying special forces and other anti-communist swine into the North for the normal roster of Kapitalist Karnage.

1973 – Chile: Commies are gonna get us! Or so it was said by flag-waving retards. The unfortunate truth: a democratic regime thought it was allowed to use its own resources for its own benefit. The US disagreed with Allende.

1981 – Nicaragua: Commies are gonna get us! Or so it was said by flag-waving retards. The unfortunate truth: a democratic regime thought it was allowed to use its own resources for its own benefit. The US disagreed with Ortega.

1983 – Grenada: Commies are gonna get us! Or so it was said by flag-waving retards. The unfortunate truth: a democratic regime thought it was allowed to use its own resources for its own benefit. The US disagreed with Bishop.

1986 – Libya: Evil Terrorist Nation! Quit doing Terrorist things! We will bomb you! Turns out that the Libyans weren’t responsible, after all, for the acts of “terror” of which they’d been accused. Hmm…a high publicity bombing mission right in the middle of the Iran-Contra Affair? What a coincidence! And at a time when Gorbachev was making peaceful overtures and the US was in danger of having no enemies? Amazingly coincidental!

1989 – Panama: They said that Noriega was an Evildoer Drugdealer! You must go Evil Doper! USA All The Way! Humanitarian Intervention! We should mention that Noriega was attempting to institute some democratic reforms and social services, had been a CIA asset, and largely oversaw US drug smuggling—and could document his and US involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair. But why trouble anyone with the facts? Especially the fact that the true meaning of the words “Operation Just Cause” is that US Delta Force teams secretly attacked US Army units so that the US could claim “Panamanian terrorists are shooting us!”

1991 – Kuwait: the famous “dead babies” hoax, which was revealed to be a lie. Other tidbits: Kuwait had provoked Iraq in numerous ways; Iraq got approval from its imperial master, the US, before invading; Bush had personal investments in the region; and US strategy had long called for a way to control the Gulf States directly. With the USSR gone and the Kuwait-Iraq border dispute, the US now had both pretext and opportunity.

1992 – Bosnia: never mind all of the dead Serbs. Instead, check out this photo! The Evil Serb Evildoers have Evilly put some guy in a concentration camp at Trnopolje! Look at the barbed wire! Look at how starved he is! Oh…wait a minute…looks like that the barbed wire is around someone’s shed, that the photographer is in the shed, that the starving guy is a refugee on the outside of the barbed fence, that the headline “Belsen 92” is a lie, that there were no concentration camps, and that the entire series of US operations in the early 1990s were resurrected Nazi policies on Yugoslavia, which still maintained some socialistic economic policies. Well, I’ll be damned: another “humanitarian intervention” for Kapitalism.

1993 – Somalia: Yet another “Humanitarian intervention!” Thing is, the famine was nearly over, the US wasn’t anywhere near where it had been, the Somalis already hated the US for thrusting Barre on them, and the US was only there now for 1) oil prospecting, 2) uranium mining, 3) military basing, 4) public relations, and 5) a “paid advertisement” for the Pentagon, in Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell’s cynical phrase..

1998 – Sudan: Evil terrorists are making VX nerve gas in that big factory! Tomahawk it! Turns out, though, that the plant manufactured antibiotics for half the country. Given that the Sudan was in the midst of a disease crisis, the destruction of their medical infrastructure only served to exacerbate the problem. How many died as a result? Who knows—the US, as is typical, doesn’t care to investigate, apologize, or acknowledge.

1999 – Kosovo: “Humanitarian intervention!” Now for something completely different. Racak, Srebrenica, Izbica, Trepca—all more complicated than they seem, as according to numerous international organizations, the FBI, and so on. Ethnic cleansing? Only if we are talking about the cleansing of Serbs by NATO. And the banner hoax here: the “Serbian MIG,” allegedly attacking civilians, is revealed as a fraud in state-press photos, which obviously display English writing on the alleged fuselage.

