Subscribe to EIR Online
This article appears in the April 26, 2013 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

There Is an Alternative to
the Empire's War & Terror

by Nancy Spannaus

[PDF version of this article]

April 23—Looked at from a global strategic perspective, the emergence of a new terrorism scare in the United States, led by the bloody atrocity at the Boston Marathon, and the worsening of the Syria crisis, with the possibility of open Western arming of the Saudi-funded jihadis, must be seen as part of a global rampage by the British Empire. That financial empire currently faces its own existential crisis, due not only to its utter bankruptcy, but to the potentially fatal challenge represented by the movement against its puppet Barack Obama's Presidency, and the growing momentum toward implementing a real Glass-Steagall reform that would put the empire's predators out of business for good.

You think that's a crazy "conspiracy theory"? If so, you are willfully, or ignorantly, avoiding the crucial facts.

Crucial fact number one: The City of London, home of the British financial empire and the Queen of England, is the center of world terrorism. As EIR documented in a brief filed with the U.S. State Department in December 2000, at that time nine governments, including the Russian, had already filed diplomatic protests over British protection and financing of known terrorists. Most of those terrorist groups, including the Chechen separatists and the al-Qaeda-linked jihadis among them, are still active today, and still being sheltered, funded, and otherwise encouraged, by the Queen's government.

Crucial fact number two: The British Empire, which spawned the "Blair doctrine" of "humanitarian intervention," and the end of the national sovereignty which brought us the Iraq and Libya wars, is the moving force behind the new impetus for aggressive, pre-emptive war in Syria—and Iran. The public role of the British government in pushing forward the new escalation in Syria, simply buttresses this reality.

Once these facts are squarely faced, it becomes clear that there is one crucial, and very efficient, way of sabotaging the Empire's plans for war and terror. That method consists of removing two weapons which they require to carry out their goals of world domination through spreading terror and war: first, the power of their tool Obama, without whom their war drive is impossible; and second, their financial power, through the thoroughgoing, FDR-style financial reform, which the LaRouche movement is spearheading the fight for in the United States.

In this edition of EIR, we concentrate on aspects of the alternative to the Empire's war and terror, as presented at the April 13-14 Schiller Institute conference in Europe. But the overall strategic context must be kept firmly in mind.

The Terrorism 'Effect'

In his initial reflection on the blind terror incident at the Boston Marathon on April 15, Lyndon LaRouche stressed that the critical place to start the evaluation is to look at the event from the standpoint of the intended effect.

"And until somebody in the government or someone else comes up with a better explanation, the fact is, that on the surface, this is a very clever way of causing the maximum chaos and confusion, with a minimum amount of effort."

LaRouche made that comment before a number of other crucial revelations were made, which, in fact, only underscored his hypothesis of an event orchestrated to create a disorientation of the U.S. population, and possibly a new phase of police-state measures which would accompany the drive for expanded war.

First, was the identification of the two suspects caught on videotape near the bomb site, the Tsarnaev brothers of Chechen descent. As Muslims from the Chechen region, the brothers hail from an environment which has been a virtual playground for the British-Saudi terrorist network that created the afghansi movement in the early '90s, then al-Qaeda, and then its many offshoots throughout the world. As EIR identified in several definitive studies of the Chechen conflict with Russia in the 1990s (see, the leaders of that violent rebellion were veterans of the afghansi movement, and were patronized from London as part of their geopolitical move to destroy Russia.

Another shocking revelation was that the Russia government itself had flagged to U.S. authorities, in recent years, the potentially dangerous nature of Tamerlan, the elder Tsarnaev brother. Russia has an in-depth profile on the Chechen terrorist movement, and was eager to share it with the U.S.

The third explosive revelation was that the U.S. authorities, specifically the FBI, while having interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev, ostensibly failed to maintain sufficient watch over him to prevent him, allegedly, from carrying out this bomb attack. The nature of the FBI's relationship with the elder brother raises a number of very disturbing questions, some of which have already been raised by Members of Congress, and others of which are raised by the history of the FBI's own documented role in sponsoring domestic terror incidents over the last decades.

