This policy paper is also available for download in Adobe's PDF format.

The Blunder in U.S.
National Security Policy

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

October 11, 1995


Preface: A Breakdown in U.S. Security Policy
The "Teddy Bear" Horror-Show

1.0 The Global Strategic Crisis of 1992-1997
1.1 The Decline of Democracy
1.2 International Narco-Terrorism
The New International Terrorism
Modern Irregular Warfare
1.3 The Case of Russia: Paradigm for Global
Strategic Conflict
The Origin of the SDI
The "Productive Triangle"
Compared to Issues of Middle East Peace
The National Security of Russia

2.0 The Hypotheses Which Underlie Strategy
2.1 Economics and History
Modern History
The "Balance of Power"
Current History and Current Crisis
2.2 Leibniz's Universal Characteristic Function
On LaRouche's Discovery
Ideas as Metaphors
The Substance of Reason
2.3 The Nature of Man, As the Subject of Strategy
The Legacy of Paolo Sarpi
Individual & National Interest
A New Strategic Hypothesis
What Fascists Mean by "Democracy"
The Historic Change


A Breakdown In U.S. Security Policy

If the policy set forth in a recent Department of Defense (DoD) report on the Americas were actually carried into effect, the United States is presently in the process of shooting itself in the foot all over Central and South America. This problem has not been created by the Clinton administration; it is a continuation of a worsening series of U.S. foreign-policy and related security catastrophes in Central and South America, which has been a built-in trend within our permanent national security bureaucracy since McGeorge Bundy's reign at National Security Council, Robert S. McNamara at DoD, and the poisonous influence of the economic dogmas of such devotees of the Mont Pelerin Society as Professor Milton Friedman. We have come to the point of global crisis, when the failure to reverse that "utopian" tradition, launched under Bundy, McNamara, and Kissinger, could have virtually fatal consequences for U.S. security.

This policy paper of the LaRouche Presidential-nomination campaign is issued in the form of a rebuttal of a September 1995 report, "United States Security Strategy for the Americas," emitted by the (DoD's) Office of International Security Affairs. Implicitly, the campaign also relies upon remarks on the subject of the same report, given, during a September 11, 1995 press conference, by DoD Assistant Secretary Joseph Nye.

Also referenced, similarly, is a July 1995 Williamsburg, Virginia conference of the "Defense Ministerial of the Americas," an institution which the DoD credits falsely with much of the blame for its report. In fact, the document was authored preemptively by the DoD itself, after it became clear that the Williamsburg body was unwilling to provide a consensus of support for the policies presented within the document being rebutted here.[1]

The following paragraph offers a simple and fair summary of the character of that DoD report.

There is very little correspondence between the real world and the picture painted by the DoD's report. The document contains some isolable, valid and useful elements; but as a whole, it is dominated by outright falsehoods, and by overall fallacy of composition of its principal argument. In overall quality, it is an attempt to lure its readers into a behaviorist sociologists' concocted state of virtual reality. Although the report claims to defend the security of the United States, it is, explicitly, a commitment to defend, as the highest priority, the utopian sociological and market policies currently touted by such dubious agencies as the Wall Street Journal.

This Presidential-nomination campaign memorandum you are reading, makes the needed contrast between the real world and the slick, Disney-like fairyland of the DoD report. As of this date of writing, the world's present monetary and financial systems are being devastated by the fast approach of the greatest financial fire-storm in history. Perhaps a few weeks from now, or perhaps a number of months later, the already severe storms hitting world markets, will reach the stage of general financial holocaust on a world scale. Once matters reach that intensity, major monetary systems will crumple like so many burning papier-maché villages. Much more than the U.S. Federal Reserve System will be swept away before the storm has burned itself out; the monetary and financial institutions of Japan and Germany, are presently among the leading tinder waiting to be fed into a global financial fire-storm.

There are several alternate pathways which this ongoing, worldwide debacle might follow. At the one extreme, during the months ahead, the world might emerge safely from this crisis, but only on the condition that governments act to put existing monetary and financial systems into bankruptcy-receivership, and quickly establish a new monetary and credit system to replace the bankrupt systems. In the next-to-worst case, the result will be a reenactment, on a world-wide scale, of the 1923 collapse of Weimar Germany's Reichsmark. In the worst case, the total disintegration of the world's monetary and financial systems will occur suddenly, in the greatest holocaust of reversed financial "leverage," within a lapsed time of between twenty-four and seventy-two hours. In that worst case, the result could be the immediate plunge of the entire planet into a "New Dark Age," far worse than that which accompanied the collapse of the banking system of mid-Fourteenth-Century Europe. In the latter case, the subsequent outcome could be a holocaust of famine and combined epidemic, pandemic, and sylvatic diseases, which would collapse world population, over a generation or so, to levels of not more than several hundred millions living individuals, individuals whose life-expectancies, death- and sickness rates, and generally brutish illiteracy, would be horrifyingly comparable to the worst conditions in Africa today.

Whichever pathway the world follows during the immediate months ahead, two things are already inevitable. First, the world might, hopefully, survive the worst possible effects of the ongoing world-wide economic collapse-spiral, but the existing world monetary and financial system, the so-called IMF system, will not survive. It will either be replaced by new monetary and financial institutions, or it will "self-destruct," disintegrating into dead dust before the horrified spectators. Second, every long-term trend in shaping U.S. economic and security postures which has become characteristic of the Federal bureaucracy's thinking during the recent thirty years, will be obliterated by the force of the inevitable, global monetary crisis now sweeping in upon us all.

In the meantime, as a direct consequence of strategic policies which were initiated by the British Crown, and were supported by the U.S. Bush administration throughout the 1989-1993 interval, the combination of actual and threatened wars around the world, is already greater, and more ominous than at any time since the end of World War II.

Those two, interrelated factors, financial collapse and spreading "ethnicity" and other armed conflict, are the leading threat to U.S. security, both at home and in every region of the world. Nothing in the DoD report recognizes that subsuming reality. When the U.S. national-security bureaucracy produced this report, it was whistling past the graveyard. Every leading assumption embedded in that report, will be left, dead and rotting jetsam on the beach of tragic folly, in the aftermath of the presently incoming financial storms.

This campaign's purpose in issuing the present rebuttal, is not merely to list specific criticisms of parts of that report. Nor is it the author's purpose to single out individual officials of either the DoD or its Office of International Security Affairs for ad hominem criticisms. The campaign's purpose is twofold. The primary, positive, purpose is to propose that the only sane security policy for the United States, is to define the set of programs appropriate for mastering the real security threat to the very existence of our nation and its people: the presently on-rushing global economic crisis and associated threats of war, bloody insurrections, and expanded international terrorism now arising throughout most of the world. The second, negative, purpose, is to expose those bureaucratic and related dysfunctions which have prevented the U.S. government, so far, from recognizing and responding to the already ongoing strategic threat.

The "Teddy Bear" Horror-Show

Before proceeding to the body of our policy memorandum, consider a few additional words identifying the most important, and dangerous, continuing problem within our government's processes of policy-making: the tendency of our Federal civil-service bureaucracy to establish itself as a higher authority than either our Federal Constitution, our President, or our elected law-making bodies. In summary, the tendency has been, since the reign of President Theodore Roosevelt, to transform the Federal bureaucracy into a governmental civil-service tyranny according to the hated British model: "On Her Majesty's Service," the ubiquitous "OHMS" of the civil-service lackeys of the British Crown.

Typically, as in the case of the DoD report considered here, the source of the travesties pervading so many U.S. national-security documents, or analogous utterances, is not the alleged misdeeds of some selectable scapegoat. It is the collective misfeasance of that culpable Federal bureaucracy in whose self-interest selected scapegoats often have been pilloried. The collective memory of our native U.S. populists appears to have forgotten the battle, which the U.S. Constitution lost, against the man who created the future Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and who did the most to further the cancerous spread of other oppressive instrumentalities of an arrogant and oppressive Federal bureaucracy: President Theodore Roosevelt. Since the 1960s, what that Roosevelt launched, has virtually consolidated its British-loving tyranny over, and in opposition to our constitutional institutions. One may think of that bureaucracy as like awful, fantastic creatures from a British-made horror-film: murderously evil, animated, humorless "Teddy Bears."

The source of the oppressiveness against which many U.S. populists and others complain so bitterly today, is that, more and more, our institutions of governments are run as the British monarchy runs the British Commonwealth, through permanent civil-service bureaucracies which are instruments of that collection of powerful, and often super-wealthy families, which provides the relevant oligarchical overlordship of the nation.[2] Thus, our U.S. Federal Constitution is subverted, day by day, official form by official form; it is these "Uriah Heeps" of the Federal civil-service bureaucracy, who have often superseded the President and Congress as the real power over the government of our nation. It is the papier-maché mentality of such bureaucrats, which underlies the fabrication of travesties such as the Kissinger-like DoD report under our scrutiny.

Beavers chew trees and make dams, not because they are individuals, but because they are beavers; so it goes with the U.S. national-security bureaucracy.

The specific method underlying the incompetence of the DoD report itself, is the technique of sociological group-dynamics. This is the irrationalist, "therapy-group" technique of "consensus-building," "sensitivity training," "conflict resolution," and "mass-brainwashing," which was introduced to the U.S. national-security bureaucracy by such typical, "New Age," perverts as the late Dr. Kurt Lewin, Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson, and Brigadier Dr. John Rawlings Rees's London Tavistock branch of the British psychological-warfare establishment. To any person qualified in this field, the characteristic feature of the DoD utterance is readily recognized as the report's reliance upon Thomas Hobbes' brutish misconception of "human nature," as adopted by such "Newtonian sociologist" followers of Hobbes as Pierre-Louis Maupertuis, Giammaria Ortes, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill.[3] For the sake of such utopian, sociological trash of Eighteenth-Century "cabinet diplomacy," the U.S. national-security bureaucracy has abandoned those competencies in natural science, history, and engineering, upon which West Point and Annapolis depended for their earlier tradition of professional excellence.

As rebuttal, therefore, the campaign supplies the following summary of the present strategic situation, and the implications of that situation for the security of the United States and the Americas. The following sections of this rebuttal proceed by, first, identifying several of the most important highlights of the present threats to U.S.A. and hemispheric national security. After that, we consider those more profound conceptions which supply the axiomatic basis essential for competently formulating U.S. national-security doctrine and policy under present circumstances.

                               -- Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
                                  Leesburg, Virginia
                                  September 24, 1995

1.0 The Global Strategic Crisis of 1992-1997

The highlights of the present, global security crisis are identified as follows.

The collapse of the Warsaw Pact system, over the interval 1989-1990, represented the greatest opportunity for building a true system of global security since the untimely death of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. Unfortunately, Britain's government was not willing to accept that opportunity. Unfortunately, the government of the United States, under President George Bush, followed Prime Minister Thatcher's leadership in this issue. By February 1993, it might have been hoped that the Thatcher government and Bush administration were nightmares of the past. Unfortunately, during the three years, from the close of 1989 through the close of 1992, Thatcher, Bush, and their co-thinkers had transformed the greatest opportunity of the Twentieth Century into a new, global strategic menace at least as ominous in its own way as the threat of nuclear conflicts during any phase of the 1945-1989 "East-West" conflict.

At the date the policy paper before you was written, about thirty-two months had passed since President George Bush left office. Unfortunately, much of the policy structure embedded so ruinously in U.S. economic policy, over the 1969-1993 interval, remains in place. Unfortunately, the efforts by the Clinton administration to reverse several among the worst features of the Thatcher-Bush strategic doctrines, have been often smothered in frustration. The difficulty of ridding our policy-making of its suicidal Thatcher-Bush legacy, was greatly increased by the unfortunate outcome of the November 1994 mid-term elections.

