In his opening statement to the LaRouchePAC Policy Committee discussion on Monday, Lyndon LaRouche noted that the world is on the edge of frightening developments, with one international force, seeking a global war confrontation, and another, mobilizing to defend itself against this threat. The decisive factor in determining which way this confrontation goes, is the United States—whose presidency is now under control of the war party.
That control is fragile, as a large portion of the U.S. population and leadership, sees an insane President leading the nation to destruction. The question is whether that opposition can bring the positive alternative to nuclear confrontation, to a position of sufficient power, in time.
The key to mobilizing that opposition, as LaRouche discussed at some length in the same Policy Committee event, is the LaRouche movement’s “Manhattan Project.” He put it this way:
“What’s happening in Manhattan and our organizing in Manhattan which has been going on for several weeks now, this is typical of the way in which the people of the United States can get out of the mud which most of them are stuck with….
“So I think what we have to do, is take the case of the New York City experience, as we’ve experienced it recently, as a sort of an experimental operation, and realize that that is an example of what we must apply, to what we discuss here, in order to define the concept, of how could we take this U.S. economy, and the features, to recognize that there is — what kind of steps do we take, in what direction to turn this thing around, so that the old drudgery and the old degeneracy and so forth, no longer controls us. Because we’re on the verge, if we just keep going along, sliding along, letting the flow take us, we are going to be all pretty much dead! Civilization’s going to be dead. …
“Without using the fact of Manhattan, the New York City area, and using that as saying, well, that is and was the center of the United States, in terms of the policy in the history of the United States. Other places were important. But without Manhattan, there was nothing to pull them together. And this was the case, beginning with our most famous statesman, Alexander Hamilton.
“Yes, Hamilton — Hamilton was a New Yorker. And so therefore, Manhattan. And he was a great one, and he was shot because he was good, which was one of the things that happened in those days, when the British were running around.
“So this is the issue, I think which is what we have to emphasize and focus on, because it’s the only way, by taking a coherent view of the nature of the United States, and the United States’ relationship to the world of nations, it’s the only way that we can save the United States and save civilization. And New York is an excellent case for this thing, because you get a resonance and a response, a resonance among key people that you don’t get anywhere else.”
The British Empire, in the form of the long-standing anti-American London Economist, took the lead for the international war faction, with a cover feature on destroying Russia and Vladimir Putin with economic warfare. The clear intent of the economic “analysis” is to show that the West can bring “regime change” to Russia, just as the Russian leadership has charged. Among the elements mentioned, are not only the economic sanctions—which could be increased—but, also, the intentional collapsing of the oil price, on which oil-exporter Russia relies.
Meanwhile, London puppets in Europe and the U.S., are, also, moving into a dangerous escalation. The German paper Tagesspiegel is trumpeting the idea, as “exporting the Maidan” to Russia—as the anniversary of last year’s “color revolution” against Ukraine approaches. At the same time, the Merkel government is moving to try to purge not only the government, but, also, private East-West industry associations, of any figures who seek to maintain economic ties with Russia. If they are successful, this will eliminate a crucial war-avoidance force.
The pro-war mania seems, likely, to be behind Barack Obama’s removal of U.S. Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel. As former DIA official Pat Lang, who runs a blog that frequently serves as an outlet for the uniformed military, put it:
“So, Hagel is out. He is evidently the loser in a struggle between the military leadership and the Children’s Crusaders, at the White House and State Department. The military want more clearly defined goals, across the Islamic culture continent, and, ‘the kids’ want to run foreign affairs on the basis of the crap they write in magic marker on white boards in their seminars.”
Lang is referring to those British utopian harpies, such as Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, and Samantha Power, who are all-out for regime change globally—and thus driving the world toward World War III.
Russia and China, with massive global support, have so far succeeded in not falling into any of the provocation traps being sent for them. With concerted effort, they succeeded in preventing the Iran nuclear talks from outright failing—and they were extended yesterday for another six months. They have also doggedly pushed forward with their alternative to these geopolitical games—offering economic cooperation to all who will listen, even those within the war-mongering camp.
But, as the Empire forces escalate provocations, the situation becomes more and more dangerous. The only sane response is pro-active: seeking to put in place a movement for cooperation with the BRICS, that will brush the war lunatics like Obama aside, and create the potential for peace. That is the task the LaRouche movement, with its series of meetings on the model of recent such events in Manhattan, has set out to accomplish, in the very short term.
President Obama fired Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on Monday, in what an inside source described as a “shit fit” of retaliation from the White House insiders over Hagel’s resistance—which was really the military’s resistance—to the academics who think they can reshape the world using regime change and military intervention according to their utopian visions of democracy promotion.
Hagel has said that he will stay on until his successor is confirmed. A brief appearance by Obama and Hagel yesterday morning shed no light on the policy differences behind what is almost universally seen as a firing, despite Hagel having submitted his resignation.
The New York Times, which first broke the story, reported that Hagel was forced to step down “as a recognition that the threat from the Islamic State would require a different kind of skills than those that Mr. Hagel was brought on to employ,” but there is evidence even on the public record that Hagel’s policy differences with the White House over Syria, run deeper than that, most famously in the memo Hagel sent to White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice in the middle of October, the existence of which was leaked to the New York Times at the end of the month. According to the Times, Hagel, in the memo, “warned that the administration’s Syria policy was in danger of unraveling because of its failure to clarify its intentions toward President Bashar al-Assad.”
Hagel wasn’t just expressing his own concerns, but those of the military, an institution which he has always felt close to from his days as a squad leader in Vietnam. So he served as a channel for those concerns to the White House, and he allowed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey to express many of those concerns in public fora, including a conference in Washington, last week, in which he indicated that his mission in Syria, at present, isn’t overthrowing the Assad regime, but is, instead, fighting ISIS.
Other media have noted that Hagel always had a problem with Obama’s inner circle, which was intent upon micromanaging the wars.
Retired DIA officer Pat Lang, whose blog Sic Semper Tyrannis tends to be an outlet for the traditional American military outlook, had this to say, on Monday, in response to the announced resignation of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel:
“So, Hagel is out. He is evidently the loser in a struggle between the military leadership and the Children’s Crusaders at the White House and State Department. The military want more clearly defined goals across the Islamic culture continent and ‘the kids’ want to run foreign affairs on the basis of the crap they write in magic marker on white boards in their seminars.
“The armed forces are being asked to assume larger and larger missions in the Middle East, Afghanistan and West Africa. At the same time the money needed to maintain DoD operations and perform such functions as Strategic Triad modernization has largely disappeared in the welter of sequestration and general reductions in budget.
“Understandably the generals and admirals are pushing back and the constitutional way for them to do that is through the civilian head of the Department of Defense.
“The back pressure was probably displayed last week in a loosening of ROE [rules of engagement] in Afghanistan.
“Obama, true to his nature, will, IMO [in my opinion], choose someone to replace Hagel who will not challenge him and who will ‘play nice’ with the other boys and girls without regard to the realities of life.
“That woman is likely to be Michele Flournoy. This woman is just another member of the Washington/New York playcircle of academics who think they understand war.”
Reports in the mass media, such as the Washington Post, Politico, et al., indicate that there are other possible candidates, besides Flournoy, including former Deputy Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and current Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, although Flournoy has been angling for the job since Robert Gates retired in 2011. She served as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy from 2009 to 2012 before returning to academic life at the Center for a New American Security where she has been hanging out ever since.