2001 – Afghanistan: Evil Terrorists got us! We will get them back! Of course, the true story is much more complicated, involving US complicity, deception, and strategic planning at all levels, as noted in the recent historical record (cf. “the complete 9/11 timeline”).

2002 – Iraq?: Evil! Smite Evil! Get oil! Did I say oil? I meant that Evildoer tried to kill my daddy!One excellent hoax, besides the manufactured general “threat” rhetoric, is the alleged 15 kg of “weapons-grade uranium” recovered in Turkey in mid 2002, allegedly bound for Iraq from “Eastern Europe.” Too bad that this “weapons-grade uranium” has “Made in West Germany” written on it—in English.


Agee, P. Inside the Company: CIA Diary. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1975.

Ali, T., ed. Masters of the Universe? London: Verso, 2000.

Ali, T. The Clash of Fundamentalisms. London: Verso, 2002.

Blum, W. Killing Hope. Monroe: Common Courage Press, 1995.

Blum, W. Rogue State. Monroe: Common Courage, 2000.

Blum, W. West-Bloc Dissident. New York: Soft Skull Press, 2002.

Brisard, J. & Dasquie, G. Forbidden Truth. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press/Nation Books, 2002.

Caldicott, H. The New Nuclear Danger. New York: The New Press, 2002.

Callinicos, A. Against the Third Way. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001.

Callinicos, A. Race and Class. London: Bookmarks, 1998.

Catalinotto, J. & Flounders, S., eds. Hidden Agenda: US/NATO Takeover of Yugoslavia. New York: International Action Center, 2002.

Chomsky, N. 9-11. New York: Seven Stories, 2001.

Chomsky, N. Deterring Democracy. New York: Hill and Wang, 1992.

Chomsky, N. Profit Over People. New York: Seven Stories, 1999.

Chomsky, N. Rogue States. Cambridge: South End Press, 2000.

Chomsky, N & Herman, E. Manufacturing Consent. New York: Pantheon, 2002.

Churchill, W. A Little Matter of Genocide. San Francisco: City Lights Press, 1997.

Churchill, W. & Wall, J., eds. The Cointelpro Papers. Boston: South End, 1990.

Chussodovsky, M. War and Globalization. Shanty Bay: Global Outlook, 2002.

Clark, R., et al., eds. NATO in the Balkans. New York: International Action Center, 1998.

Collier, J. & Collier, K. Votescam: The Stealing of America. New York: Victoria House Press, 1996.

Danaher, K., ed. 50 Years is Enough: The Case against the WB and the IMF. Boston: South End Press, 1994.

Fanon, F. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove press, 1963.

Gerson, J. & Birchard, B. The Sun Never Sets: Confronting the Network of Foreign U.S. Military Bases. Boston: South End Press, 1991.

Herring, G., ed. The Pentagon Papers. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993.

Irons, P. A People’s History of the Supreme Court. New York: Penguin, 1999.

Johnson, C. Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 2000.

Kaye, H. Why Do Ruling Classes Fear History? New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1997.

Lane, M. Plausible Denial. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1991.

Lemkin, R. Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. Washington DC: Carnegie Institute, 1944.

Lewis, B. Islam in History. Chicago: Open Court, 1993.

Loewen, J. Lies My Teacher Told Me. New York: Touchstone, 1995.

Marchetti, V. & Marks, J. The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. New York: Dell Publishing, 1974.

McGehee, R. Deadly Deceits: My 25 Years with the CIA. Melbourne: Ocean Press, 1999.

McGowan, D. Derailing Democracy. Monroe: Common Courage, 2000.

McGowan, D. Understanding the F-Word: American Fascism and the Politics of Illusion. San Jose: Writers Club Press, 2001.

Meszaros, I. Socialism or Barbarism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2001.

Moore, M. Stupid White Men. New York: HarperCollins, 2001.

Parenti, M. Against Empire. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1995.

Parenti, M. America Besieged. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1998.

Parenti, M. The Anti-Communist Impulse. New York: Random House, 1969.

Parenti, M. Blackshirts & Reds. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997.