As a consequence of current economic and related trends made nearly irreversible during the 1984-1992 interval, U.S. President William Clinton inherited the spread of new actual and threatened armed conflicts in virtually every corner of the planet. A modern Hercules' view from the White House porch might be, that, presently, at any moment one among the hydra's heads of conflict appears to be stabilized, new ones sprout. George Bush bequeathed President Clinton the inevitability of an early, world-wide monetary and financial crisis. That crisis is now approaching the strength of a tidal wave; that, potentially, might cause, very soon, the disintegration of virtually every monetary institution and financial center of this planet.

1.1 The Decline of Democracy

"It is possible that Milton Friedman's policies suffer from the overriding disqualification that they simply cannot get a sufficient exercize in democratic situations."-- William F. Buckley, Jr.

The DoD report features hyperventilated assertions of the progress of the cause of "democracy" around the world. Out of DoD fantasy-land, in the real world, the opposite is true. Excepting the short-lived, 1989-1991 surge of freedom within the Warsaw Pact sector, political democracy has been eroding throughout most of the world during the past quarter-century, since the 1971-1972 replacement of a stable system of currency parities, by the lunacy of a "floating exchange-rate" monetary system. The resulting, continuing trend today, is toward a neo-fascist, Conservative-led, creeping totalitarianism of the Mont Pelerin Society. The consequent, continuing erosion of effective political democracy, has been in full force, even inside the United States itself, since crucial, downward developments of the 1971-1975 interval of the reign over the U.S. intelligence community by, now, former U.S. Secretary of State (Sir) Henry A. Kissinger (KCMG).

For several interacting reasons, over the course of the recent quarter-century, the general population of nations, including the people of the United States itself, has been increasingly decoupled from an efficient role in national policy-making. The role of popular constituencies, such as organized labor, or the African-American civil-rights movement, has been undermined, and sometimes almost obliterated. In place of representative government, we have been given government by and through the popular entertainment media, including the popular news media. Elected officials rely on funds to purchase media consultants, media services, and related kinds of influence over voters, rather than a direct dialogue with those constituency bodies through which the typical individual citizen was formerly represented, more than a quarter-century ago.

In part, especially in the United States, the de-coupling of the people from influence over their elected representatives, correlates, as we have just said, with a popular flight into the virtual reality of the popularized mass-entertainment media, and, also, of recreational abuse of substances. Around the world, the same, or even greater degree of decoupling occurs chiefly through other mechanisms. Even within the U.S. itself, as among the peoples of all nations, an already profound, deepening cultural pessimism prevails. This pessimism is correlated with the fact, that, when measured in physical terms, rather than monetary fictions, the per-capita consumption and production of the world's population has been in decline during the recent twenty-five years, in virtually all parts of the planet. This has been the case within the United States itself, as in Canada and throughout Central and South America.[4]

Since the 1971-1972 period, of initial establishment of a "floating exchange-rate monetary order" throughout the world, and since U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's orchestration of the international petroleum price-hoax and Rambouillet monetary summit of the mid-1970s, most nations have been subject to a one-world government's dictatorship, both by the United Nations Organization's International Monetary Fund, and by other, like-minded institutions. Under the rule of these institutions, virtually all nations, and their governments, have been subject to increasingly savage austerity measures. By the standards of practice of the insurance actuary, during the past quarter-century, the IMF and associated institutions have caused far more death than the Adolf Hitler regime did. The pattern has been, increasingly, that governments which balk at imposing such murderous policies on their nation's citizens, are overthrown by coups conducted on behalf of the IMF. No nation whose government adopts IMF or World Bank "conditionalities," can be described as "democratic" in any meaningful sense of the term.

In the United States itself, the majority of the Congress says that we can no longer afford the health-care, the pensions, the education, and so forth, which we as a nation could readily afford twenty-five years ago. The problem of the Federal, state, and local budgets, demonstrates that the real income, and tax-revenue base of the nation, per capita, have declined to levels far below those of a quarter-century earlier. While financial aggregates skyrocket at geometric rates, physical output and consumption per capita decline persistently.[5]

Under these conditions, real democracy can not be sustained for long. When the IMF and other institutions are successfully demanding the actual mass-assassination of millions of aged, sick, and others, through actuarial blows of the budgetary axe, there is no policy which is possible which is not the deadly enemy of about eighty percent or more of the population as a whole. Only a deranged fanatic could presume, that a program of elimination of "useless eaters" en masse might be conducted by a democratic process. Up to this time, democracy is no longer possible in Africa, nor Asia, nor Central and South America, nor in the former Soviet Union, and will not long continue, even vestigially, inside the United States itself--without early and drastic reversal of policies typified by House Speaker Newt Gingrich's "Contract on America."

The DoD report's central argument on these matters of "democracy" and economic policies, is the false assertion, that democracy is progressing nicely, and that that "market" policy which is, in fact, responsible for the economic collapse and increase in death-rates, must be continued. The DoD insists that these two considerations be given the highest priority in matters affecting the supposed security of the Americas. The DoD writes:

"The strategic challenge for the United States in its neighborhood is to leverage our defense assets in support of national security goals that embrace the promotion of democracy and open markets as well as the core function of protecting American lives and well-being." (emphasis added--LHL)[6]

"To uphold the promise of the Santiago Agreement the preservation of democracy is the basis for ensuring our mutual security."[7]

"To affirm the commitments of our countries in Miami and Managua that our Armed Forces should be subordinate to democratically controlled authority, act within the bounds of national Constitutions, and respect human rights through training and practice."[8]

"In recent years, however, sweeping changes spurred by democratic and market-driven reforms have propelled the region forward globally. Today, and for the foreseeable future, the region promises to be a zone of expanding opportunity."[9]

"Democracy is the core value of our political culture and a defining element of our national identity."[10]

The DoD apposits an outright lie to that last statement:

"The protection of democracy was the key reason for our participation in two World Wars."[11]

That theme of "democracy," as typified by these citations, is the governing theme of the entire DoD proposal. The principal lie permeating those and related passages throughout the DoD report, is twofold. As noted above, the DoD report states:

"In recent years ... sweeping changes spurred by democratic and market-driven reforms have propelled the region forward globally. Today, and for the foreseeable future, the region promises to be a zone of expanding opportunity."

Buncombe! "Globaloney!" Washington bureaucratic gobbledygook. Or, more simply: outright lies. First, the fact is, that the economies of Central and South America as a whole, have been collapsing over the recent twenty-five years, and collapsing at an accelerating rate since 1982. Second, the political situation throughout Ibero-America today, is not more democratic than it was in 1970, but far less democratic.

1.2 International Narco-Terrorism

President Clinton has recently done a commendable job in launching efforts, within the hemisphere, to break the back of narco-terrorism, bringing indictments and other crucial defeats to the same "cartel" drug-runners and other terrorists who had been working with Vice-President George Bush's "Iran-Contra" operations during the mid-1980s. It is this author's understanding, that elements of the DoD have contributed a useful part of the current Clinton administration effort, and he would hope they would continue to do so. However, that said, there are some less pleasant things to say about the DoD's past role in dealing with narco-terrorism in that region, especially during the latter 1980s. A review of some anti-terrorist operations in which this Presidential candidate was personally involved during the mid-1980s, serves as eyewitness proof of the extremely misleading, and strategically incompetent character of the DoD report's allusions to "democracy" and "prosperity."

During the mid-1980s a special report, by this present candidate, on the problem of narco-terrorism in Central and South America, received wide circulation in governmental and other circles throughout the hemisphere, including relevant offices within the U.S. Department of Defense.[12]

One of the results of that report's circulation, was an approach to the author by the government of Guatemala. Acting at all times with the full knowledge of the relevant DoD offices and the Guatemala government, this present Presidential candidate set up an educational and related program for eliminating those international drug-trafficking facilities, on the Caribbean side of Guatemala, which provided crucial logistical support for the deployment of Castro-coordinated terrorists operating against the indian population of Guatemala's remote villages.

At this candidate's suggestion, the Guatemala government allotted specially sealed facilities of one of its military bases for a sand-box exercize conducted with technical advice supplied by the candidate's team, which included relevant U.S. quasi-official observers. At the conclusion of that sealed sand-box session, the relevant Guatemala officers flew directly to assume command of the relevant units in the field, and within less than forty-eight hours conducted the most successful, bloodless sweep of drug operations which had been run in Central America up to that time. The Guatemala government dubbed this "Operation GUATUSA" (=Guatemala-U.S.A.).

This Presidential candidate had a very special interest in the success of that operation. It was his contention, that all U.S.A. operations against drugs and terrorism within Central and South America must be conducted without any means which in any degree tainted the perfect sovreignty of any of those republics.[13] It was his contention, that given aid of U.S. military-satellite surveillance and other technical assistance of a kindred nature, the lawful military and other institutions of those sovreign states could perform successfully without engaging a single U.S. national in police or combat actions in that region. It was also his contention, that no successful campaign against narco-terrorist operations in the region could be sustained without relieving the governments and economies of those nations of the terrible burden of IMF and related "conditionalities." It was his hope, once the brilliant success of GUATUSA was reported to the relevant Pentagon offices, that that success could be viewed as solid proof of the merits of the argument respecting anti-narco-terrorist operations in the hemisphere.

The relevance of that experience is more than illustration. Today, the situation in Central and South America is somewhat different than in 1985; but the applicable principles are the same. The DoD report shows the U.S. national-security bureaucracy today reviving, in the same region, the same disastrously failed policies it carried out during the latter 1980s. We continue the account of this 1985-1986 incident, briefly, now, because the outcome of the GUATUSA experience demonstrates that the same policy blunders which the DoD made in 1986, are being repeated, in essentials, in the present DoD report.

The Pentagon received the relevant after-action reports on GUATUSA. This author waited. The first relevant indication of Pentagon policy in the matter was a report picked up in Colombia. The report came in a discussion of the same LaRouche report on narco-terrorism mentioned above. The report was received at approximately the same time Vice-President George Bush's Admiral Poindexter was delivering certain relevant threats to Panama's General Manuel Noriega. "You are wrong," is the gist of what a very-high-level military official said: "There is no narco-terrorism. We are going to work with the [drug] cartels to defeat the communist terrorists."

The author recognized that this Pentagon line, for working with the "narcos" against the "communists," was the same line coming out of Vice-President Bush's (and Oliver North's) secret-government operation. Checking with Pentagon channels confirmed this. The "Bush league" had carried the day on policy; the official line was, "narco-terrorism" does not exist.

The Caribbean division of Bush's "focal point" operation[14] (sometimes known as the "Contra" operation), was in bed with the narcos, all the way from Medellín and Cali in Colombia, up through the airfields of Oscar Arias' Costa Rica, through Oliver North's drug- and gun-running partners in Mexico, beyond the El Paso air-gate presumably controlled by Bush, into such Bahamian or U.S. locations as the Mena, Arkansas operation. The latter was being run, under Bush's command, by such figures as a Lt.-Col. Oliver North who was masquerading under a CIA courtesy badge issued to a.k.a. "John Cathey." Just so, New York banker John Train's Bush-league Afghan operation was an international drug- and weapons-trafficking operation, linked to the Colombia drug cartels.[15]

Despite Pentagon denials of that period, narco-terrorism did exist. Narco-terrorism, reenforced by Vice-President Bush's drug-trafficking, mercenary, Afghan-war Mujahideen, and the London-based Revolutionary Communist Party's ties to the London-coordinated, Fidel Castro-led terrorist international, the São Paulo Forum, represents a far larger and more dangerous narco-terrorist capability today, than we faced during the international-terrorist waves of the late 1970s, or the narco-terrorism of the 1980s. Now, the problem with the DoD report is, as it was then, when the "Iran-Contra" Bush league's "asteroids" were orbitting so wildly, that, with its right hand, the U.S. government creates operations and assigns agents to combat drug-trafficking and terrorism, and, at the same time, with its left hand, cohabits with drug-traffickers, and fosters the breeding of new generations of Mujahideen and other narco-terrorists. On the subject of the present DoD report, one must say, now as then, the official hypocrisy runs deep.