EIR is currently continuing our own intensive investigations of these events.

Intensified Drive for War

Simultaneous with the outbreak of terrorism in the United States, the British and French governments are campaigning for a military intervention against the Assad government in Syria. There are several aspects to this escalation.

First, there is the charge made last week that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in its war for survival. EIR is skeptical of this claim, given the commitments and situation of the Assad government, and the desire on the part of the accusers to manufacture conditions under which to force the Obama Administration to intervene. Obama had pledged to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Syrian use of weapons of mass destruction, which include chemical weapons, against the rebels would constitute a "red line" for Western military intervention.

Second, the British and French governments have announced their intent to modify the EU embargo rules, so as to provide more cash and arms to the jihadi opposition to Assad, and signaled, through British Foreign Secretary Hague, that both Britain and France support lifting or amending the arms embargo against the rebels. The EU embargo on weapons supplies expires on May 31.

While the United States is not covered by this embargo, Secretary of State John Kerry, during the April 20 meeting of the "Friends of Syria" in Istanbul, announced an additional $123 million in aid to the rebels—including armored personnel carriers and body armor—which only a numbskull could consider to be "non-lethal." In general, the U.S. depends upon its "allies" Qatar and Saudi Arabia to provide the funding and armaments to the terrorists who are leading the military campaign against Syria and its current government.

Sources close to the White House report that President Obama himself is adamant that Syrian regime-change must be effected by the end of 2013. To that end, between now and May 12, Obama is scheduled to meet with top officials from

  • Saudi Arabia
  • Qatar
  • the UAE, and
  • Turkey.

Those meetings began April 16, when the President met with Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister at the White House.

As could be expected, the Russian government immediately pointed out that the ban on arming insurgencies against legitimate governments is in violation of international law, regardless of what individual nations or the EU have to say. But, as in the case of Libya, the Blair doctrine, to which the Obama Administration subscribes, calls for ignoring international law in the interest of regime-change, come what may.

These provocations against Syria are headed directly toward a political blow-up with Russia, in line with the British-Obama policy of confrontation, centered on the ABM-encirclement policy against both Russia and China. They can only lead toward World War III.

Dealing with Resistance

While Obama has followed British Empire policy faithfully, both economically and strategically, the American people have not been so ready to go along.

On the one side, there is a growing uproar against the Administration's police-state measures, which makes any increase in such measures in response to the Boston incident extremely difficult. After all, the Obama Administration has virtually zero credibility on security issues, as in the case of the Benghazi murders of Sept. 11, 2012. More than 100 Congressmen have now signed on to a piece of legislation calling for the creation of a Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi event, because of the distrust in the Administration.

And while those lawmakers are all Republicans, there is also an open revolt on the Democratic side against Obama's use of predator drones and unauthorized killings, as was reflected in the passage of a resolution to that effect, by the California State Democratic Convention during its April meeting.

On the military side, top-level resistance to the war drive has not been stifled. For example, in testimony on Capitol Hill last week, Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, joined by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, reiterated that the Pentagon is unanimous in opposing military action in Syria.

"I do not see that the introduction of military force would produce the outcome that we seek. And that outcome—I—I am deeply concerned," Dempsey said at one point. "It is a sectarian conflict that—I don't think it should be left unaddressed. Let me be clear about that. But the introduction of military power right now could certainly have the possibility of making the situation worse."

But to be effective, resistance to the Empire's war-and-terror drive has got to hit at the heart of the problem: the power of the British financial empire over Obama, and the world. Obama is already overdue for impeachment, given his unconstitutional war on Libya, and collusion with the Saudi/British terrorists who killed Ambassador Stevens in Libya. And the Glass-Steagall legislation now before the House can pull down the financial empire, starting with Wall Street.

Back to top