THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 212, February 24, 2003

SEND IN THE CLOWNS

Dis-Mything 9-11: The Last Maginot Line
by L. Reichard White
LReichardWhite@Yahoo.com

Special to TLE

"If you entrench yourself behind strong fortifications, you compel the enemy to seek a solution elsewhere." -World class Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz

As a result of past history, France didn't trust Germany. With images of WWI trench warfare dancing in their heads, the French built the biggest baddest barrier of walls, forts, and bunkers the world had ever seen on their border with Germany. They called it the "Maginot Line."

It was completely clear that, protected by tank-traps, long range cannon, pill-boxes, mine fields, etc. it would be virtually impossible for the Germans to successfully attack the Maginot Line.

So, that being obvious, the Germans went around it -- they took a shortcut thru Belgium and Luxemberg. The designers of the Maginot Line had not considered that possiblilty -- the Maginot's big guns couldn't even be swiveled to use against forces coming from behind. The Maginot Line had been thoroughly flanked.

The U.S. military is the biggest baddest military machine the world has ever seen. It's completely clear that it would be virtually impossible for anyone to successfully attack the modern American military. It's the modern-day equivalent of the Maginot Line. And like the original, it's been thoroughly flanked. By "sleeper cells" on u.S. soil.

NEW YORK -- At this moment, militant Islamic groups labeled by the State Department as terrorist organizations -- Hezbollah, Palestine Islamic Jihad, Hamas and others -- operate quietly within U.S. borders from New York to San Diego.... The United States -- seen as the Great Satan by many Islamic radicals -- has become a key part of their terrorist network. -- "Terrorists Strong Enough to Attack U.S.," by Richard Cole, Associated Press, Tulsa World, May 25. 1997 Truth AND Consequences NEXIALIST N+E+W+S

Though they don't like to talk about it, even some members of the Bush Administration admit this chilling new reality:

Ridge, who spoke to the BBC earlier in the week, said it was "correct" to suggest that al-Qaeda sleeper cells were operating in America. "We believe they are there and not only sympathisers but operatives ..." Only matter of time before US hit by terrorists: Homeland Security Tsar Ridge, smh.com.au, November 11 2002

With the "code orange" alert last week, the truth fully surfaced in dramatic fashion. We now know the American Maginot Line has been decisively flanked.

How serious is the breach? According to a background piece for ABC THIS WEEK, February 16, 2003,

...while they don't say it publicly, many American officials expected there would be huge numbers of Americans dead by this morning from the latest al 'Qaeda attack which had been expected on or about February 13, last Thursday.

So, "many American officials" think the breach is quite serious.

When they say "huge numbers of Americans dead," how many do they have in mind?

V.P. Cheney warns that "for the first time in our history, we will probably suffer more casualties here at home in America than our troops overseas." -FOX NEWS banner, October 23, 2001, 11:36:56
"If we loose 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 civilians, we have to keep our resolve." -Cameo by Commentator Bernard Shaw, CNN, September 20, 2001, 04:43:41
Former Sen. Sam Nunn recently portrayed the president in the "Dark Winter" simulation of a smallpox attack. On Sept. 5, Nunn summarized it for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

The 3,000 "cases" in Oklahoma from the initial "attack" mushroomed into hundreds of thousands of victims nationwide within 12 days, along with riots and a trade collapse. - Special Report: America Under Attack By JOSEPH B. VERRENGIA, Associated Press, (September 16, 2001 2:41 p.m.)

So those "huge numbers" are somewhere in the range of 10,000 to "hundreds of thousands" of Americans dead. Particularly with the passage of biological weapons, so-called "poor man's nukes" into their hands, opponents of the American "military-industrial complex," as President Dwight David Eisenhower once called it, have become potentially much more, well, "efficient."

"Old fashioned" nukes on American soil are a high probability too. Your first clue might have been the scrapping of a movie based on libertarian columnist Dave Barry's book "Big Trouble" -- because the theme revolved around a "back-pack" nuke in Florida. Your second clue might have been that Warren Buffett, the "Sage of Omaha" says so. [1]

Why should we pay attention? Because Warren Buffett is the second richest man in the world, got that way writing insurance, and his Berkshire Hathaway company is among the few insurance companies writing terrorist insurance policies.

Heck, even the government knows:

As Russian President Putin says, there will be nukes. All they have to do is smuggle something the size of a briefcase [2] into the U.S. That will be as powerful as 1/5 the size of Hiroshima. The Russians have 148 and can't account for even 100 of them. -Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT), Chairman House National Security Subommittee, Geraldo, CNBC, October 3, 2001, 22:00:01

But could they really smuggle in a nuke? That question was thoroughly answered by an ABC NEWS investigation team when it successfully smuggled 15 pounds of depleted uranium, half enough to make a nuclear device if it had been enriched -- and plenty for a "dirty nuke" all by itself -- from Austria thru Romania, Turkey and on ship-board, right thru U.S. Customs' most sophisticated detection equipment in the Port of New York and on into the U.S. heartland.