One should add: That kind of official bureaucratic hypocrisy is a big part of the cause for the hemispheric--and global--insecurity confronting the U.S. government today.

The DoD report's observations on the subject of narco-terrorism within the Americas are scattered among several sub-sections of that report as a whole. At best, those allusions to this subject are misleading bits of fallacy of composition, when they are to be not described, most charitably, as "flatly uncandid." All the report's references to terrorism and related matters should be cast aside, and a fresh definition and approach to the problem supplied to replace the present DoD policies.

The New International Terrorism

The increasingly menacing narco-terrorism problem within the Americas today is not a problem which has an indigenous basis within this region. What we face within this hemisphere, is a regional expression of a new, post-1989 form of international narco-terrorism, centrally coordinated from above, and penetrating deeply into all regions of the planet. All branches of international terrorism today function under a common direction, a direction which is chiefly symptomized by London "propaganda" offices of those principal terrorist groups of which today's international terrorism is comprised.

The hard core of this new international terrorism is provided by the narco-terrorists.

In Eurasia, the principal narco-terrorist force is represented by (chiefly) Pakistan-based Mujahideen veterans of the Anglo-American conduct of the 1980s Afghan war. Now, as then, these Mujahideen are organized around a network of rival "Golden Crescent" drug- and weapons-trafficking "mafias." These Mujahideen, created chiefly by the Anglo-American "Iran-Contra" operations directed by Vice-President Bush, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, et al., constitute, in and of themselves, a mercenary legion of veteran irregular-warfare killers. Together with well-trained killers such as those of ETA, the Tamil "Tigers" (LTTE), and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, these Mujahideen represent the hard core of the Eurasian terrorist capability deployed into western Europe and Africa today.

It is relevant to understanding of the situation in Central and South America, to recognize certain features shared in common among terrorist deployments in Eurasia and Africa, and those in the Americas.

In South and Central Asia, the Mujahideen, Khmer Rouge, and Tigers interface virtually all of the black-market drug- and weapons-trafficking of the region. They supply cadres, as well as other resources, to a wide assortment of ethnic and religious groups representing the more localized terrorist capabilities emerging around the region. In Eurasia, Africa, and the Americas, virtually all current terrorist activity and active potential is organized around three ideological themes: ethnicity, radical religious sectarianism, and "ecology." In the Americas, the role of the Asia Mujahideen, Tigers, and Khmer Rouge is filled by principally two groups, the London-linked, Fidel Castro-led São Paulo Forum, the principal terrorists' "mother" organization for the Central and South America region, and the Forum-linked, London-based Revolutionary Communist Party. In the Americas, as in Eurasia, the logistics of international terrorism are rooted in trafficking in drugs and weapons.

If the DoD report were a reflection of DoD knowledge of this problem, then it must be said that the relevant sections of the DoD are pathetically incompetent in this most crucial area of military engagement for the 1990s. To situate the way in which the impact of the present international terrorism must be understood, top-down, consider a typical blooper on the subject from the DoD report:

"Although their impact has diminished, insurgent and guerrilla forces continue to operate in some countries."[16]

That DoD statement is false. The impact of the terrorist forces associated with the São Paulo Forum, the chief terrorist political cover of Central and South America, has not decreased; it has greatly increased during the recent several years. Although the armed forces of two leading narco-terrorist groups in Colombia, the Medellín and Cali cartels, has been crippled for the time being, the position of the third narco-cartel, the Communist terrorists tied to the Forum, relatively strengthened. In Peru, the Communist narco-terrorists, the Sendero Luminoso, like the Tupac Amaru, have suffered a severe defeat at the hands of the government forces, but the threat of narco-terrorist resurgence persists, as long as the increasingly desperate economic situation of the Andean Spine region persists. Take the case of the EZLN as a more typical expression of the general terrorist situation below our Rio Grande border.

The EZLN is an international-terrorist organization deployed, partly from the adjoining regions of Belize and Guatemala, to begin a chain-reaction dismemberment of the Republic of Mexico, through creating a terrorist-run micro-state in the petroleum-rich Mexico federal state of Chiapas. The fairy-tale which represents the EZLN as brave "noble savages" of that locale, baring their brave chests in defiance of the rich caucausian latifundista of the state, is a plain lie; the principal victims of these terrorists are poor farmers, owning a few hectares of land, farmers who are the majority of the population of native-american descent within the state. Within Mexico itself, as in the Central America region generally, the principal source of protection for the EZLN terrorists is supplied by organizations associated with Fidel Castro's, London-linked São Paulo Forum. Otherwise, the principal funding and political support for the EZLN terrorists comes from western Europe, and through Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) associated with the same United Nations Organization (UNO) which long supplied protection for the war-crimes of the Serbian insurgency within Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina.

The São Paulo Forum's communist-insurgency capability within Venezuela, for example, is backed by London, and enjoys the sympathy of an ousted former President of that country. There is a plan afoot for an early overthrow of the government of Venezuela by this Forum-backed insurgency capability. The largest potential for terrorist insurgency in South America is found within the Forum's assets within Brazil. The DoD census of "Residual Strife and Long-Standing Disputes,"[17] emphasizes the relics of the past, and cheerfully ignores the fact that the new terrorist capabilities now being mobilized within the region, are far more numerous and dangerous than those of past experience.

The DoD report not only fails to grasp the intrinsic connection of the new international terrorism to border disputes, but proposes Hobbesian "conflict resolution" approaches both to terrorists such as the EZLN and to border disputes, which can have no effect but to accelerate the destruction of the sovreignty and national security of every nation affected, including the United States itself. This new, more disgusting revival of Eighteenth-Century "cabinet warfare," bespeaks Pentagon bureaucrats who are all Settlement House-movement social worker, and no soldier.[18] It reeks of the London Tavistock Institute psychiatrists' doctrine of managed irregular warfare; it reeks of London's Lord David Owen, a tavistockian of this sort, and his client, the Chetnik leader and indicted terrorist war-criminal Radovan Karadzic.[19]

The DoD report lists eight border disputes which are each directly related to a known terrorist operation which is either ongoing or in readiness: 1) The Belize-Guatemala border area, 2) The El Salvador-Honduras-Nicaragua border, 3) the Ecuador-Peru border, 4) Bolivia-Chile-Peru, 5) Argentina-Chile, 6) Venezuela-Colombia, 7) Guyana-Venezuela, and 8) Guyana-Suriname. It omits reference to one of the most important of the hemispheric conflicts in the same collection: the presently impending Quebec referendum on independence. The way in which the DoD's approach to internationally-assisted "conflict resolution" in such border disputes feeds into the successful spread of international terrorist operations, is, summarily, as follows.

If the resolution of a border dispute is taken out of the sovreign hands of the nation-state parties by some supranational or other external agency, the disputed area becomes a region of "extra-territoriality," in which terrorist/separatist operations thrive. For this reason, Venezuela and a number of other nations of the Americas rejected Washington's proposed supervision of their negotiations in such matters.

This implication is by no means conjectural; the common characteristic of every terrorist organization participating in the current wave of the new international terrorism, whether in Eurasia, Africa, or the Americas, is that it is intrinsically a separatist movement, which seeks to alienate zones of "extra-territoriality" from within existing sovreign nation-states. That is the significance of the sundry "ethnic," "religious," and "ecological" differentia specifica of each of these terrorist groups. The territorial claims adopted by each of the significant such terrorist, and proto-terrorist groups, involve border areas of existing nation-states.[20] For most of the areas which the DoD report designates for border conflicts, there are well-known terrorist operations in place, ready to exploit the drug-trafficking and other beauties of de facto extra-territoriality.

The subsuming incompetence in all of the DoD report's reference to terrorism and associated phenomena, is the lack of reference to a competent military-strategic definition of terrorism itself. Since no assault on the hemisphere from outside regular military forces is indicated on the horizon, the only military threat to hemispheric security comes either from regular forces within the hemisphere, or, in the form of terrorism and kindred varieties of irregular warfare. The only plausible external military threat to the hemisphere, is in the form of terrorism or related forms of irregular warfare. Although the DoD report touches upon topics which should be considered from the standpoint of irregular warfare, no comprehension of irregular warfare as such is to be found within the DoD report as a whole. Similarly, we could make no further progress on that matter here without first addressing the issue of irregular warfare.

Modern Irregular Warfare[21]

Most succinctly defined, irregular warfare is regular warfare pursued by other means. It is a form of politics continued as the application of force, as Clausewitz famously described regular warfare (in particular).

The methods may be explicitly homicidal, or other forms of force, such as sabotage; these methods include the quality of subversion, as an adversary nation might deploy such auxiliary means into the territory and population of the opposing nation. Mahatma Gandhi used methods of irregular warfare, both to mobilize the will to resist among the people of the Asia subcontinent, and to destroy the ability of the British Raj to rule effectively over the people and territory of that subcontinent. Although the methods employed by irregular warfare, particularly those which are not explicitly homicidal, may be as commonplace as the ordinary pencil or cookie-dish used to kill a victim, the quality of warfare lies not in some imagined epiphenomenal quality of the instruments used, but in the purpose for which they are deployed.

The distinguishing characteristic of irregular warfare, is not only that it is regular warfare conducted by other means, but that the character of the actions employed is derived, not from the attributes of the actions as such, but, rather, from the nature of the political intent behind their employment; that intent is of the same quality otherwise characteristic of the motive to go to a state of regular warfare. It is that intent, rather than the actions themselves, which defines the actions employed as "use of force."

So, we must understand modern terrorism, such as that of the EZLN or the Unabomber, as but one aspect of a broader spectrum of actions within the spectrum of irregular warfare.

The first questions posed are, therefore, the same posed in the case of regular warfare: Who is fighting whom, and what is the relationship of the forces employed, to the party on whose behalf they are deployed?[22] Who--what agency, what interest, is behind the terrorists? What is the purpose to which those terrorists are deployed?

Take the EZLN as an example. Think of those terrorists as the armed force of some constituency which serves as an analog for the role of a civilian government and population behind the armed forces of regular warfare. What is that constituency of the EZLN?

The relevant facts are well known to observers in Mexico, for example. The NGOs, the church organizations, and others who give support to the EZLN against the armed forces and republic of Mexico, are, to a large degree, well known to all relevant observers. Are these organizations not the members of the "surrogate nation" which is deploying the armed forces of the EZLN in a war, a war whose aim is to conquer and destroy the Republic of Mexico? Are not those organizations, "fellow travellers" of Fidel Castro's São Paulo Forum--those NGOs, those church organizations, and so on--the warring enemies of Mexico, just as much as the political institutions of a nation which is conducting military aggression against a neighboring nation?

Once that obvious set of questions is posed, then, and only then, is the matter of EZLN terrorism considered in a rational light. Only when that question has been addressed frankly, does one begin to see how the facts available must be pieced together to define the enemy behind the deployment of the EZLN killers, and to define the campaign for winning that war: for defending our neighbor and ally, Mexico, against the foreign aggressor which deploys the EZLN terrorists in special warfare (irregular warfare) against the peace and security of our hemisphere.

1.3 The Case of Russia: Paradigm for Global
Strategic Conflict

In Classical tragedy, the doom of the leading characters, such as Shakespeare's Hamlet, is the result of their clinging to those customary habits of belief which are about to reveal themselves as the cause of that accelerating catastrophe with which the drama will conclude. Thus, does great fiction unveil the truths of real history, which the experience of the unaided senses could never know. The follies of the DoD report should remind us of this principle of great tragedy. It is the customary habits of belief among the authors and sponsors of that report, which threaten a catastrophe for the United States, within this hemisphere, and beyond.