Parenti, M. Dirty Truths. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1996.

Parenti, M. The Terrorism Trap. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2002.

Raphael, R. A People’s History of the American Revolution. New York: Perennial, 2001.
Rashid, A. Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.

Shirer, W. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1960.

Simpson, C. Blowback: The First Full Account of America’s Recruitment of Nazis, and its Disastrous Effect on our Domestic and Foreign Policy. New York: Collier Books, 1988.

Sklar, H., ed. Trilateralism. Boston: South End Press, 1980.

Stannard, D. American Holocaust. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Worcester, K., et al., eds. Violence and Politics: Globalization’s Paradox. New York: Routledge, 2002.

Zepezauer, M. & Naiman, A. Take the Rich Off Welfare. Tucson: Odonian Press, 1996

Zezima, M. Saving Private Power. New York: Soft Skull Press, 2000.

Zinn, H. A People’s History of the United States. New York: HarperCollins, 1999.

Zinn, H. The Zinn Reader. New York: Seven Stories Press, 1997.

Useful Periodicals

Covert Action Quarterly





International Socialist Review

Monthly Review

The Nation

New Left Review

New Politics


Race Traitor

Socialist Review


Relevant Hyperlinks

US interventions, geostrategy, and other crimes:

global finance:

general history and current global affairs:

alternative media:

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Economics and Politics: Interview WBAI 2-15-98 with Doug Henwood

Economics and Politics INTERVIEW WBAI 2/15/98
(Doug Henwood and Jim Craven)

