ORDER OUT OF CHAOS
Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
"The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something we are missing." --Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, 1957
President George W, Bush has often proclaimed how he has brought "democracy" to Iraq. However, the "democracy" he has brought there will result in Shariah (Islamic) law being imposed. And in Afghanistan, where President Bush also brought "democracy," Associated Press reporter Daniel Cooney wrote "Afghan Man Faces Death for Christian Conversion," (THE WASHINGTON TIMES, March 20, 2006), which begins: "An Afghan man is being prosecuted (under Shariah law) in a Kabul court and could be sentenced to death on a charge of converting from Islam to Christianity, a judge said yesterday."
From the beginning, Iraqi Shiites, who advocate Shariah law, have cooperated with the American process of bringing "democracy" to that country because they believe that as the majority in Iraq, they will rule. But therein also lies the problem, because there is no incentive for them to compromise with Sunnis and others to form a unity government. If the U.S. threatens to withdraw its forces if the Shiites don't compromise, this might have little impact because the Shiites believe they would prevail in any possibly resulting civil war.
How did the U.S. get itself into such a dilemma? The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) under the leadership of William Kristol long argued for Saddam's removal from power. And with members of PNAC holding key positions in the Bush administration, it was not difficult to get President Bush to invade Iraq. However, from the beginning, Kristol expressed his fear that the U.S. would try to win "on the cheap" with too few soldiers, resulting in the chaos which has existed since the invasion until today.
In an effort to understand why this happened, one should ask "Cui bono?" ("Who benefits?") from continued chaos in Iraq. The answer is the power elite. While President Bush was maneuvered into invading Iraq, the power elite's dialectical process persuaded the President (unrealistically) that he could achieve victory with only about 150,000 troops when his father deployed almost 600,000 against Saddam in 1991 just to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. There is no way 150,000 soldiers could occupy, secure, police, and nation-build a country the size of Iraq. Thus, continued chaos was assured.
Various explanations have been offered for the chaos. NEW YORK TIMES chief mililtary correspondent Michael Gordon's new book, COBRA II, refers to the Bush administration's failure to anticipate the level of insurgency. However, in my book, COVER-UP, published BEFORE the war began, I quoted exiled Iraqi Lt.-General Tawfik al-Yassiri specifically referring to Saddam's planned guerrilla warfare. Moreover, in the new book, MY YEAR IN IRAQ, by Coalition Provisional Authority administrator L. Paul Bremer III, he acknowledges learning of Saddam's strategy early in the occupation. Yet, President Bush still refused to increase troop levels. Not only did he not increase American troop levels, but he prevented the rapid training of Iraqi forces, which he claims he wants ! Major-General Paul Eaton was given the task of rebuilding the Iraqi army.
However, in Thom Shanker's article, "General Says Training of Iraqi Troops Suffered from Poor Planning and Staffing" (THE NEW YORK TIMES, February 11, 2006), one reads: "'We set out to man, train and equip an army for a country of 25 million---with 6 men,' General Eaton said. He worked into the autumn with 'a revolving door of individual loaned talent that would spend between two weeks and two months,' he said, and never received even half the 250 professional staff members he had been promised."
So what do we do now? On NBC's "Meet the Press" (March 19, 2006), Congressman John Murtha proposed that our forces in Iraq be redeployed (to defensible areas), so that Iraqi soldiers would take over most military operations.
If American troops were redeployed in this manner, though, what would likely happen? First, the insurgents (including many non-Iraqis) would strike more vigorously against the Shiites, trying to foment a larger sectarian civil war. The Shiites would then strike back against the insurgents, based largely in Sunni areas. The Sunnis would react to this because they would foresee oppression by the Shiite majority who were themselves oppressed for decades by Saddam (a Sunni). This would then be a classic, intensified, sectarian civil war which Iraqi Shiites would win, perhaps with assistance from Shiite allies in Iran.
This would not be what the power elite wants, though, which is continued relatively low-level chaos that wears people down and keeps oil prices high. In Greg Palast's March 20, 2006 article in THE GUARDIAN (London) about how "Bush didn't bungle Iraq," he refers to the State Department's secret 323-page plan for Iraq's oil in which was a "directive to Iraqis to maintain a state oil company that will 'enhance its relationship with OPEC'." Palast went on to say that "every time the 'insurgents' blow up a pipeline in Basra,...the price of oil leaps," and Big Oil loves it. In 2005, the top 5 oil companies made $113 billion in profit compared to only $34 billion in 2002 before the Iraq war began.
The chaos in Iraq, the Middle East and elsewhere, wears down Americans, Shiites, Sunnis, Israelis, Palestinian Arabs, etc., until all are willing to accept external control by global political, economic, etc., managers. These managers will bring a world government order out of chaos, which by that time all parties will accept because they will be too worn out to resist.