The tragic follies of the DoD report are rooted, axiomatically, in its follies concocted in the presently customary misuse of the terms "democracy" and "market policies." Outside the virtual reality of that fantasy world of word-play, which the DoD report represents, in the real world, real-life actions premissed upon serving those two slogans, are presently two among the most tragic strategic threats to U.S. security, both in the Americas, and globally. Thus, the report does not assist in maintaining security; it assures the opposite effect.

The clearest indication of the hemispheric threat caused by these two misleading slogans, is shown by the way in which the Bush administration betrayed the vital interests of the U.S.A. in the 1989-1992 handling of policy toward the former Warsaw Pact sector of eastern Europe. The presently skyrocketting Russia crisis contains within it all of the axiomatic elements of the United States' self-inflicted security crisis, in every part of today's world: in this hemisphere, and globally. In closer scrutiny of the effects of President Bush's Russia policy, we should recognize the ominously tragic, Orwellian fraud in the DoD report's misuse of the terms "democracy" and "market economy."

The most immediate source of the danger to U.S. security, globally and in the hemisphere, comes from the continued toleration of the 1989-1993 Thatcher-Bush policy toward the emergence of a post-Soviet eastern Europe. That Thatcher-Bush policy is still in effect at this moment of writing.

That policy is rooted in the British monarchy's geopolitical dogma, put forward by Britain's King Edward VII: first, while he was still but the acting monarch, as Prince of Wales and "Lord of the Isles," and then, during 1901-1910, as king. At the beginning of this century, the then-novel rubrics for this British "balance of power" doctrine, were geopolitics, Entente Cordiale, and Triple Entente.[23]

At the inception of Edward VII's geopolitical dogma, the British monarchy was motivated by two distinct, but interrelated concerns. One was its fear of a U.S. revival of President Lincoln's intent, that after the U.S.A. Civil War, the U.S.A. should prepare to annex Canada,[24] and to deploy more advanced, sea-going successors to the famous iron war-ship, the Monitor, in blockades against the principal seaports of the United Kingdom.[25] The second, was the British fear that the 1890s treaty-agreements between France and Russia would become the basis for a solid France-Germany-Russia commitment to the railway-corridor-based economic development of the Eurasia land-mass, from Brest in France, to the Pacific and Indian oceans.

The continued U.S. commitment to plan for the risk of a Twentieth Century war between the U.S.A. and the British Empire, was typified by pre-World War II, U.S. war-plans Red (against Britain) and Orange (against Britain's Japan ally). War Plan Red, which echoed President Lincoln's war-plan against the British Empire, continued as part of U.S. policy into the mid-1930s. Near the beginning of this present century, the British monarchy's greatest fear was, that the United States, under a traditionalist U.S. patriot such as President William McKinley, might make common cause with the 1890s Eurasian development perspectives of France's Gabriel Hanotaux, Germany's Wilhelm Siemens, and Russia's Count Sergei Witte. To prevent that, an assassination of a U.S. President, and the unleashing of London's Balkan war and the Triple Entente alliance, led into World War I.

Little more than a decade after the Versailles Treaty, the same "balance of power" logic impelled London to put Adolf Hitler into power in Germany (and to aid his consolidation of power into 1938), in order to foster the kind of war between Germany and the Soviet Union which would obliterate the possibility of continental Europe uniting the Eurasia continent in support of development policies such as the pre-World War I plans of Russia's Count Sergei Witte.[26] From October-November 1989, onward, the same geopolitical "balance of power" thinking has guided the British Crown in those geopolitical policies launched under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's government.

U.S. President George Bush's 1989-1993 support for those British geopolitical doctrines has created the possibility of a new nuclear-war potential, or something comparably nasty, from within the region of the former Soviet Union.

During October-November 1989, when the British Crown once again reactivated Edward VII's geopolitical dogma, the argument put forward from the Thatcher government, was that the collapse of "the Wall" portended not only the reunification of Germany, but the risk that a reunited German economy would orient toward rebuilding the economy of the eastern Europe nations. Minister Nicholas Ridley and Conor Cruise O'Brien howled like demented hounds: Germany, they yipped, was about to launch a "Fourth Reich!" Once again, Britain feared the very outcome which London's launching of the two world wars of the century had each been intended to prevent: the kind of Eurasian continental economic-development cooperation which Russia's Count Witte had come close to making a reality.

From that point in 1989, the British Crown sought to resurrect each of the steps by which Edward VII had pushed Europe successfully into the First World War. Once again, London launched an anti-Germany Entente Cordiale, as Edward VII had done with the France of his assets Theophile Delcassé and Georges Clemenceau: this time, London assigned France's President François Mitterrand the place of the long-deceased Clemenceau. Once again, London sought to engage Moscow in a three-way, anti-Germany alliance: a revival of Edward VII's Triple Entente. As Edward VII had done, Thatcher's London activated its Serbia assets, to unleash a Balkan war, seeking to draw putatively Orthodox Russia into a bloc with putatively Orthodox Serbia, against traditionally Catholic Croatia and the Islamic population of Bosnia-Hercegovina.

The unlikely Circe, Elizabeth II's Britain, like her ancestor Edward VII, embraced Russia with great affection for its early destruction. Germany must not be permitted to retool the economy of East Germany. The industrial and scientific potential of eastern Europe must be destroyed; London's anti-Germany policy of 1989-1995 could be better named "a Morgenthau Plan for Russia." Instead, it was called "the Reform." Whatever the name, the intended effect was the same. The "Reform," as pushed by both the Thatcher and Bush governments, transformed Russia and Ukraine, rapidly, from scientific-industrial powers, into starveling "Third World" nations, stripped of industry and agriculture, living on the sales of exported raw materials to Anglo-Dutch financier interests--at bargain prices, and dependent upon high-priced food, imported from the Anglo-Dutch-Swiss cartel interests, to avert widespread famine.

A similar policy, and effect, was imposed upon other states of eastern Europe; there, it was also called "reform," or, alternately, "shock therapy," or "the Polish Model." What the U.S. had done to the states of Central and South America over about twenty-five years of "IMF conditionalities," the "Burke and Hare of geopolitics," Thatcher and Bush, accomplished in eastern Europe in a quarter that time. Therefore, in eastern Europe, as in Central and South America, this policy of economic rape was also known as "IMF conditionalities."

The result of the Thatcher-Bush legacy in eastern Europe, is a very ominous strategic crisis facing the world as a whole today.

Consider the continuing impact of Thatcher-Bush policy upon the Russia situation, from two standpoints. Consider it as a leading feature of the global strategic crisis, a global crisis which has a powerful impact upon the internal security condition of the Americas. Also, consider the continuing impact of the so-called "reform" which Thatcher and Bush dictated to Russia and Ukraine--among other European nations--as a model of the same U.S. strategic folly deeply embedded in the DoD report under consideration here.

Look at both these aspects of the matter from the standpoint of two closely-related actions by the author, actions which each had a significant impact on world affairs during the period it was put forward. In a famous, March 23, 1983 nationwide TV broadcast, President Ronald Reagan gave the first of these policies the name "Strategic Defense Initiative." The second became known, beginning late 1989, as the European "Productive Triangle" policy.[27] Taken together, these two policy-initiatives, and the reactions for and against them, contain in capsule-form all of the leading strategic issues of the post-April 12, 1945 period of world history, to the present date.[28]

Since this candidate for the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination played a key role in creating both of these policy-initiatives, there is a double appropriateness in summarizing those matters here. Additionally, there are some deeper implications, which will be made clear in the concluding sector of this memorandum.

The Origin of the SDI

The immediately relevant issue of Russia's economy today was implicitly defined by the preceding activities around the policy known as the "SDI."

The origin of what was later announced as a "Strategic Defense Initiative" (SDI) in President Ronald Reagan's March 23, 1983 TV broadcast, was a series of developments from the 1974-1977 interval, including 1977 exchanges with the then recently retired Air Force Major-General George Keegan. What was to become known as the SDI, was first presented in programmatic outline in August 1979, as a policy-paper of this present candidate's campaign for the Democratic Party's 1980 Presidential nomination. Later, during a period from February 1982 through February 1983, the same policy was the principal topic of a series of back-channel exploratory chats between this writer, acting in the interest of the U.S., and the Soviet government. What President Reagan offered Moscow initially, in the approximately five-minute segment of the March 23 broadcast, was a confirmation, point by point, of the proposed policy which this candidate had outlined to the Soviet representatives during the exploratory chats.[29]

There were three leading considerations which, taken in combination, prompted and guided the present author's 1974-1977 development of the proposal which became known later as the SDI. The first consideration, was the accelerating shift toward "forward basing" of strategic ballistic missiles, by both NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Advanced positioning of NATO missiles in Europe, and Soviet strategic-missile-launching submarines off the U.S. Pacific and Atlantic coasts, are notable examples. Second, was the increased precision in targetting. Third, was the implications of controlled use of an effect called "electromagnetic pulse." Continued development in these three directions, was bringing the world close to the possibility of what was termed "thermonuclear first strike;" worse, the use of warheads which enhanced an electromagnetic-pulse effect, in forward-based strategic missiles, implied a situation in which the detection of a small number of forward-based missiles aimed at air-space over either the U.S.A. or Soviet Union could be sufficient to prompt a full-scale launch of strategic nuclear counter-strike by the targetted party.

This trend defined precisely the condition under which the Pugwash-designed,[30] Kissinger-negotiated ABM treaty of 1982 could become the cause of general thermonuclear war. Without the means to destroy incoming missiles, the U.S. President was left with no option but freezing like a scared rabbit, or full-scale counter-strike, a totally unacceptable situation. The trend toward a growing first-strike risk could be reversed only by revoking, or outflanking that ABM treaty. It was at that point of the investigation, that the implications of strategic ballistic missile defense became very interesting.

High-speed interceptor rockets, or kindred so-called "kinetic energy weapons," were not a solution. They lacked the speed, they lacked absolutely the economic efficiency needed to give a decisive strategic advantage to the defense over the offense. However, both superpowers had the beginnings of technologies, typified by powerful lasers, which had the inherent advantages of speed and potentially of economy, needed to equip the strategic ballistic missile defense with an effective economic advantage over the strategic nuclear offense.[31] 1982 researches showed, that there was a provision for the development of precisely such technologies of strategic ballistic missile defense in the initialled version of the 1982 ABM Treaty: "new physical principles." The political problem was, that such defensive weapons-technologies could be developed only through a science-driver type of "crash program," like the World War II Manhattan Project, or the 1960s Kennedy Aerospace "crash program."[32]

These points were presented to a heavily attended, two-day conference in Washington, D.C., during February 1982, shortly before the beginning of the exploratory "back-channel" discussions with the Soviet representative. The gist of the policy issue was outlined in a published paper of March 1982, which presented the proposed strategic ballistic missile defense policy as a means for freeing the United States of the disastrous foreign-policy assumptions installed under Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

The beautiful irony of strategic ballistic missile defense based on "new physical principles," was, that that requirement for a "crash program" could be key to securing agreement between the two principal super-powers. Just as the 1960s "crash" aerospace program had repaid the United States more than ten cents for each U.S. government penny spent, a science-driver program of the type required for a "strategic ballistic missile defense," would supply a very large, and equitable technological boost for both super-powers and their allies, at a time when all these economies were in the midst of a prolonged and deepening slump.

