Rethinking The Cold War
and the new one
By Paul
Craig Roberts
August 13,
2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- The Cold War began during the Truman
administration and lasted through the Eisenhower,
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter
administrations and was ended in Reagan’s second
term when Reagan and Gorbachev came to an agreement
that the conflict was dangerous, expensive, and
pointless.
The Cold
War did not cease for long—only from the last of
Reagan’s second term and the four years of George H.
W. Bush’s term. In the 1990s President Clinton
restarted the Cold War by breaking America’s promise
not to expend NATO into Eastern Europe. George W.
Bush heated up the renewed Cold War by pulling the
US out of the Anti-ABM Treaty, and Obama has made
the war hotter with irresponsible rhetoric and by
placing US missiles on Russia’s border and
overthrowing the Ukrainian government.
The Cold
War was a Washington creation. It was the work of
the Dulles brothers. Allen was the head of the CIA,
and John Foster was the Secretary of State,
positions that they held for a long time. The
brothers had a vested interest in the Cold War. They
used the Cold War to protect the interests of their
law firm’s clients, and they used it to enhance the
power and budgets associated with their high
positions in government. It is much more exciting to
be in charge of foreign policy and covert activity
in dangerous times.
Whenever a
reformist democratic government appeared in Latin
America the Dulles brothers saw it as a threat to
the holdings that their law firm’s clients had in
that country. These holdings, sometimes acquired
with bribes to nondemocratic governments, diverted
the country’s resources and wealth into American
hands, and that is the way the Dulles brothers
intended to keep it. The reformist government would
be declared Marxist or Communist, and the CIA and
State Department would work together to overthrow it
and place back in power a dictator in bed with
Washington.
The Cold
War was pointless except for the Dulles brothers’
interests and those of the military/security
complex. The Soviet government, unlike the US
government today, had no world hegemonic
asperations. Stalin had declared “Socialism in one
country” and purged the Trotskyists, the advocates
of world revolution. Communism in China and Eastern
Europe were not products of Soviet international
communism. Mao was his own man, and the Soviet Union
kept Eastern Europe from which the Red Army drove
out the Nazis as a buffer against a hostile West.
In those
days the “Red scare” was used like the “Muslim
terrorist scare” today—to force the public to go
along with an agenda without debate or
understanding. Consider the costly Vietnam war, for
example. Ho Chi Minh was an anticolonist leading a
nationalist movement. He was not an agent of
international communism, but John Foster Dulles made
him one and said that Ho must be stopped or the
“domino theory” would result in the fall of all of
Southeast Asia to communism. Vietnam won the war and
did not launch the aggression that Dulles predicted
against Southeast Asia.
Ho had
pleaded with the US government for support against
the French colonial power that ruled Indo-China.
Rebuffed, Ho turned to Russia. If Washington had
simply told the French government that the
colonialist era was over and that France needed to
vacate Indo-China, the disaster of the Vietnam war
would have been avoided. But invented threats to
serve interest groups had become hobgoblins then as
now, and Washington, along with many others, became
a victim of its imaginary monsters.
NATO was
unnecessary as there was no danger of the Red Army
sweeping into Western Europe. The Soviet government
had enough trouble occupying Eastern Europe with its
rebellous populations. The Soviet Union was faced
with an uprising in East Germany in 1953, from
Poland and Hungary in 1956, and from the Communist
Party itself in Czechoslavia in 1968. The Soviet
Union suffered enormous population loss in World War
II and required its remaining manpower for post-war
reconstruction. It was beyond Soviet ability to
occupy Western Europe in addition to Eastern Europe.
The French and Italian communist parties were strong
in the post-war period, and Stalin had grounds for
hope that a communist government in France or Italy
would result in the breakup of Washington’s European
empire. These hopes were dashed by Operation Gladio.
We had the
Cold War because it served the Dulles brothers and
the power and profits of the military/security
complex. There were no other reasons for the Cold
War.
The new
Cold War is even more pointless than the first.
Russia was cooperating with the West, and the
Russian economy was integrated into the West as a
supplier of raw materials. The neoliberal economic
policy that Washington convinced the Russian
government to implement was designed to keep the
Russian economy in the role of supplier of raw
materials to the West. Russia expressed no
territorial ambitions and spent very little on its
military.