Therefore, President George W. Bush will "stay the course" of chaos, not because he is running things, but because he will be "advised" that it would be "cowardly" not to continue his current policy. President Bush is largely a product of the advice and information he is given and, just as important, NOT given. In other words, he is a useful pawn of the power elite, just as was President Clinton. It's like Prof. Carroll Quigley said in TRAGEDY AND HOPE (1966)----"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy." Remember that Prof. Quigley chose the word, "Hope," in his book's title as referring to the power elite bringing to fruition Cecil Rhodes' plan "to take the government of the whole world."
At this point you may say nations of the world, such as the U.S., China, etc., would never submit to the power elite. But what if there were another major terrorist attack? Or what if nations' computer systems "just happened" to fail? What if there were a flu pandemic and large segments of the population were forcibly quarantined? Or what if nations' crops "just happened" to fail because of weather modification? And what if nations "just happened" to have earthquakes? Remember Secretary of Defense William Cohen at an April 28, 1997, Conference on Terrorism said there are those who "are engaging in even an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes (and) volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."
There is a psychology at work here. Do you remember in George Orwell's 1984 that Big Brother's agent, O'Brien, said that you will come to love Big Brother? It's like when the North Koreans tortured prisoners and then offered them some small kindness, the prisoners actually began to express their appreciation to the very people who had been responsible for causing their pain in the first place ! They came to love Big Brother, and that's the power elite's goal for each of us.
Alexis De Tocqueville in DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA (1840) warned of what rule by the power elite would mean----"Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent....It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry....After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform....The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided....It does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupifies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd....It is vain to summon a people who have been rendered so dependent on the central power to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice...will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity."
Later, Prof. Quigley in TRAGEDY AND HOPE would say that the ordinary individual's "freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military and other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits."
Today, many Americans are just watching garbage on their TVs as our profits go overseas----Amoco's profits go to England, Purina's and Gerber's profits go to Switzerland, TransAmerica's profits go to The Netherlands, etc., as American companies are being sold to foreign enterprises. Sound recording industries are 97% foreign-owned, metal ore mining 65%, motion picture and video industries 64%, book publishers 63%, plastic products 51%, etc. About 80% of our port terminals are managed by foreign companies, and parts for our missiles are now made in China, with whom we may be at war some day. To most people, this would make no sense. But to the power elite, it makes perfect sense.
Remember that on March 10, 1962, Council on Foreign Relations member Lincoln Bloomfield presented Study Memorandum No.7, "A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations" (under contract SCC 28270 with the State Department, headed by Rhodes Scholar Dean Rusk), in which he wrote: "A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which 'world government' would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by mandatory universal membership and some ability to employ physical force....(But) if the Communist dynamic was greatly abated, the West might lose whatever incentive it has for world government."
Of course, to get people to accept the world government the power elite has planned, patriotism must be diminished, and unsuccessful wars are very useful toward that end. For example, after the Vietnam War had dragged on for years, THE NEW YORK TIMES on May 22, 1974, published pollster Daniel Yankelovich's findings that in 1973, only 19% of college-educated youth and only 35% of noncollege-educated youth between 16 and 25 years of age thought that patriotism was an important value.
The power elite's plan has existed for many, many years. In fact, note the reference to "military defeat" (unsuccessful war) in Philip Freneau's article, "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One," in the July 1792 edition of AMERICAN MUSEUM. He warned that the power elite would emphasize the limitations of the American Republic's Constitution, with "precedents and phrases" (e.g., due process) "shuffled in." He next indicated that civil turbulence in the republic would be contrasted with the stability existing under the hereditary elite. The "grand nostrum" of Freneau's outline of the power elite's possible plan was the creation of debt "made as big as possible, as perpetual as possible, in as few hands as possible," and as complicated as possible. He then said, "A great debt will require great taxes....Money will be put under the direction of government, and government under the direction of money" (e.g., banking elite).
The next step would be to create "artificial divisions within society" (e.g., "divide and conquer" strategy) which would "smother the true and natural division between the few (elite) and the general mass of people, attached to their republican government and republican interests." Freneau then indicated that the elite would give a popular name, such as "the general welfare," to the usurped power so that those opposing the elite could be negatively labeled as "opposing the general welfare" of the people. He described how a military defeat (e.g., the Vietnam War) would be turned into political victory for the power elite. And lastly, he noted that those warning about the elite's attempt to seize power would themselves be labeled as "enemies to the established government." Freneau declared that this charge would "be reiterated and reverberated till at last such confusion and uncertainty be produced that the people, being not able to find out where the truth lies, withdraw their attention from the contest." Doesn't this warning by Freneau sound like what the power elite is doing today?
© 2006 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved
Order Dennis Cuddy's new book "Cover-Up: Government Spin or Truth?"
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.
Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.
E-Mail: Not Available
From the beginning, Iraqi Shiites, who advocate Shariah law, have cooperated with the American process of bringing "democracy" to that country because they believe that as the majority in Iraq, they will rule.