On all of these points, the Soviet government agreed; it agreed on the scientific-technical feasibility of the outlined program, and concurred that the economic "spill-over" benefits would be significant. Nonetheless, in a February 1983 meeting, the Soviet representative indicated other reasons his government would reject a U.S. offer based upon this author's description. Nonetheless, a month later, President Ronald Reagan delivered exactly that offer.

There was an additional point of discussion during that February 1983 meeting with the Soviet representative. It was during that meeting that this candidate for the Presidential nomination advised the Soviet government that, unless some such agreement on a "science driver" program were reached, the Soviet economy would collapse in approximately five years; the reasons for this doleful estimation were supplied on that occasion.[33] It actually took six years, not five. The seeds for the later "productive triangle" proposal of 1989, were already present in that discussion of the future of the Comecon sector's economy.

The "Productive Triangle"

The outline of the policy later known as the LaRouche "Productive Triangle," was first given publicly, in Berlin, in a televised address by this candidate, on Columbus Day, 1988. That televised address was presented in full as a featured element of a network broadcast by his campaign, in the U.S.A., later that same month. During that address, the author announced the immediate prospect for a reunification of Germany, and the likelihood that Berlin would be designated to become the capital of the reunified nation. This, he proposed in that Berlin address, would define Germany as the pivot of an economic-reconstruction effort for the region of the collapsing Warsaw Pact/Comecon.

Thirteen months after that 1988 broadcast, once it was clear that the expected collapse of the Berlin wall was in progress, this candidate worked out the details of the proposed reconstruction program with his wife, Mrs. Helga Zepp LaRouche, and a number of other collaborators. This proposal was given wide circulation in Europe under the German title of Das produktive Dreieck ("Productive Triangle").[34] That proposal is key to understanding the global and hemispheric security crises which will dominate the U.S.A. during the coming months.

The descriptive title of the policy, "Productive Triangle," referred to the historical center of modern European civilization, the approximate spherical triangle whose apices are the cities of Paris, Vienna, and Berlin. Here is concentrated, historically, 1200 years accumulation of what is today the greatest density of development of inland waterways, railways, and productivity of any region of the planet. This development was the legacy of Charlemagne, and of the later Renaissance impact of the creation of the first modern nation-state, that of King Louis XI's A.D. 1461-1483 France. Stripped to its barest essentials, the proposed action was, to mobilize the capital-intensive productive potential from within this "triangle," and to link it, like the core of a spiral galaxy, through outward-reaching "spiral arms" of high-density developmental corridors, from the Atlantic coast at Brest in France, southward and eastward throughout Eurasia, and into the development of Africa beyond.

Typical of the "Productive Triangle's" "spiral arms," are railway-centered corridors, of approximately 100 kilometers width, each corridor defined by a central, "spinal" column of magnetic-levitation transport, inland water transport, or high-speed railway. Typical such "spiral arms" would include pathways from the traditional rail-center of Berlin, through Warsaw in Poland, to St. Petersburg and Moscow in Russia, and through the southerly route through Poland, to Kiev in Ukraine, and so on.

Look at the map of the Eurasian continent. Superimpose upon that map, several map-overlays.[35] Superimpose usable water-throughput per square kilometer, inland waterway routes (of sundry standards), railway and magnetic-levitation-transport routes, power throughput per capita and per square kilometer, physical consumption and output per capita, per household, and per square kilometer, population-density per square kilometer, life-expectancy, disease rates (by type), and quality of health per capita and by each square-kilometer cell of a general grid, natural science education, in pupil-years per capita of population aged five to twenty-five years, health-care per capita by square-kilometer grid-cells, scientific professional activity by square-kilometer grid-cells, and so on. Take note of overlays showing relative development or depletion of land-areas for human productive use and habitation. For reading this memorandum, a few of the most indicative parameters of this sort will be sufficient to illustrate the point.

Divide the world as a whole into regions, using two sets of national economies from the 1967-1970 interval as standards of comparison. For leading industrialized economies, choose Japan, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the U.S.A. as the standard of comparison. For former colonies or quasi-colonies, use China and India as standard of comparison. Correlate the per-capita, per-household, and per-square-kilometer data used in comparing the nations within each of these two types of cases, with the compounded general overlays indicated in the preceding paragraph.

Using those overlays, or a reasonable first-approximation of such, note the sharp differences between the picture of Europe within the indicated Productive Triangle, and the contrasting image as one's bird's-eye view traverses a path eastward, toward the Pacific and Indian oceans, and the Middle East. In this, note the correlation between the intensity of development of basic economic infrastructure (water, transportation, power, etc.) and productive powers of labor per capita and per square kilometer. East of Berlin, continental Eurasia emerges as, speaking in relative terms, a vast economic wasteland.

To develop that relative economic wasteland, the first requirement is a massive, chiefly-state-directed development of basic economic infrastructure. This development will provide the indispensable basis for relatively competitive standards of economic performance of agriculture, and manufacturing and other urban industry; without that development of infrastructure, investment in productive output will not succeed. These development projects also provide the primary markets needed to stimulate growth of agriculture and urban goods-producing industry.

However, we must also take into account, that the density of both infrastructure and goods-producing industry, per square kilometer of relevant land-area, determines the relative productivity of the industrial and agricultural development, relative to the capital-intensity, power-intensity, and levels of technology employed in production. Therefore, to develop a large area, one must criss-cross the area by "development corridors" of the sort illustrated by the "spiral arms" of the Productive Triangle policy. Such corridors are defined, by the nature of the problem, in terms of principal arteries of transport of produced goods. Ports, inland waterways, railway trunks, magnetic-levitation-transport trunks, goods-transporting pipelines, and power-grid trunks, typify the primary features of the indispensable "spine" of such a corridor. Local roads and so forth define the movement of goods within a strip which extends, in width, to approximately fifty kilometers either side of the central spine.

Within such a corridor, the objective is to approach, assymptotically, a density of productive activity and local infrastructure echoing that of the best periods, during recent decades, of the actually utilized land-area corridors of Japan and the western portion of the Federal Republic of Germany. One should be reminded of the role of the use of inland waterways and railway development, as keys to successfully opening up the wilderness for modern development in agriculture and industry within the U.S.A. during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries.[36]

Although he or she might be ignorant of the science of physical economy,[37] the person who is literate in modern natural science can readily recognize several crucial points of relevance to the argument summarized immediately above. For these note-pad exercizes, discard all popular notions of money-price; pay strict attention to physical inputs, outputs, and constraints of production of the essential elements of required household, agricultural, and industrial market-baskets, all measured per capita of available labor-force, per household, and per square kilometer of relevant land-area. This places one's attention within the empirical domain of the science of physical economy.

Given, a railway line, an inland waterway, etc., whose capacity is measured in ton-miles per hour, or analogous units. What is the effect of increasing the rate at which input is added, and output withdrawn from that facility, per kilometer of distance along the surface of the Earth? What is the effect of increasing the rate and density of added inputs and withdrawals of outputs, along that pathway, per hour of lapsed time? What is the cost of maintaining that facility, per kilometer of linear distance, and in terms of variability of the speed of transport within the facility? How does the physical cost of maintaining and operating that facility at that capacity, compare with the gains and losses in economy of productive labor, both in the operation of the facility and in the economic activity of the population and productive facilities it serves? This latter includes the increase of inventory costs of aggregate goods in transit between producer and consumer for transported goods stacked within the queue.

Grant the two facts about the economy of Japan today. First, during the mid-1970s, the U.S. government, under both (Sir) Henry A. Kissinger (KCMG), and his former Harvard stable-mate Zbigniew Brzezinski, threatened Japan with utterances to the effect: "No new Japan is to be developed in Shah Pahlevi's Iran," and "The United States will tolerate no new Japans developing below the U.S.A.'s Rio Grande border." Japan was pressed, thus, to phase down its role as a high-technology capital-goods exporter, and to enter into the ultimately ruinous, degenerative practice of sharing the "taking in of economic laundry" with western Europe and the U.S.A., especially the U.S.A. itself. Thus, during the recent two decades, Japan has been transformed, in a very large degree, at least, from the post-war industrial Japan which traces its brilliant successes to the 1945-1950 interval under General Douglas MacArthur, into the speculative, crisis-ridden, Japan dollar-market-economy of today. That taken into account, concentrate upon the successful portion of that 1945-1995 period of Japan's economic history, Japan's industrial successes.

When one studies Japan's industrial development of the 1945-1995 interval from the vantage-point of comparing the Japan, West Germany, and U.S.A. physical economies for the 1967-1970 slice of statistical time, the empirical reflection of some crucial facts about population-density and productivity stand out as in DayGlo colors. The instant we apply a strict standard of land-use for the comparisons among those cases, the impact of the notion of "usable land-area" of Japan stands out, with shocking effect. This comparison yields the best available, crucial demonstration of the four-fold relationship among technological progress, productivity, infrastructural development, and population-density. This is sufficient illustration for our purposes here: the typical function of the kind of developmental corridor featured in the LaRouche Productive Triangle policy for Eurasia may be fairly described as applying the benefits from the lessons of Japan's high population-density to the vast open regions of north and central Eurasia.

In principle, this was nothing more than the application of modern technology to the same principles employed by the German-American Friedrich List in basing industrial development upon railway corridors, both in the areas extended from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in the U.S.A., and in Germany. These were the conceptions of French patriots in the tradition of Lazare Carnot, and Gaspard Monge's 1795-1815 Ecole Polytechnique, such as the famous de Lesseps and Gabriel Hanotaux. Also the conceptions of Wilhelm von Siemens, and Dimitri Mendeleyev's collaborator, the great Russia minister, and Friedrich List emulator, Count Sergei Witte. These were the principles used by the great U.S. collaborators of Carl F. Gauss and Alexander von Humboldt, the "Lazzaroni" around Alexander Dallas Bache and Louis Agassiz, in developing the United States during the Nineteenth Century.

During the same time-frame this candidate was working out the presentation of the "Productive Triangle" policy with Helga Zepp LaRouche, the leading banker of Germany, Deutsche Bank's Alfred Herrhausen, was preparing to present a proposed policy of a kindred spirit to a U.S. blue-ribbon audience. He did not deliver that address; a professional assassination eliminated this German threat to British geopolitical interest. A few months later, another leading German official, Treuhand official Detlev Rohwedder, was assassinated; Rohwedder represented the same tradition in economic policy as Herrhausen. The rumor fed to the ever-credulous popular news media, was, that Herrhausen and Rohwedder had been killed by the so-called "Baader-Meinhof" terrorist gang; the trouble with that explanation was, that the "Baader-Meinhof gang" had long since ceased to exist.[38] In some of the highest-level U.S.A. and European intelligence circles, it was agreed that these assassinations had been done in London's interest.

After these two assassinations, Germany capitulated to the demands of the Thatcher and Bush administration. East Germany was given the "Third World" treatment, and Germany did not interfere in the "Burke and Hare" "shock therapy" treatment London and New York were administering to Poland, Hungary, Russia, Ukraine, et al.

Nonetheless, the type of ideas which the murdered Herrhausen and Rohwedder had expressed during the last weeks of their lives, have lived on in the intent of some among us. The so-called "Delors Plan" echoes many features of the earlier LaRouche "Productive Triangle" policy, down to rather minute details of similarity in the maps of the two documents. There are many nuclei of influential circles in eastern Europe and elsewhere today, who are committed to these kinds of policies, as the only plausible alternative to the cruel lunacies of Thatcher, Bush, and their ilk. Today, the obvious failure and impending collapse of the present world monetary and financial systems, has fostered the increased and still-growing influence of ideas such as those of the LaRouche "Productive Triangle" and similar proposals. The latter are spreading with the special kind of authority given to the only visible alternative for survival, when all previously adopted ideas are visibly collapsing into ruin and disgrace.

