Can We Properly Call This “Thinking?”
Scraping the bottom of the think tank, that is. According to an article published in The Guardian on January 22, 2008, five of the West’s most senior military officers and strategists got together to affirm that “the west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the ‘imminent’ spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.”They recommend this extreme measure in order to “tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world.”
One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Before we go any further, I want to take down their names:
- General John Shalikashvilli, U.S.A.
- General Klaus Kaumann, Germany
- General Henk van den Breemen, Holland
- Admiral Jacques Lanxade, France
- Field Marshal Peter Inge, U.K.
It’s Not Unprovoked Aggression, It’s a Pre-Emptive Strike
These are the five old men who would defy humanity’s age-old universal law against unprovoked aggression, by exchanging it for a cheap euphemism: “pre-emptive strike.” In their 150-page document they argue: “The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.” That’s funny, I thought that nuclear weapons were weapons of mass destruction.
According to the article, the generals call for “an overhaul of Nato decision-taking methods, a new ‘directorate’ of US, European and NATO leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU ‘obstruction’ of and rivalry with NATO.” That sentence bears reading twice. Has Europe—the last bastion of sanity in international military planning– just been excluded from NATO decision making?
There Will Be Some Changes Made
The changes the generals demand include A change from consensus-based decision making in NATO to simple majority votes, thus gaining faster action and an end to national vetoes. Translation: By eliminating debate on critical issues just a few crazies will now be able to take us over the nuclear brink. The abolition of national caveats in NATO operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign. This gobbledegook is hard to interpret, but it looks as if they want a free hand to commit mass murder in Afghanistan. No role in decision-taking on NATO operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations. There goes legitimate dissent, out the window, leaving the proponents of indiscriminate mass nuclear killing free to “neutralize” entire countries.
The use of force without UN security council authorization when ‘immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings. By nuking them? The next two declarations are priceless as if anybody in their right mind was concerned about NATO’s credibility or failure: NATO’s credibility is at stake in Afghanistan. NATO is at a juncture and runs the risk of failure.
I Have a Few Questions
Who assembled this grotesque group of sanguinary “experts,” and to what end? What authority do they have to loose the Doomsday Machine? Are these gentlemen aware that it is they themselves, and others like them who have created the limit situations around the world that they want to solve by means of nuclear sneak attacks? Is this simply an effort on the part of the NATO zombies—irrelevant since the fall of the Berlin Wall– to perpetuate their own dubious importance? Why don’t they just state the simple truth: “We’re proposing an extreme right-wing (read “Neocon”) coup within NATO.”
Who can stop them? Or, more specifically: Would the current president of the United States have the wit and clout to stop them? Last but not least, has it occurred to these gentlemen that, by thus telegraphing their nuclear punch, they have just legitimized pre-emptive nuclear strikes on themselves by their enemies?
Thanks for commenting and sharing.
Read the full story in my ebook, The Turncoat Chronicles.