DH: There was a court decision in Canada last December in British Columbia where the Canadian court decided that Indian claims to property in BC were actually well grounded and that this may have a substantial effect in Canada about who owns what. A lot of these disputed lands are rich in resources, so this is not mere matter of landscape, it’s also a matter of big money.
Jim, before we get going, just a word on nomenclature. I’ve been saying “American Indians” all along, and I know a lot of folks prefer Native Americans, or the Canadians use First Nations, what’s the word on language here?
JC: There’s a mixed bag on that. Most of the people that I know use the term American Indian. What they mean by that is an Indian of the Americas. The reason why many will use that is first of all, Indians weren’t even American citizens until 1924. Many Indians also feel that they’re not real Americans, there’s no real place for them in America, and they are sovereign nations within a nation. They prefer the term Indian rather than the term Native American. Also many Indians I know don’t like the nativism that’s associated with that term Native American, and there may be some implication that the further back here your ancestors go, the more “real” American you are; and most Indians that I know don’t share that kind of sentiment. They don’t differentiate people by how far back your ancestors go. The actual word Indian didn’t come from Columbus looking for India and missing the boat. Rather, when he came here there was no India. The Indian comes from the term “la gente en dio” – the people in god. They’re also referred to as “Los Indios.” Columbus called them gentle and loving people and thought they would be easy to turn into slaves, which is what he actually wrote in his diary. Most of the people I know prefer to use the term American Indian, but they don’t mean an equivalent to “Irish-American” or Jewish American”, they mean an Indian of the Americas, which includes Central, South American and Canada.
DH: Now let’s talk about this decision from the Canadian Supreme Court. What’s involved with this decision that’s relevant to the US?
JC: First of all, the decision didn’t go as far as some people might think in terms of of really laying out full use, full custody, for indigenous lands. But it was an extremely important decision in the sense that it was a recognition that some of the very same rights and privileges and laws that protect property today in white society, call into question the very property they protect. For instance, suppose you find all around you your relatives and neighbors being slaughtered and the people who are doing the killing send a message that you’re next. You flee for you life, leave your home. Somebody moves into your home and destroys all records, histories, whatever that show you occupied that home. Then they proceed to go ahead and sell your home to someone else who had no idea how it was acquired. The new owner holds that property only as long as the true story isn’t told. As soon as the true story is told about how that property was originally acquired, even under mainstream or capitalist law, that property becomes tainted. The new owner doesn’t get to keep it, even though he innocently bought stolen property. The same thing holds here. More and more the courts are realizing that when the true story is told and it becomes evident that so much Indian land was stolen, and by stolen I don’t mean according to Indian law, I mean according to white law, capitalist law. What happened with the Canadian decision was that for the first time or almost the first time they are starting to admit oral histories and historical place names as a basis for establishing original occupancy. What happened historically was that American society was confronted more and more with this contradiction, and this contradiction was by virtue or your own laws, not Indian laws, this is stolen land; ill-gotten land.
So the answer to that was, first of all, you know Indians never really had a concept of private property or territory; therefore, in Indian terms, nothing was really stolen from them. That was the first myth. The second myth was, well, Indians never continuously occupied territorial lands, or Indians never made “improvements” on the land; therefore, they don’t hold ownership in the way that we establish legitimate ownership. So there were attempts to rewrite history to get around that contradiction, that being by virtue of capitalist law, that property is stolen property. Now what’s happening is that the courts, right now there’s a case going on whereby thousands of non-Indians are being sued by the federal government on behalf of the Cherokee, Chocktaw and Chickesaw nations having to do with the Arkansas River because it turns out that as a result of a 1970 Supreme Court decision, that land was treaty land and it was illegally sold to non-Indians. So now these mineral and land owners are all being served notices that they don’t hold title they once thought they held. So what we’re seeing now is a recognition that either you’re going to have to come out in an open, naked say and say, yes, we have sacred laws but they’re only situationally applied; they’re not really that sacred. If you’re non-white they don’t apply. If you’re not “American” they don’t apply. Or they’re going to have to make some kind of attempt to apply consistency.
DH: This speaks to what Marx calls primitive accumulation, which is the origin of private property through act of theft or in claiming private land that was previously held in common. So whether we’re looking at the enclosures in England or the theft of native lands here in North America or in what’s going on in a good bit of the Third World today, the capitalists have not really lost much sleep over the contradictions of their own tradition. Do you think this is actually going to give them pause? Force them to come to terms with their own hypocrisy?