That said, the cruel fact is, that up to now, the Thatcher-Bush policies and mass-homicidal IMF "conditionalities" have enjoyed a virtual world-dictatorship, if not for much longer at this time. In the meantime, despite the hopeful Israeli-Palestinian cooperation which London has been working to destroy, Thatcher-Bush and IMF policies have brought Russia to the verge of a political explosion from the top.

Compared to Issues of Middle East Peace

Beginning April 1975, this candidate has been consistently, and passionately committed to a Middle East peace based upon the common interest of Israelis and Palestinians in regional economic development. His proposal to this effect was first presented to Arab representatives gathered in Baghdad during the April 1975 anniversary celebration of the Ba'ath. Immediately on leaving Baghdad, he shared his proposals and views with both Palestinians and Israelis, among other principal parties concerned with Middle East matters. That same month, a press conference and other meetings were held in Bonn, where the candidate presented his proposals both on Middle East Peace, and the need for a new, just, international economic order, to replace the homicidal lunacy of the "floating exchange-rate" monetary system then in vogue. Thus, there began a twenty-year-long contact with both Israel and Palestine circles sharing such a hope.

Until the Oslo meetings between Israeli and Palestine Liberation Organization representatives, it was, predominantly, almost twenty years of persisting frustration punctuated by repeated heartbreaks. Now, we may hope that something durable is emerging from the continued uphill effort to reach a self-enforcing agreement among the principal parties. For the rest, the telling of most of that political story belongs to another time and place. Now that we have summarily situated the matter, our immediate concern here is solely two points of first-rate general importance--one might say, urgency--to both global and hemispheric U.S. security.

The common feature of those two points may be stated summarily, that no durable political agreement can be established in the Middle East without establishing a common interest in improvement of the standard of life of all through the economic benefits of combined infrastructural development and investment in scientific and technological progress.

The first point is, that where so much blood and embittered hatred have been spewed, for so many decades, all efforts at political "conflict resolution" are a disgusting, utterly immoral farce. The effort to approach the problem in terms of a UNO-style, Tavistock sociologist's "political solution," will produce a worse result, sooner or later, than if no solution had been attempted. No solution is possible which does not rely upon a discovered consciousness of an overriding common interest among the combatant forces. No perceived common interest can be durably effective, unless it is efficiently grounded in an actual common interest.

The second point is, that the characteristic feature of all such common interest is physical-economic (as distinct from monetary[39]) in nature. The subject of physical economy is the means of improvement of production and consumption, through which not only individual societies, but the human population as a whole continues to exist, and, hopefully, to prosper. In the Middle East, the most acute expression of this principled feature of physical economy, is the problem of producing a sufficiency of water for all concerned.

There is not sufficient water naturally available, from combined rainfall and aquifers, in the relevant Middle East region, to provide the basis for continued physical existence of all among the families which presently inhabit that region. Consequently, negotiation of a presumed "more equitable" distribution of existing water-supplies, solves nothing except the negotiator's sense of his own importance within his own personal fantasy-world of step-by-step virtual reality.

There are three keys to establishing what Haileybury's David Ricardo regarded as "comparative advantage," for the future economy of the Middle East as a region.

In general, the first key to the economic potential of the region, is the position of the Middle East as both a canal-site and a short land-bridge, linking the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean. Wherever ships may find a port-site in the region of a maritime choke-point between two seas, there is a market-potential for productive investment, a market which exists in proportion to the per-capita physical-economic output and consumption of the nations bordering those two oceans. The physical-economic activity-level of the two ocean-regions, implicitly defines the potential economic "capacitance" of the choke-point as a land-bridge.

The ports developed in the region of the choke-point bring together shiploads of combined primary materials, and finished and semi-finished products. By using the choke-point region as an area of production of "Value Added," to increase the value-per-ton of what is transported across the choke-point, an economic gain is given to the region, and also to those who ship into, and out of that region.

In addition to the region's strategic significance as a maritime choke-point, the economic capacitance of the Middle East choke-point region is very large.

The second key, is the need for large-scale investment in production of desalinated water-supplies, for agriculture and industry, in addition to human consumption. Desalinated water may be relatively high-priced water, but for the Middle East as a whole, including Egypt, there is no alternative to the use of nuclear energy, for the included purpose of large-scale desalination. Relatively high-priced, the water might be; but, without it, nothing functions; with it, everything which might function, will. There are no other sources which can produce sufficient water, to provide the conditions of common interest in peace, within the region. What is required is sufficient added water-throughput, from desalination, to exceed the equivalent of the current best throughput of the Jordan river and its associated aquifers.

The third key, is the need for massive investment in power-sources. At present, either the Jülich (Germany) model of high-temperature reactor, or an equivalent, appears to be the best choice of module with which to assemble complexes of agro-industrial nuplexes, a complex designed to create a prosperous economy where there is presently aridity or hard desert. With power, water, and technology of agro-industrial development, everything which should be possible in this region, becomes possible. Then, there exists, in reality, the basis for that quality of common interest, upon which durable peace depends.

That view of the Middle East and its need for peace, is a paradigm from which to adduce valuable lessons for the shaping of policy toward Russia and Ukraine.

The National Security of Russia

A short-lived democracy in Russia was brought to end by artillery-fire against the parliament, during October 1993. Both the rebellious spirit of that suppressed parliament, and the shelling, were prompted by the pressure of the "IMF conditionalities" introduced in accord with the "New Morgenthau Plan" geopolitics of Prime Minister Thatcher and her familiar, President Bush. Thus, in the hallowed name of "democracy" and "market economy," a short-lived genuine political democracy was destroyed in Russia, as real democracy is repeatedly destroyed, all in the name of "democracy" and "free trade," in Central and South America.

Since that time, the continued submission of Russia to the Thatcher-Bush "New Morgenthau Plan" has destroyed most of the remains of the physical economy of Russia. Only a wobbly sort of quasi-democracy remains. At this moment of writing, the people of Russia, in the large, are presently de-coupled from conscious or other effective participation in their nation's processes of government, even to a far greater degree than the entertainment-drugged U.S. citizenry. In this circumstance, for the moment, real politics comes only from the top ranks of power, and all serious politics is expressed in terms of ongoing and latent power-struggles within the higher ranks of the establishment.

That configuration just described, defines the politics of the present moment in terms of the interrelationship between abstract ideas and restive cabinet warfare within the corridors of power. The popularized prattle about the misused name of "democracy" contrasts with the reality, that an ongoing, general, world-wide breakdown in institutions of representative government, over the recent quarter-century, have reduced democracy, to the degree it still exists, to mere, shattered relics of a happier time.

In form, that present situation in Russia is not untypical of the world's nations in general. In the case of Russia, the difference is twofold. First, the fact is, that the establishment of Russia is, by habit and perception, the ruling agency of a former thermonuclear superpower. Second, the fact is, that unlike each and all of its eurasian neighbors, muscovite Russia has never been conquered during more than five-hundred-fifty years to date, since the process of its self-liberation from its "Mongol" oppressors. The first fact imbues the remaining establishment of Russia with a sense of possession and use of raw power. The latter fact produces a cultural temperament within both the people and ruling strata of Russia, which is relatively unique in the world.

Although there is a fierce nationalism among the leaders of China, this is of a different cultural type than we meet in the case of Russia. The United States lost its sense of being an unconquerable nation, in the course of its war in Indo-China; Russia was affected by a somewhat analogous experience, during the long Afghanistan war, but this did not reach as deeply into the sense of core-identity within the population, as was the case with the "post-Vietnam" U.S.A. It is indicated that some elements of the Clinton administration have a much more accurate appreciation of the situation in Russia than do the U.S. foreign-policy and security bureaucracies generally, most of whose publicly stated views on Russia policy may be fairly described as dangerously incompetent, ideology-driven, and, as is often the case with professionally trained bureaucrats these days, fanatically fatuous.

It is essential to purge totally from our foreign-policy thinking, any U.S. policy toward either the Americas or Russia, among other places, which is based on the kind of prattling references to "democracy" and "market" policies met in the referenced DoD report on the Americas. Russia is a special case within a real world whose existence most of the relevant U.S. bureaucracy refuses to recognize.

At this moment of writing, most of the political establishment is living out a reenactment of Belshazzar's Feast, engaged in a meaningless budgetary debate, respecting the application of non-existent margins of tax-revenue base to an incalculable expense of Fiscal Year 1996. At the time this farcical reenactment of Daniel 5 is occurring within the Congress, there is a looming strategic crisis of Russia, situated within the imminent, greatest financial collapse in all human existence to date. Thus, does today's customary, ideology-ridden Washington present us the spectacle, of a monstrous Golem, besotted with its own obsessive delusions, lurching tragically toward its doom. Thus, the "system," whose amoral pragmatism underlies the perpetuation of those delusions infesting our Federal civil-service bureaucracy, dooms itself.

The U.S. must depart the self-deluding virtual realities of the New York Times and Washington Post, to pose to itself the real-world question: From the top, down, how does Russia today react to the onrush of its threatened doom? Not in terms of some fancied, "sociological" revolt of the hungry masses, but within the corridors of raw governing power? The answer to that question not only informs us on the matter of Russia itself; underlying the answer, is a paradigm of current world-politics, everywhere on this planet. Russia is unique, but curvature of political-physical space-time, within which the impetus and outcome for Russia's own peculiar responses are situated, is the same throughout the planet. That is the analytical standpoint which U.S. strategic and related policy-shaping should adopt today.

In these circumstances which we have indicated here, Russia's reaction to reality occurs, as it must, in a form which reflects as much the characteristics of the relevant, reacting institutions, as it does the reality to which those institutions are responding. The crucial fact in today's Russia situation is, that the immediate response comes not from the "people," but from the corridors of accustomed ruling power. This is the key to understanding Russia now; it is also a reflection of a related, if otherwise distinctive circumstance within the present, historically determined peculiarities of each nation of the world.

Russia's establishment responds to the presently onrushing threat of doom in the only manner that establishment could respond: by viewing that onrushing threat as like an invading horde. Russia's establishment, at the highest level, therefore responds: How much more territory, how many more crucial resources can we lose, before our strategic situation becomes an incurably hopeless one? What is the "point of no return," beyond which there is no possibility for the future existence of a sovreign nation of Russia? That is the question which underlies all of the important developments within the current strategic policy-thinking of Russia's governing elites. Should our government, our patriotic establishment react any differently in analogous circumstances?

Compare a recent utterance by President Jacques Chirac of France. President Chirac was challenged by an interviewer, how he reconciled his decision to resume nuclear testing with the indications that that action was opposed by a large body of popular opinion. Chirac responded, that when the national security of France were at stake, he (as President of France) does not attend the pleasure of evanescent moods in popular opinion. His response would be understood among the leading circles in today's Russia.

Far from being "undemocratic," President Chirac's response is fully consistent with the most fundamental principle of law embedded within the U.S. Federal Constitution. The first duty of the institutions of self-government of a sovreign people, is to protect the life, liberty, and happiness of not only the present generation, but also the nation's posterity. That is the principle of law, which the U.S. Founding Fathers derived from the very words of Gottfried Leibniz's denunciation of the immorality inhering in the philosophy of that famous apologist for the British ruling oligarchy, John Locke. That is the principle of law understood by the leading, anti-IMF patriots of Central and South America. That, in practice, is the expressed concern, albeit in traditionally Russian terms, of the deeply angered patriots within Moscow's corridors of power.

For a sane U.S. foreign policy, the most crucial strategic issue is that the present continuation of Thatcher-Bush "market" policies constitute and immediate and mortal threat to the very existence of Russia. In this circumstance, the proposed eastward extension of NATO to the borders of Russia and Belarus, aggravates the threat already represented by U.S.A. support for IMF "conditionalities." As long as that is not clearly seen, and those errors in policy corrected, the U.S. government has no sane strategic policy toward any sector of the world.

