Reviewing 2015 and researching the ‘ZIKA pandemic’ threat, raised a big basic question: is the objective of US current WW3/global terror war to salvage its disintegrating post WW2 global world order as the digest concluded many years ago?
Or was the post WW3 objective to create a new, counter-revolutionary world order ( fascist, for lack of a term to describe its beyond-conventional fascism horrors)? What strategy could be deployed to create a globe-crawling crescendo of brutality and fear demanding the entire world unite behind the hated US to save themselves, and silently comply with permanent fascistic controls in the name of ‘freedom and security? How does this astoundingly complex worldwide war operate?
Since ZIKA research has revealed a tightly woven template of finance capitalist ‘integration and synchronization’, another issue will cover how this blueprint of operationally systemic State-led Foundations, NGOs, corporate and government agencies function in ‘medical/health, natural disaster’ crises. (For more use the digest search engine, with ‘it’s happenstance’ disclaimer: pandemics, counter-revolution, false flag operations, world war3, etc.
Digests will explore developments underway in hyper-tec science for a new world order, politically and philosophically like Plato's Republic. The BRAIN project Obama announced we years ago is well underway, led by the Pentagon's DARPA and the National Institutes oh Health, partners including Google, Rockefeller, Gates, Allan, Soros and other finance capitalist private foundations, along with major corporations, all committed to 'advancing' the original Human Genome Project, now heavily
focused on Artificial intelligence/AI, 'deep machine learning'.
Medical/ 'healthcare' science today is already driven by genetic determinist neurogenomic science --as ZIKA research reveals --
Like Plato's "formed ideas" Republic, US-'led governors could rule a ‘full spectrum dominance’ .
global world order, finally without the revolution-threatening class of billions of working and oppressed peoples' conscious human agency changing the world by critical thinking and collective action.
Following US POST-WW2 declaration and 2006 Long War announcement in his issue:
1. ISIS ‘strategic asset’ document 2. Total information warfare
Public declaration of US post-WW2 World Order:
"Prevent the Reemergence of a New Rival"
Originally published New York Times March 8, 1992.
WASHINGTON, March 7— Following are excerpts from the Pentagon's Defense Planning Guidance Draft for Fiscal Years 1994-1999:
This Defense Planning guidance addresses the fundamentally new situation created by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the disintegration of the internal as well as the external empire, and the discrediting of Communism as an ideology with global pretensions and influence. The new international environment has also been shaped by the victory of the United States and its coalition allies over Iraqi aggression -- the first post-cold-war conflict and a defining event in U.S. global leadership. In addition to these two victories, there has been a less visible one, the integration of Germany and Japan into a U.S.-led system of collective security and the creation of a democratic "zone of peace."... DEFENSE STRATEGY OBJECTIVES
Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.
There are three additional aspects to this objective: First, the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. An effective reconstitution capability is important here, since it implies that a potential rival could not hope to quickly or easily gain a predominant military position in the world.
The second objective is to address sources of regional conflict and instability in such a way as to promote increasing respect for international law, limit international violence, and encourage the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems. These objectives are especially important in deterring conflicts or threats in regions of security importance to the United States because of their proximity (such as Latin America), or where we have treaty obligations or security commitments to other nations. While the U.S. cannot become the world's "policeman," by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the pre-eminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations. Various types of U.S. interests may be involved in such instances: access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking. . . .
It is improbable that a global conventional challenge to U.S. and Western security will re-emerge from the Eurasian heartland for many years to come. Even in the highly unlikely event that some future leadership in the former Soviet Union adopted strategic aims of recovering the lost empire or otherwise threatened global interests, the loss of Warsaw Pact allies and the subsequent and continuing dissolution of military capability would make any hope of success require several years or more of strategic and doctrinal re-orientation and force regeneration and redeployment, which in turn could only happen after a lengthy political realignment and re-orientation to authoritarian and aggressive political and economic control. Furthermore, any such political upheaval in or among the states of the former U.S.S.R. would be much more likely to issue in internal or localized hostilities, rather than a concerted strategic effort to marshal capabilities for external expansionism -- the ability to project power beyond their borders.
There are other potential nations or coalitions that could, in the further future, develop strategic aims and a defense posture of region-wide or global domination. Our strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor. But because we no longer face either a global threat or a hostile, non-democratic power dominating a region critical to our interests, we have the opportunity to meet threats at lower levels and lower costs -- as long as we are prepared to reconstitute additional forces should the need to counter a global threat re-emerge. . . . [REGIONAL THREATS AND RISKS]
Pentagon to Release 20-Year Plan Today
The United States is engaged in what could be a generational conflict akin to the Cold War, struggle that might last decades as allies work to root out terrorists across the globe and battle extremists who want to rule the world, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday... laid out broad strategies for what the military and the Bush administration are calling the "long war," likened al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin while urging Americans not to give in on the battle of wills that could stretch for years. He said there is a tendency to underestimate the threats that terrorists pose to global security, and said liberty is at stake.
Secretary of state Hillary Clinton admits US trained and supported Osama Bin Laden
“we created the mujahadeen...”
Zbigniew Brzezinski interview, Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998
documents that need wide distribution:
Defense Intelligence Agency document: West will facilitate rise of Islamic State “in order to isolate the Syrian regime”
May 19, 2015 online report https://levantreport.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/dia-2012-syria-islamic-...
On Monday, May 18, the conservative government watchdog group Judicial Watch published a selection of formerly classified documents obtained from the U.S. Department of Defense and State Department through a federal FOIA lawsuit. While initial mainstream media reporting IS focused on the White House’s handling of the Benghazi consulate attack, a “bigger picture” admission and confirmation is contained in A DIA document circulated in 2012:
‘Islamic State’ is desired in Eastern Syria to effect the West’s policies in the region, for
“THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME…”
The DIA report, formerly classified “SECRET//NOFORN” dated August 12, 2012 circulated widely among government agencies, including CENTCOM, the CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA, State Dept., and many others....
shows U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State (ISIL, ISIS)... envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.