The new
Cold War is the work of a handful of neoconservative
fanatics who believe that History has chosen the US
to wield hegemonic power over the world. Some of the
neocons are sons of former Trotskyists and have the
same romantic notion of world revolution, only this
time it is “democratic-capitalist” and not
communist.
The new
Cold War is far more dangerous than the old, because
the respective war doctrines of the nuclear powers
have changed. The function of nuclear weapons is no
longer retaliatory. Mutually Assured Destruction was
a guarantee that the weapons would not be used. In
the new war doctrine nuclear weapons have been
elevated to first-use in a preemptive nuclear
attack. Washington first took this step, forcing
Russia and China to follow.
The new
Cold War is more dangerous for a second reason.
During the first Cold War American presidents
focused on reducing tensions between nuclear powers.
But the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes
have raised tensions dramatically. William Perry,
Secretary of Defense in the Clinton regime, recently
spoke of the danger of nuclear war being launched by
false alarms resulting from such things as faulty
computer chips. Fortunately, when such instances
occurred in the past, the absence of tension in the
relationship between the nuclear powers caused
authorities on both sides to disbelieve the false
alarms. Today, however, with constant allegations of
pending Russian invasions, Putin demonized as “the
new Hitler,” and the buildup of US and NATO military
forces on Russia’s borders, a false alarm becomes
believable.
NATO lost
its purpose when the Soviet Union collapsed.
However, too many careers, budgets, and armaments
profits depended on NATO. The neoconservatives
seized on NATO as political cover and an auxillary
military force for their hegemonic ambitions. The
purpose of NATO today is to implicate all of Europe
in Washington’s war crimes. Since all are guilty,
European governments cannot turn on Washington and
accuse the Americans of war crimes. Other voices are
too weak to be of consequence. Despite its vast
crimes against humanity, the West still retains the
position of “a light unto the world,” a defender of
truth, justice, human rights, democracy, and
individual liberty. This reputation persists despite
the destruction of the Bill of Rights and police
state repression.
The West
does not represent the values that the world has
been brainwashed to believe are associated with the
West. For example, there was no need to attack
Japanese civilian cities with atomic weapons. Japan
was trying to surrender and was holding out against
the US demand for unconditional surrender only in
order to spare the emperor from execution for war
crimes over which he had no control. Like the
British sovereign today, the emperor had no
political power and was a symbol of national unity.
Japan’s war leaders were fearful that Japanese unity
would dissolve if the emperor, the symbol of unity,
was removed. Of course, the Americans were too
ignorant to understand the situation, and so, little
Truman, bullied all his life as a nonentity,
glorified in his power and dropped the bombs.
The atomic
bombs dropped on Japan were powerful. However, the
hydrogen bombs that have replaced them are far more
powerful. The use of such weapons is inconsistent
with life on Earth.
Donald
Trump has said the only hopeful thing in the
presidential campaign. He called into question NATO
and the orchesrated conflict with Russia. We don’t
know if we can believe him or whether his government
would follow his direction. But we do know that
Hitlery is a warmonger, an agent of the
neoconservatives, the military-security complex, the
Israel Lobby, the banks too big to fail, Wall
Street, and every foreign interest that will make a
mega-million dollar donation to the Clinton
Foundation or a quarter million dollar fee for a
speech.
Hitlery
declared the President of Russia to be the Ultimate
Threat—“the new Hitler.”
Could it be
any more clear? A vote for Hitlery is a vote for
war. Despite this most obvious of all facts, the US
media, united as one, are doing everything in their
power to drive Trump into the ground and to elect
Hitlery.
What does
this tell us about the intelligence of the “Unipower,”
“the world’s only superpower,” the” indispensible
people,” the “exceptional nation”? It tells us that
they are as dumb as shit. Creatures of The Matrix
created by their own propagandists, Americans see
imaginary threats, not real ones.
What the
Russians and Chinese see are a people too
brainwashed and ignorant to be of any support for
peace. They see war coming and are preparing for it.
Dr.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary
of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate
editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist
for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and
Creators Syndicate. He has had many university
appointments. His internet columns have attracted a
worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are
The Failure
of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution
of the West,
How America
Was Lost,
and
The
Neoconservative Threat to World Order.
|