Although there are numerous, manifest happier impulses coming from within the Clinton administration, the carried-forward relics of former administrations' economic and other strategic blunders prevail axiomatically within the most of the civil service's permanent bureaucracy. Those relics also continue to dominate those sections of the Anglo-American financier-dominated "establishment," to whose advantage a British-style, permanent civil-service bureaucracy was inserted and nurtured, as a subversive influence, within our Federal government.

In primary empirical terms, the nature of the present strategic crisis confronting the U.S., is that the world is gripped by the unstoppable collapse of the world's present monetary and financial institutions, and that the U.S. government, thus far, is committed to continued support of those institutions, even past the point that those institutions' continued existence threatens the mortal existence of thermonuclear powers such as Russia and China, and also every nation in Africa and the Americas, virtually including the United States itself. The Russia crisis is thus a paradigm for the challenge which confronts us in the world as an entirety.

[Proceed to next section of this article]


1. During both of the hemispheric meetings referenced by the DoD report, the December 9-11, 1994 Miami "The Summit of the Americas" heads-of-state meeting, and the later Williamsburg "The Defense Ministerial of the Americas" meeting of July 24-26, 1995, some leading nations of Central and South America made strong objections to some among the policies being dictated to them by the U.S. foreign-policy bureaucracy. By the close of the latter meeting, the meetings had failed to reach a consensus on terms acceptable to all parties. The report actually issued is one written by and for the DoD, and does not represent a consensus among the participants in either the Miami or Williamsburg meeting.[return to text]

2. For listing, and map, of states for which the British monarch is the head of state, see "Countries of the British Commonwealth," EIR, Oct. 28, 1994, p. 21. For percentiles of the world's primary resources controlled by the Anglo-Dutch international oligarchy, see "Commodities hoarding signals imminent financial collapse," EIR, Sept. 15, 1995.[return to text]

3. Typical is the late 1940s and early 1950s overlap between persons engaged in relevant Air Force and RAND projects conducted at MIT's RLE and the roster of "group dynamics" projects conducted under the auspices of the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation.[return to text]

4. For studies of the collapse of the physical market-basket values of per-capita production and consumption, see Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "Why most Nobel Prize economists are quacks," EIR, July 28, 1995; and Christopher White, "LaRouche's ninth forecast, one year later," EIR, July 7, 1995. For monopolistic control over primary resources, and concerning the extent of the rule by the queen, see, footnote 2, above.[return to text]

5. For documentation of the collapse of physical-economic parameters of the U.S. economy, see "The big commodities hoarding crunch of 1995," EIR, Sept. 15, 1995. See also Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "Why most Nobel Prize economists are quacks," EIR, July 28, 1995.[return to text]

6. United States Security Strategy for the Americas (Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense Office of International Security Affairs, September 1995); p. 3.[return to text]

7. Ibid., p. 4.[return to text]

8. Ibid., p. 7.[return to text]

9. Ibid., p. 7.[return to text]

10. Ibid., p. 9.[return to text]

11. On the causes for both of these World Wars, see the following Special Reports published in the indicated editions of the weekly Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), by which candidate LaRouche is employed in the capacity of Contributing Editor. On the general problem which generated both of those wars, see Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "The coming fall of the House of Windsor" and "The presently closing dynastic cycle," EIR, Oct. 28, 1994: pp. 12-16 and 64-71. On the causes and issues of World War I, see Webster Tarpley, et al., "London sets the stage for a new Triple Entente," EIR, March 24, 1995: pp. 14-63. On World War II, and its implications for today, see Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., et al., "Britain's Pacific warfare against the United States," EIR, May 12, 1995. The contrasting, fraudulent assertion of the DoD report, is derived from a hoax written during World War II, as anti-American, British propaganda, by the Fabian agent and well-known columnist Walter Lippmann. See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., The Case of Walter Lippmann (New York: Campaigner Publications Inc., 1977). Specifically, during the late 1920s, and into 1933, Adolf Hitler was sponsored by such British officials as Bank of England head Montagu Norman, through later Nazi Finance Minister Hjalmar Schacht. In 1932, Norman and Schacht persuaded the Nazi-lovers among the New York City circles of the Morgan and Harriman families to bring Hitler to power. The key money used to bring the Nazis to power in the "legal coup d'état" of 1933, was moved from Harriman-controlled accounts in Germany's Union Bank, by Harriman's chief executive officer, Prescott Bush, the father of the later U.S. President George Bush. The motive was, in the familiar gutterances of Sir Henry A. Kissinger: "balance of power." Britain's intent was to ensure a ruinous war between Hitler and Stalin, from which Prime Minister Winston Churchill and his kind hoped that Germany and Russia would destroy one another almost absolutely, never to rise to become again a challenge to British imperial domination of Eurasia. The United States was forced to enter World War II. As Franklin Roosevelt rebuked Winston Churchill on the subject of U.S.A. policy for World War II: the U.S. intervention into World War I was a great strategic blunder, done in the interest of the British Empire's special global design.[return to text]

12. See EIR Special Report, "Soviet Unconventional Warfare in Ibero-America: The Case of Guatemala" (Washington, D.C.: EIR Research Inc., 1985), prepared by an EIR Task Force directed by Lyndon LaRouche. See also, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "A Proposed Multi-National Strategic Operation Against the Drug Traffic for the Western Hemisphere" (speech presented in Mexico City on March 9, 1985), in Dope, Inc.: The Book that Drove Henry Kissinger Crazy, 3rd edition (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1992), pp. 573-82; and "Guatemala opens second front against Soviet narco-terrorism" and related articles in EIR, Nov. 15, 1985, pp. 52-59.[return to text]

13. See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., The Case of Walter Lippmann, on the contrast of the plain language of Secretary of State John Quincy Adams' letter on the subject of the "Monroe Doctrine," to Lippmann's lying account of that doctrine's history. It is to be noted that Lippmann's fraud is a copy of President Theodore Roosevelt's so-called "Roosevelt Corrollary," issued in rebuttal of Argentina Foreign Minister Luis Maria Drago's famous "Drago Doctrine." Quincy Adams' correspondence agrees fully with the argument put forth by Drago, and regards as a treasonous abomination any policy of the species of the "Roosevelt Corrollary." Unfortunately, the recent practice and belief of the U.S. national-security bureaucracy embraces the view of British Minister Canning, Theodore Roosevelt, and Lippmann, not the U.S. Founding Fathers.[return to text]

14. The term "focal point" refers to the large-scale, multi-agency secret operations run through a T/O-designated Lieutenant Colonel's desk in the Special Operations (originally "Special Warfare") component of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. This arrangement was established, back in the 1950s, by Allen Dulles (of James Jesus Angleton notoriety), acting in his National Security status as (mis)Director of Intelligence, rather than merely his position as CIA Director at that time. Much of the tomfoolery which the gaping credulous prefer to attribute to the pension-conscious cautionaries of the CIA (a.k.a. "CYA"), actually refers to multi-agency "secret government" operations run through the aperture which bureaucratic discretion prefers to think does not exist, the "focal point." It should not be astonishing, therefore, that retired Major-General Richard Secord, of Bush-North "Contra" notoriety, was among the veterans of the Joint Chiefs' Special Operations logistics desk.[return to text]

15. Old-line intelligence spook John Train (of the Russell Train tribe), was one of the key controllers of the Afghan side of Vice-President Bush's "Iran-Contra" menagerie. Beginning April 1983, at the time of his continuing association with the Bush league's "Iran-Contra" operation, Train functioned as head of a salon, through which he coordinated an assortment of intelligence-community institutions, and news media and other private organizations, specifying the Goebbels-like propaganda-warfare campaign to be conducted to the purpose of eliminating a certain Democratic Presidential-nomination candidate, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. All of the published attacks upon LaRouche in the leading popular, international print and television mass-media, from late January 1984 into December 1988, were governed by the guidelines which John Train dictated to such members of his salon as representatives of NBC-TV News, the Wall Street Journal, the Anti-Defamation League, and spooks such as NSC consultant Roy Godson. During May-November 1984, and again during 1986, the leading Soviet press also conducted a cumulatively massive front-page attack on LaRouche, following the same guidelines laid down by Bush-linked spook John Train. Train's operations overlapped the simultaneous attacks on LaRouche from Train cronies of the "Iran-Contra" cabal, such as Lt.-Col. Ollie North and Major-General Richard Secord. The U.S. intelligence community's political network involved in international narco-terrorist-linked operations is dirty, vicious, and powerful.[return to text]

16. Op. cit., p. 12.[return to text]

17. Ibid., p. 12.[return to text]

18. The DoD bureaucrat's social-worker mentality on the subject of "border disputes" was among the several issues which prevented a consensus from being achieved at Miami and Williamsburg.[return to text]

19. The Chetnik insurgency against the states of Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina was launched under the banner of the London Thatcher government's 1989, geopolitical "Fourth Reich" doctrine, using chiefly Serbian connections which had been British Foreign Service assets long before the 1916 Sykes-Picot treaty which served to bring the artificial state of Yugoslavia into existence at the close of World War I. The key to the insurgency was a psychological warfare element of the Yugoslav army, closely tied to Tavistock and Lord Owen, as well as Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation networks penetrating deeply into the Yugoslav League of Communists hierarchy. The worst atrocities perpetrated by the Chetniks were calculated measures of terror (e.g., Tavistock's, and Kissinger's versions of Josef Goebbels' Schrecklichkeit), were not excesses of indigenous passions, but the coldly calculated strategic pranks concocted by a species of professional psychiatrists and sociologists in the footsteps of the Nazis' Dr. Josef Mengele.[return to text]

20. Frankly, the reek of bungling amateurism in some of the recipes found in this DoD report suggests, they might have originated in a wine-and-marijuana party which a group of social workers held someplace in Virginia's Fairfax County.[return to text]

21. Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte, Modern Irregular Warfare, George Gregory, trans., with Foreword by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1986). Originally published under the title of Der moderne Kleinkrieg als wehrpolitisches und militärisches Phänomen (Wurzburg: Holzner, 1972, Wurzburger wehrwissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, Bd. 3).[return to text]

22. The author was a participant in, as well as an eyewitness of the transformation which occurred within the U.S. population on the morning of December 7, 1941. As the sound of President Franklin Roosevelt's voice came over the radio, one realized suddenly, that, whereas, on the Saturday evening preceding, most of America had gone to bed with no inclination to fight another war on foreign soil, by noon-time that Sunday, the impulse to get into uniform erupted as a form of panic within the population. After that, the American citizen volunteered for the armed services for the very simple reason that the United States had been attacked at Pearl Harbor. Virtually all of them, probably even most flag-rank officers, knew very little of those deeper issues which motivated President Franklin Roosevelt, or understood the fierce quarrels between Roosevelt and Churchill. Soldiers may know why they are willing to fight; willingness to wage war, and knowledge of the issues which may justify that warfare, do not necessarily coincide, and, in the author's experience of soldiers and study of historical processes, few combatants understand that important distinction clearly. [return to text]

23. See references identified within note 11. These references should be considered respecting the following points on the strategic setting of Thatcher-Bush geopolitical doctrine toward the post-1989 region of the former Warsaw Pact alliance.[return to text]