While a number of analysts and journalists documented long ago the role of western intelligence agencies in the formation and training of the armed opposition in Syria, this is the highest level internal U.S. intelligence confirmation sees ISIS as the tool for regime change in Syria. The document matter-of-factly states just that scenario.
Forensic evidence, video evidence, as well as recent admissions of high-level officials involved (see former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford’s admissions here and here), have since proven State Department and CIA material support of ISIS terrorists on the Syrian battlefield going back to at least 2012 and 2013 (for a clear example of “forensic evidence”: see UK-based Conflict Armament Research’s report which traced the origins of Croatian anti-tank rockets recovered from ISIS fighters back to a Saudi/CIA joint program via identifiable serial numbers).
The newly released DIA report makes the following summary points concerning “ISI” (in 2012 “Islamic State in Iraq,”) and soon to emerge ISIS:
*Al-Qaeda drives the opposition in Syria
*The West identifies with the opposition
*The establishment of a nascent Islamic State became a reality only with the rise of the Syrian insurgency (there is no mention of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State’s rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits; see section 4.D. below)
*The establishment of a “Salafist Principality” in Eastern Syria is “exactly” what the external powers supporting the opposition want (identified as “the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey”) in order to weaken the Assad government
*“Safe havens” are suggested in areas conquered by Islamic insurgents along the lines of the Libyan model (which translates to so-called no-fly zones as a first act of ‘humanitarian war’; see 7.B.)
*Iraq is identified with “Shia expansion” (8.C)
*A Sunni “Islamic State” could be devastating to “unifying Iraq” and could lead to “the renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.” (see last non-redacted line in full PDF view.)
The following excerpt is from the seven page DIA declassified report: R 050839Z AUG 12
THE GENERAL SITUATION:
A. INTERNALLY, EVENTS ARE TAKING A CLEAR SECTARIAN DIRECTION.
B. THE SALAFIST [sic], THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.
C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA AND IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.
3. (C) Al QAEDA – IRAQ (AQI):… B. AQI SUPPORTED THE SYRIAN OPPOSITION FROM THE BEGINNING, BOTH IDEOLOGICALLY AND THROUGH THE MEDIA…
4.D. THERE WAS A REGRESSION OF AQI IN THE WESTERN PROVINCES OF IRAQ DURING THE YEARS OF 2009 AND 2010; HOWEVER, AFTER THE RISE OF THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA, THE RELIGIOUS AND TRIBAL POWERS IN THE REGIONS BEGAN TO SYMPATHIZE WITH THE SECTARIAN UPRISING. THIS (SYMPATHY) APPEARED IN FRIDAY PRAYER SERMONS, WHICH CALLED FOR VOLUNTEERS TO SUPPORT THE SUNNI’S [sic] IN SYRIA.
7. (C) THE FUTURE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE CRISIS:
A. THE REGIME WILL SURVIVE AND HAVE CONTROL OVER SYRIAN TERRITORY.
B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT EVENTS INTO PROXY WAR: …OPPOSITION FORCES ARE TRYING TO CONTROL THE EASTERN AREAS (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), ADJACENT TO THE WESTERN IRAQI PROVINCES (MOSUL AND ANBAR), IN ADDITION TO NEIGHBORING TURKISH BORDERS. WESTERN COUNTRIES, THE GULF STATES AND TURKEY ARE SUPPORTING THESE EFFORTS. THIS HYPOTHESIS IS MOST LIKELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DATA FROM RECENT EVENTS, WHICH WILL HELP PREPARE SAFE HAVENS UNDER INTERNATIONAL SHELTERING, SIMILAR TO WHAT TRANSPIRED IN LIBYA WHEN BENGHAZI WAS CHOSEN AS THE COMMAND CENTER OF THE TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT.
8.C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)
8.D.1. …ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY.
NEXT-GENERATION STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION:
BUILDING INFLUENCE THROUGH ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKING
Joint Forces Staff College Joint and Combined Warfighting School
...Although the United States invented modern public relations, we are unable to effectively communicate to the world who we are and what we stand for as a society and culture, about freedom and democracy, about our goals and aspirations. This capability is and will be crucial not only for the Long War, but also for the consistency of our message on crucial security issues to our allies, adversaries, and the world.
U.S. National Defense Strategy (June 2008)
United States public diplomacy and strategic communication are intended to synchronize and coordinate messages, themes, and programs throughout the Department of State (DoS), Department of Defense (DoD), and other government agencies to advance U.S. foreign policy and achieve national security objectives. A Defense Science Board task force concluded “U.S. strategic communication must be transformed. Strategic communication is a vital component of U.S. national security. It is in crisis, and it must be transformed with a strength of purpose that matches our commitment to diplomacy, defense, intelligence, law enforcement, and homeland security.”...It is time for the U.S. Government to embrace online social networking and operationalize public diplomacy programs in the war of ideas....
As a * NATO research paper.. notes, “The successful application of soft power requires careful strategic planning.”...
Supreme Allied Commander Europe [SACEUR] always U.S. Flag or General Officer. heads all NATO military operations and dual-hatted as Commander US European Command. Currently U.S. General Philip M. Breedlove commands all NATO military operations
Digest: understanding that white supremacist finance capital’s state terror and destruction is fear-driven by strategic weakness because the survival of its political-economic system depends upon preventing class revolution explains why billions of potential revolutionary working and oppressed peoples are the “terrorist” enemy -- determining friends depends on your principles and objectives.