JC: I think that the extent to which this happens is as much is as necessary. Their primary goal is to maintain the system as it is and the basic power structures as they are. But they do make concessions when contradictions require it. Their policies represent very few of ultra rich, but they need a mass social base, especially when you have the illusion of a democracy, participatory democracy, they need a mass social base to ratify policies which are actually in the interests of a very few ultra rich people. How do you do that? One way is to push hot button issues, like abortion and whatever. They try to get people to vote one way or another on single issues for a party that can never represent the interests of those who are actually voting for that party. That’s one way. The second way is of course through mystification and rewriting history: American the most moral, decent, productive, efficient, richest, beacon of democracy, and so on. Of course then they don’t discuss all the ugly dictators we’ve supported and are supporting cause there’s a contradiction there. The other way they deal with it is to make concessions on an ad hoc situational basis. So when those contradictions surface, become really glaring, naked, they will make such concessions as are necessary to keep the façade going. So they say, yeah, you got me, you got me there. According to my own laws, this is stolen property, you’re right. So they’ll return bits of land, piece by piece. Of course usually what happens is that land returned bit by bit, they just find another way to get it. What you’ll see is big developers who come in and front certain interests in the tribal councils, and they wind up getting the land back through “normal commerce,” or they’ll find ways to counter-litigate and tie people up in court for extensive periods of time through expensive, costly litigation. But still they’re caught in that contradiction between the façade of the system and the façade they need to maintain that system vs. how the system really works and for whom it really works.
It’s quite clear: out of 22 industrialized countries, the US is No. 1 in wealth and income Inequality. We’re number one in infants born at low birth weight; homicides; substance abuse; executions; imprisonment. We’re number one in a whole bunch of indicators that don’t speak very well for us. Those indicators are an indictment of that very system itself. The average life expectancy for most Indian males is between 49 and 52 years old. For Indian females, 47 and 51 years old. That’s as opposed to a white male around 71 and white female around 73.
DH: Those life expectancies are really about the bottom of the poorest portion of the Third World. We’re talking about some pretty bad social rankings here.
JC: That’s correct. The infant mortality rate is much lower in Cuba than it is among Indians in North America. In fact, it’s lower than all of America combined.
DH: Let’s talk about the social-economic conditions that Indians in America live in. I think people who live in urban areas might not think about it very often. Where do folks live, just how bad off are they?
JC: It will vary, of course. But for the vast majority of reservations in this country, and I’ve been on many, people are isolated, it’s very stark, almost all the businesses are owned by non-Indians. Typically you get about 12 or 15 cents on the Indian dollar that stays on the reservation, the rest is shipped out in banking and other services. Savings are little, and what little savings that occur don’t stay on the reservation, taken to big banks in the big cities, it’s never reinvested on the reservation. You have tribal councils that sometimes are corrupt and sometimes not. You have big developers with extensive agendas with their eyes on the prize, with various ways of identifying the mineral rich land and moving in to get it 10 cents on the dollar. You have very few children graduating from high school not to mention going to college and graduating. You have one Indian Health clinic overworked and understaffed. You have high incidences of tuberculosis, incidences of AIDS because of kids going to urban areas and becoming involved in prostitution and drugs and returning with AIDS. So the clinics are overstretched in terms of demands and ability to meet those demands. You have high incidences of alcoholism and drug addiction, about 5 times the national average, teenage suicide roughly five times the national average.
People say then, well what about the casinos? The best studies I’ve seen suggest that out of each casino gross profit dollar about 18 cents actually goes to the tribe because you’re taking out consulting, licensing fees. So only about 18 cents stays with the tribe and of that a large amount is taken off by the powers that be in the tribe, so that maybe 5 cents of a casino dollar comes anywhere near the average Indian on an average reservation. So casinos are not the panacea that everyone talks about. Plus you lose part of the heritage and culture when you enter that type of enterprise. It’s a very sad, stark existence. It’s an indictment. People talk about genocide on Bosnia, and we should definitely be concerned about that because we’re all human beings, we’re all part of this planet. It’s interesting by the way that in the Inuit language there’re 103 words for snow, but only one for people: which is “Inuit” (human being) There’s no word for black people, white people, red people, there’s just one word: human being. And so we should be concerned about Rwanda and Bosnia, but there’s genocide going on right here in America, and as long as it keeps going on it’s an indictment of this country. For those who say why should I care, I’m not Indian, the issue is that the best form of “national security” is having a society that’s worth being secure.
DH: How does the situation of American Indians compare with that of other indigenous peoples around the world, say in Australia or Canada or New Zealand?