24. In every war and subversive operation which the British monarchy has conducted against the United States, Canada has served as the most important base of British anti-U.S. operations. This was true in the War of Independence, the War of 1812-1815, in Britain's support of its asset, the Confederacy, during the U.S. Civil War, in the deployment of Booth for the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, and sundry other operations during the Nineteenth Century. During the late 1930s, Canada served as the base for what became known as the Churchill-Beaverbrook apparatus, including British controlling influence over the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and Office of War Information (OWI) through the London Joint Intelligence Committee's Special Operations Executive (SOE). The Permindex assassination-bureau implicated in attempted assassination of France's President Charles de Gaulle and targetting of President John F. Kennedy, was then headed by the same, Montreal-based British intelligence officer, Major (ret.) Louis Mortimer Bloomfield (presently deceased), who was also special personnel consultant to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation's J. Edgar Hoover, and is otherwise known as former key attorney for the Bronfman interests. The current British efforts to destroy President William Clinton are run chiefly through the Canada-based Hollinger Corporation of Conrad Black; Hollinger, formerly known as Argus Corporation, was, like Bloomfield's Permindex, a British intelligence organization dating from the Beaverbrook-Churchill apparatus of the World War II period. The problem is not the people of Canada, but their choice of monarch.[return to text]

25. This prompted Britain to deploy the Booth-Surrat assassination-team for the assassination of President Lincoln, and attempted assassination of other Cabinet members, that same evening. British imperial fear of U.S. sea-going Monitors formed the basis for both the "Dreadnaught" policy of Britain's Admiral John Fisher (1841-1920), and the early 1920s threat of possible joint British-Japan attack upon the United States. Until World War II, it was British policy to ensure that the United States never developed a sea-going capability in capital ships which could become a serious challenge to Britain's global naval supremacy. On Fisher, see Robert K. Massie, Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, and the Coming of the Great War (New York: Ballantine Books, 1992); see "Introduction: Sea Power," pp. xvii-xxxi.[return to text]

26. One should recall the 1942-1944 fight between the U.S.A. and Churchill over the Allied invasion of continental Europe, and the later deployment of Montgomery's army in an ill-fated, late 1944 piece of incompetence designed to prevent Patton's Third Army from overrunning Germany "prematurely." One recalls Churchill's replacement of a competent Middle East commander by General Bernard "Go Slow" Montgomery, who delayed the retreat of Field Marshal Rommel's Afrika-Korps until the point Montgomery could painfully assemble a nearly solid mass of everything resembling artillery, hub against hub, from the Mediterranean to the Qattara Depression. Churchill's stubborn preference for "the soft [Mediterranean, Balkan] underbelly of Europe," as a way of delaying a cross-channel invasion, is exemplary; so is British intelligence's turning over of German anti-Nazi resistance personnel to the Gestapo. All done to ensure that the Germans and Russians would continue to kill one another off, as long as possible.[return to text]

27. Beginning in November-December 1989, this candidate began dictating parameters for a "Productive Triangle" solution to the problem of the economies of the former East bloc and the former Soviet Union. Articles quoting the author's policy statements, "LaRouche Outlines German Solution that Works," and, "LaRouche Focuses on Railways," appeared, with maps, in the New Federalist weekly newspaper, Nov. 17, 1995. The first detailed discussion of what was then called "the Third Way approach," appeared in "A program to rescue Poland and secure peace," EIR, Jan. 12, 1990, pp. 22-23. This laid the basis for what later came to be called the "Productive Triangle" program. See also, "Message of Lyndon H. LaRouche to the European Food for Peace Conference," in EIR White Paper: The Crucial Role of Lyndon LaRouche in the Current Strategic Situation (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, April 1993), pp. 36-37. See also, "Paris-Berlin-Vienna Triangle: Locomotive of the World Economy," EIR, Feb. 2, 1990, pp. 26-35. The most detailed elaboration appeared in the German-language report cited in footnote 34, below. Later, campaigns associated with the candidate published the pamphlets, "Can Europe Pull Us Out of Economic Collapse: Lyndon LaRouche's 'European Productive Triangle' Proposal: 'A New Economic Miracle for Eastern Europe'" (Democrats for Economic Recovery, LaRouche in '92, May 1991), and "Secure World Peace with Economic Development: Implement LaRouche Oasis and Productive Triangle Programs" (Committee to Reverse the Accelerating Global Economic and Strategic Crisis: A LaRouche Exploratory Committee, September 1993). For the later extension of this strategic idea to all of the Eurasian land-mass, see "Eurasian rail bridge: 'A modern Silk Road and bridge of world peace,'" EIR, May 27, 1994, pp. 7-10. For a comparison of the LaRouche "Productive Triangle" with the Delors Plan, and a recent elaboration of the infrastructure policy of the candidate, see Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "The new role for Russia in U.S. policy today," EIR, Aug. 25, 1995, pp. 14-25.[return to text]

28. April 12, 1945 is the date of the untimely death of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. As it turned out, his death changed the course of world history, very much for the worse. Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and what Churchill represented, took over. Most of the hellish moments through which the world has lived since that date, are the rotten fruit of Churchill's untimely political victory over his political opponent, Roosevelt.[return to text]

29. Later, after March 1983, under pressure from the Heritage Foundation and other interests, the SDI policy underwent significant changes, and this candidate was frozen out of the policy-shaping as a result. However, through and beyond 1986, it was the LaRouche version of the SDI, which the Soviet government believed to be the real SDI policy of the U.S. government, and Moscow reacted accordingly.[return to text]

30. The first formal announcement of an ABM treaty-design was made by Bertrand Russell's agent, Dr. Leo Szilard, at the Second (Quebec) Pugwash Conference of 1958. Szilard's lunatic address there established him as the title-role-model of the Stanley Kubrick Dr. Strangelove film. Kissinger had been brought into the Russell-Szilard thermonuclear one-world designs through the sponsorship of McGeorge Bundy; Kissinger served as Pugwashee during the 1960s, and carried Szilard's policy into its form as SALT I and the 1982 ABM treaty.[return to text]

31. On the Soviet side, this point had been made in the 1962 edition of Marshal V.D. Sokolovskii's Soviet Strategy.[return to text]

32. To clear away a popularized, false mythology circulated about SDI, the following should be noted here. One does not wish to attack gratuitously the Graham who subsequently suffered a severe illness; but, the policy issues are clear and of importance to the present day. During the Summer of 1982, until the announcement of March 23, 1983, the leading opponent of the future SDI was a spokesman for a pseudo-scientific book, called High Frontier: A New National Strategy (Washington, D.C.: High Frontier [Heritage Foundation], 1982), Lt.-Gen. USA (ret.) Daniel O. Graham, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Graham had been an opponent of then Air Force intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Keegan's efforts to bring the importance of "new physical principles" to the attention of the President Ford administration. Graham's Autumn 1982 attacks on Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. and also Dr. Edward Teller, were fanatically irrationalist, even explicitly anti-science. After March 23, 1983, Graham was put forward, with Heritage Foundation backing, as the originator of the SDI! Later that year, Graham put heavy pressure on Dr. Teller to write a letter denouncing LaRouche's 1982 attacks on Graham's lying about LaRouche; Graham repaid Teller for this by wide public circulation of a fraudulent representation of Teller's letter. Graham was consistent on one point; before and after March 23, 1983, he continued to do his utmost to attempt to prevent any work on "new physical principles" as a basis for strategic ballistic missile defense.[return to text]

33. There were three reasons for this writer's February 1983 estimate, as delivered to his Soviet opposite number, that the Soviet economic system would collapse in about five years. First, was the general situation, that the Warsaw Pact system, a war-economy based upon what the famous Soviet economist E. Preobrazhensky had once termed "primitive socialist accumulation," would collapse from a combination of wear-and-tear and also a suicidal, post-1983 infusion of "information theory" and "systems analysis" from the West. Second, the capital-investment cycle indicated that a breakdown, from lack of renewal of infrastructure and productive investment, would overtake the Comecon in about five years time, especially in the critical East Germany keystone sector, setting off chain-reaction effects throughout the bloc, including the Soviet economy proper. Third, it had become clear that Moscow, under the military leadership of Marshal Nikolai Orgarkov, was preparing for an independent war-winning potential against NATO; this would strain the weakened Comecon economy to the limit. After the dissolving of the East Germany Communist regime, NATO discovered the Warsaw Pact had been in preparation for an early overrunning of western Europe, right up to the point, during 1989, the Wall crumbled politically.[return to text]

34. Das "produktive Dreieck" Paris-Berlin-Wien: Ein europäisches Wirtschaftswunder als Motor für die Weltwirtschaft (Wiesbaden: EIRNA, August 1990). Translations of portions or all of this appeared in other languages, or as recapitulations of the essential content. [return to text]

35. With modern EDP's geographic information system, or GIS, technology, this is a readily accessible, improved method for mapping of physical-economic and related data.[return to text]

36. It is no mere coincidence that the development of the land-area of the United States virtually ceased in the wake of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. On this account, it must be said, in fairness, that "Teddy" Roosevelt sharply accelerated an already existing, downward trend in the development of the U.S.A.'s land-areas, a trend which had begun under the impact of the ruinous, London-dictated U.S. Specie Resumption Act of the late 1870s.[return to text]

37. During the interval 1671-1716, the "last universal mind" of science, Gottfried Leibniz, also developed a branch of physical science known as physical economy. Leibniz's work revolutionized the pre-existing, 1439-1671 science of political-economy, which was known chiefly by the title of cameralism. Leibniz's revolutionary discoveries focussed principally upon three sets of empirical questions: how the productive power of labor depended upon increases in the physical standard of living of the households of operatives, how increase in the amount of power applied to machinery "enabled one man to do the work of a hundred" laboring without heat-powered machinery, and how advances in technology might increase the productive power of labor, even in the case that the heat-power supplied to relevant machinery were not increased. On the rudiments of the applied science of physical economy, see the following works of physical economist Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.: So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics? (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1984); The Science of Christian Economy (Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1991); "Why most Nobel Prize economists are quacks," EIR, July 28, 1995; and, "Non-Newtonian mathematics for economists," EIR, Aug. 11, 1995. [return to text]

38. The western-European popular news media had been conditioned to regurgitate this sort of official lying during the terrorism wave of the late 1970s period of the famous NATO "strategy of tension," the era of what some of Italy's leading press described as the "Compass Plot," a specific allusion to NATO's famous compass symbol. During that period, some among the same British psychological-warfare agencies whose "Heidelberg [mental] Patients' Collective" had a hand in restocking the so-called "second generation" of the "Baader-Meinhof Gang" (Red Army Fraction: RAF), took the lead in insisting that "terrorism is a sociological phenomenon." To this, those of us who had won our spurs in successful investigations of terrorist operations replied, a bit cynically: "They must mean, that terrorism is the result of an excessive number of sociologists." It became fashionable to block all serious investigations of terrorism with "Frankfurt School"-trained CIA operative Herbert Marcuse's obiter dictum: "There are no conspiracies in history." (Those of us who had traced the Foundation grants conduited into the operations of SDS's Mark Rudd et al., knew that Marcuse had played a direct, provable hand in creating the circles which founded the U.S. "Weatherman" terrorist gang.) If one babbles the nonsense-term, "Conspiracy theorist!" frequently enough, hyperventilation will assist the poor fool in actually believing what he is babbling.[return to text]

39. Might one not alter the common saying, thus: A fool and his money were better parted? We are all familiar with the suffusion of hypertensive flush which comes to the face of the irate, self-styled "practical" person taking offense at the suggestion that some scientific or moral principle might better govern society's policies and practice. The cynosure of his dogged "practicality," is the cash nexus, or, as a follower of Sigmund Freud might prefer, the cathexis between the gentleman's money and his sundry lusts. The Hobbesian fancy, that with sufficient money, one might almost do as one wishes, ought to be recognized as a form of insanity, in the strictest sense of that term. The greatest fool, in kindred attempts to facilitate a political "conflict resolution" among two or more beset with such a degraded passion, is the modern marriage counsellor, who, we must suspect, might be attempting to share the intrinsic misery of his own marriage with those convenient victims who present themselves as his clients.[return to text]