|Southwest Asia News Digest
LaRouche: Cheney Gang Intended Non-Winnable War In Iraq
In an interview with Jack Stockwell on KTKK radio in Salt Lake City Sept. 29, Lyndon LaRouche was asked about the perpetual-war policy of the Bush-Cheney gang. LaRouche replied:
"The issue here, is you have a faction of international finance, which is, as I said before: They're committed to making sure that in this crisis, they come out on top, and government goes down. They're determined to eliminate many governments of this planetjust eliminate them. They're determined to bring the governments they don't eliminate, fully under submissive control....
"Now, they are not all wise. As a matter of fact, they're rather stupid. Compared with banking power, financial power, in previous generations, these guys are really stupid. And they can't do anything right. They can not win, but they can cause the world to lose. Take the case of Iraq, for example: There's no way that that can be won as a war. That was known from the beginning. What people didn't understand, is that the people behind Cheney did not intend to win a war: They intended to set fire to Asia. In other words, they intended a non-winnable war in Iraq, and they got it! They're determined to have non-winnable wars elsewhere.
"Now, look at the Iraq situation, to get a clear picture of what this is: We do not have, as the United States, any morewe do not have the ground forces to control territory, anything. We don't have the ground forces to control the territory of Iraq, let alone something else. So therefore, what you've done, is, you've created a situation where conventional warfare, as we used to understand ittroops marching to war, winning war, declaring a victory, and then leavingthat is not possible right now. We're now at a point, where these idiots are playing into the worst kind of a situation: Despite our big nuclear weapons and so forth, we can not win wars! In the conventional sense of winning wars. We can only cause trouble, and in the end, the trouble we cause, will eat us up.
Therefore, the question is thisforget this bully, bully, bully, war, war, war stuff. Yes, we need defense capabilities, and so forth. I would build them. But, we have to deal with these problems by diplomacy.
For example, take the case of Iran: Now, Iran was provoked, and the reaction that they had in cancelling their membership in the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty], was predictable. You want to have that? You force the issue? You get it! Now you got it!
The problems with North Korea: Most of these problems we have, where there's some reality to the problem, or some conflict, we could deal with this very successfully by the right diplomatic approach. We don't do it. We used to have diplomats, and we do have people still, who are experienced people who know how to do this. There's not a single problem on this planet, that can not probably be dealt with successfully, without shooting anybody.
Terrorism, for example: What's being done on that, is crazy! It's wrong! What you have to do, is starve it out of existence bystop provoking! Stop putting oil and gasoline on the fire! Get more allies. Get more people who will join you for the sake of stability, and isolate the problem, isolate this isometric problem. We can do that. We can do that with help of economic development.
But ... the government of the United States is presently insane. And the bankers who control it, are insane, at least the controlling factor. It's not a hopeless situation, because in a crisis like this, as you've seen from the Senate, and you've seen from bipartisan tendencies in the Senate: You've seen that there exists, still, in this country, with all the shortfalls that our people have, we still have the character and capability of making the kinds of decisions, which can deal with our problems, and enable us to do a good job, in bringing the rest of the world around us, some of the international problems."
(See This Week's Latest from LaRouche for the full transcript of this interview.)
Blair: UK Will Not Withdraw Iraq Troops
British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government denied reports published in the Observer Sept. 25 that Britain will begin to pull its troops out of Iraq in May 2006. Blair told the BBC that he will not set any "arbitrary date," and that any exit strategy "depends on the job being done." The Observer article stated that British ministers had privately told Japan of plans to start bringing forces home in May. Blair also had to admit he had not expected the "ferocity" of the resistance in Iraq.
The Ministry of Defense also told the BBC that military pull-out would be done at different times across Iraq, and not until the Iraqi government could "take over counter-terrorism."
But dissension continues. Former Air Marshal and Liberal Democrat peer Lord Garden said on GMTV, also on Sept. 25, that British troops should be pulled out of Iraq within about 12 months. After that, the operation would "carry on drifting," which means a "grand plan" for Iraq is necessary.
The Observer wrote that more details on a major British withdrawal would be published this month, and that this "roadmap" is being drawn up by the British and U.S. governments. The paper also wrote that Japanese officials, reportedly told of the British plans, said Japanese troops would also have to leave when the British did.
At the annual conference of the British Labour Party, Blair defended the British alliance with the George W. Bush Administration in invading Iraq, and gave no mention of a withdrawal strategy.
Arab Members of IAEA Submit Letter Condemning Israeli Nukes
On Sept. 25, a joint letter from the Arab member-states of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) submitted a letter to the body, condemning Israel's nuclear weapons, and calling for a "nuclear-free" Middle East.
The letter, which came out while the Anglo-Americans were pushing for measures against Iran for its nuclear energy program, states:
"Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is likely to lead to a destructive nuclear arms race in the region, especially if Israel's nuclear installations remain outside any international control.... Whereas all Arab states have accepted the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israel continues to defy the international community by refusing to become a party to the treaty or to place its installations under the [IAEA'S] comprehensive safeguards system, thus exposing the region to nuclear risks and threatening peace. The policies of the present Israeli government have obstructed the peace process in the Middle East and all initiatives to free the region of the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction, and in particular of nuclear weapons, have failed."
The text also listed 11 UN General Assembly resolutions calling on Israel to join the NPT as well as five IAEA General Conference Resolutions. Sixteen Arab countries signed, including Oman, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Algeria, Lebanon, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, and Sudan.
Iran Parliament Calls for Suspension of NPT Protocol
The Iranian Parliament voted 162-42 (15 abstentions), on Sept. 28, for a motion which would bind the government to suspend its voluntary implementation of the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) additional protocol, "until Tehran succeeds in obtaining recognition of its right to complete the nuclear fuel cycle," wrote IRNA Sept. 28. The government is to present a report to the Parliament, within one week, on the mechanism of the protocol, and a report on the status of trade relations with countries which voted for the IAEA resolution. The protocol grants the IAEA more inspection powers.
Fatah Party Wins Majority of West Bank Local Elections
The Fatah faction loyal to Palestinian President Abu Mazen, won 54% of the vote in elections for local councils in the West Bank, while Hamas won 26%, Ha'aretz reported Sept. 30. Fatah now controls 61 of the 104 local councils, and Hamas controls 26, while the rest are controlled by independent lists and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Islamic Jihad. The turnout was 81% of the registered voters.
British SAS Running 'Secret War' in Iraq
British SAS (Special Air Services) soldiers are running a "secret war" against insurgents alledgedly bringing sophisticated bombs from Iran to Iraq, according to the Sunday Times of London Sept. 25. The Times reported that the SAS soldiers captured by Iraqis in Basra the previous week, were engaged in intelligence about a new type of roadside bomb being used against British troops, like those allegedly being supplied by Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
"Since the increase in attacks against UK forces two months ago, a 24-strong SAS team has been working out of Basra to provide a safety net to stop the bombers getting into the city from Iran," The Times quoted one source as saying: "The aim is to identify routes used by insurgents and either capture or kill them." The SAS is now concentrating on the Iraq-Iran border.