JC: Well, from what I’ve been able to see, the situation in New Zealand and Australia with respect to aboriginal people is actually somewhat better than the US in terms of available services, recognition of aboriginal rights – it’s not a rosy picture, there’s still very brutal exploitation there--but there is more recognition that when this kind of subjugation and genocide is going on inside your borders it’s an indictment of the whole nation. In terms of services and national sovereignty, in Canada, in my opinion, it’s much better than the US, although again if you go to Saskatchewan and Alberta and whatever, it’s still a very stark existence on Indian reserves. I worked on a Cree reserve and conditions then and now still are pretty raw. But I would say that they’re better than here in the US. The US is way behind in terms of addressing not only land issues but issues of national sovereignty and what’s happening. If something isn’t done now I suspect that there won’t be any Indian people left in three generations.
Narrator: Because of their death or because they will blend into the surrounding society?
JC: All of it: death, blending, all of it. Part of it has to do with the redefinition of Indian people by non-Indians. This is a serious issue. The other thing is the powerlessness. Just imagine if you had a football team called the New York Niggers. Or the Kansas City Kikes. Or the San Francisco Spiks. Imagine that they have the watermelon shuffle. Some caricature of a black person coming out and shuffling around. There would be an absolute outrage and rightly so, because that’s really ugly stuff. But nobody thinks even twice about the Washington Redskins, the tomahawk chop Kansas City Chiefs, the Cleveland Indians with the buck-tooth, illiterate looking Indian icon. We’ve seen so much sensitivity, and rightly so, to injustices that have been done to blacks, Jews, Hispanic people, and we should, but when it comes to Indians, we see all sorts of stereotypes and caricatures that no one would dare make with respect to any other group, and part of it comes from the fact that we have no national Indian voice or leadership, but part of it is the whole history that well, they’re dying anyway, they have no power anyway, they’re off on their own anyway, so just let them go.
DH: You say there is no national Indian movement, virtually one publication of any significance. Why is there this lack of cohesion, lack of voice?
JC: Well, a lot of it has to do with the divide and rule tactics that have been used against Indian people for hundreds of years, where they would separate tribes and where there were some territorial disputes, and not even disputes really, disputes were created. A good example is the Hopi and Navaho. The Hopi and Navaho have been inter-marrying for generations. But because there is some uranium and coal some land disputes were started. The Paiute and Navaho are another example where the powerful, mostly for economic interests, played one off against the other. These divisions continue to this day. Just imagine: we don’t have, for example, a Bureau of African American Affairs, of Polish Affairs. But we have a Bureau of Indian Affairs. What do they do? Right now, for example, there’s close to $3 billion missing in BIA accounts. Missing! Nobody knows where it went. And the records were all torched, they weren’t even put on computer backup. We’ve got another case where, because Indian royalties were undervalued by oil and mineral interests according to the formula they were using, almost $6 billion of royalties due tribes being ripped off by undervaluation of oil and gas royalties. The BIA also has been caught, for example, fronting for developers, identifying mineral rich lands and then aiding developers in getting some of the land at 10 cents on the dollar. The BIA should be abolished; they’ve done far more harm than good. Their argument is that now, for example, to recover your money you’ve got to stick with us because otherwise you have no chance of getting the tribal monies that are missing – almost $3 billion dollars missing. But the BIA is a custodial agency, a broker on Indian issues. It was formed to take care of “internal colonies” – it’s part of the Department of Interior and says, “we can’t trust you Indians to deal with non-Indians directly.” So if non-Indians want to deal with Indians they have to go through the BIA. There are some exceptions to that, but not many. It’s a gatekeeper between various nations and non-Indian people and other interests. Again, we get to the same problem. Can you imagine if we had a Bureau of African American Affairs, or Bureau of Caucasian Affairs? There would be an outrage if there was something like that, but nobody says anything when it comes to Indians.
DH: What might a more humane set of policies look like?
JC: I can only speak for myself, but basically it comes down to the fact that there needs to be more coherent and cohesive outreach to non-Indians. Indians alone are not going to be able to solve these problems. They need natural allies. Part of the problem is to break down a lot of the stereotypes and myths, you know, about the rich Indian from casino money, and so on, among non-Indians. Indians need to work with working class people and progressive intellectuals and whatever, to say, these are the myths you’ve been told about us. We don’t think you’re the enemy, because your skin color is different. Please join us because our fight is your fight. You know, there was a time in Germany when people said, well, I’m not Jewish, or homosexual, or trade unionists and therefore this isn’t my problem. What happened is they were living in a Nazi society where it was only a matter of time that anyone with a heart or an IQ over 60 could be next. It’s the same thing about Indians in America. If you don’t care about Indian issues, well go ahead and say that now, because you may be next, because it means you live in the kind of society that allows genocide, that allows this kind of desecration of the sacred, if you want to put it that way. And it’s only a matter of accident as to whether or not you’re next. So we need to reach out, we need to build united fronts, common concerns, break down stereotypes, and need to educate. We need to say, listen this is all of us, we need to stay together. We don’t want to take your land, please don’t steal ours. By virtue of the very same principles that you hold sacred that defends your property, then please understand that our lands, our rights, our birthrights, our cultures and heritages have been stolen from us and we need to define ourselves, we don’t need non-Indians defining what is “authentic” Indian and what is not.