Executive Intelligence Review
This article appears in the October 5, 2001 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Riemann and Counter-Terrorism

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

September 28, 2001

[PDF version of this article]

During the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries, the occurrence of what was usefully called "terrorism," usually signified either the practices of British Foreign Office assets, such as Danton/Marat; or, in the latter part of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries, "propaganda of the deed"—politically motivated use of methods of major felonies, such as acts of exemplary violence, blackmail, and so on.

Today, in the age of nuclear weapons of mass destruction, what has come to be called "international terrorism," since 1968-69, is a special form of warfare deployed covertly either by governments, institutions of governments, or powerful financial cliques which approach—and sometimes exceed—the power of the relevant governments. In such cases, what is called "terrorism" is often better called "covert methods of irregular warfare," which is what happened to the United States on Sept. 11th.

For example, Brzezinski's Afghansi since the late 1970s, and the assortment of pranks which came to be known popularly as "Iran-Contra," merely typify an amassing of a vast assortment of persons who have adopted killer-for-hire as their customary, preferred sort of employment. Government agencies, and other putatively "respectable" institutions, which prefer to act anonymously, dip into the labor-pool of thuggery, assembling teams who conduct the covert irregular warfare which a screaming mass media enjoys describing as "International Terrorism." By calling this "international terrorism," those who deploy such acts of warfare mask their roguish deeds with forms of denial such as "Who, me?!" or, "Me? I never touch the stuff."

Naturally, the British Commonwealth being the far-flung British Commonwealth, and managing the Irish being the practice that it is, a lot of the hirelings of what is called the "international terrorist" trade pass through British ductways and safe-house arrangements. By calling all this "international terrorism," the public, and even many officials of government, are fooled.

Thus, we have a situation, as the events of Sept. 11th show, in which the national origin, or religious persuasion of the persons deployed to such monstrous effects does not necessarily lead the investigator to useful findings. Sherlock Holmes becomes a useless nuisance; Dupin is to be preferred, instead.

The key to unravelling operations such as those of Sept. 11th, lies not in the parts of the actions, but in the form of organization and of political effects of the yet-to-be-determined agency which has recruited the bits and pieces as expendable help for the operation which should concern us. Those of us who have spent decades tracking these forms of irregular warfare, are presented at this moment, with a situation in which the objectives and motives of the mysterious agency behind the Sept. 11th attacks are known with relatively great, and increasing precision.

Who would and could organize such an operation? We know, or should know the answer to that question. Given our knowledge of the objectives, motives, and general nature of the perpetrator, we have forewarning of what kind of actions we must expect from him in the near future, and can therefore design flanking actions which will tend to eliminate the possibility of the still-unknown adversary's realizing his ultimate objectives, even if we do not yet know who he is.

Yes, the pool of resources for international terrorism should be dried out. However, that, at its best, will be no more than a necessary housekeeping chore, if a sometimes bloody one. The primary objective must be to neutralize—and, hopefully, also identify—the high-ranking cabal which has assembled and deployed the capability whose first public actions have been witnessed on Sept. 11th.

That answer, to that question, will not be found in the Middle East, or Central Asia. Irregular warfare's ability to outflank modern regular military capabilities, is the ability to sneak up with a knife, or piece of wire, from a place very close to the intended victim. The question is, through what kind of powerful institutions, including some very high-ranking, and very capable types residing inside the U.S. itself, could it sneak up on the security institutions of the U.S. in the way that was done on Sept. 11th?

Subscribe to EIR