The new reality is, the U.S. "Maginot Line" leaks like a sieve. It's about as useful as was the French version. The U.S. Government -- and that includes the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, and any other newly concoted bureaucracies they come up with -- simply can't can't protect us, and that's, as they say, "the bottom line."

The new reality is very much like the joke about the woman in the dentist chair when she says after strategically gripping the doctors family jewels, "Now we don't really want to hurt each other do we doc?"

The Bush planners are well aware their opponents have someone by the short and curlys, and that as long as the doc doesn't fire-up that drill no one's likely to get hurt - - -

The letter [on behalf of CIA director George J. Tenet] said "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" with conventional or chemical or biological weapons against the United States. "Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action," it continued. ...The letter dated Oct. 7 also declassified an exchange from a closed Congressional hearing on Oct. 2 in which a senior intelligence official judged the likelihood of Mr. Hussein's initiating an attack in the foreseeable future as "low." C.I.A. Warns That a U.S. Attack May Ignite Terror By Alison Mitchell and Carl Hulse, nytimes.com, WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 [Link may require nytimes.com memembership]

None the less doc has an itchy drill finger -- it's not really his sex life on the line after all. He and his staff have nice little hide-aways all ready for them. Like the underground "STRATCOM" bunkers somewhere near Ohmaha, Nebraska -- or one of the two "undisclosed locations" where Cheney regularly hangs out along with the rest of the "shadow government."

So you can be sure those "beltway boys (and girls)" won't be among the 10,000 to "hundreds of thousands" of dead Americans when the doc's rotary device hits the Iraqi enamel. And if as one of "we the people" you feel neglected - - well you should. According to Alan Murray -- The Wall Street Journal's Washington Bureau Chief -- ~"There has been no plan released to the public on what to do in case of such an attack and no public education is planned by the administration."

Oh, I almost forgot. Accroding to "Dubya," there goes the economy too: In his New Years message he suggested, "the greatest danger to the American economy is the threat of an attack from Iraq. An attack from Saddam Hussein or a surrogate of Saddam Hussein would cripple our economy. Our economy is strong, it's resilient, we've got to continue to make it strong and resilient. This economy cannot afford to stand an attack." So while the president thinks the economy is resilient, I guess not that resilient??

Since it's clear the Bush babys know the price we the people will likely pay for their penchant for radical dentistry, you'd think they'd have a really good reason for their planned oral surgery. And they'd want us to really understand what it was. But so far, they aren't telling.

You don't seriously believe it's because a third-rate organization (the U.N.), regularly and soundly dissed by American conservatives, has failed to endorse immediately bombing what is now a third-world country into fourth-world-hood -- because of a subjective interpretation of an ambiguously worded and politicized "resolution," now - - - - do you?

Consider it from the perspective of Chief Arms Inspector Hans Blix: Dr Blix ... said the choice for the UN was between continued containment [of Iraq] and invasion. Both strategies had problems, but an invasion required 250,000 troops and over $100bn [one-hundred billion dollars] while for containment the numbers were 250 inspectors and $80m. [eighty million dollars] US claim dismissed by Blix, Dan Plesch in New York, Wednesday February 5, 2003, The Guardian

Let's see. Eighty million dollars and 250 inspectors.

Versus one-hundred billion dollars, 250,000 troops, the economy -- oh, and possibly hundreds of thousands of dead American civilians. [3]

Tough decision?

So why is "Dubya" really so hell-bent on this attack?

But there's an even more important consideration that awaits the world once it recognizes that the last Maginot Line has been crossed and that by deploying it overseas in the first place, it's parent organization -- which is supposed to protect it's employers ("we the people") -- is instead endangering "hundreds of thousands" of their lives for no good reason - - - despite the Blix alternative and the admonitions of its first president to "avoid entangling foreign alliances." That even more important question is, "Of what use is such an organization to it's employers, 'we the people?'"

Could it be time to remember the words of the original founders of the country when they spelled out the reason "Governments are instituted among Men?"

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. -- The Declaration of Independence, A Transcription, National Archives and Records Administration

Or, if that all sounds too radical, perhaps we should just ease into things by joining-up with former Attorney General Ramsey Clark to impeach Dubya -- afterall, if getting a little head in the Oval Office can lead to impeachment, how about risking the lives of hundreds of thousands of American citizens? And destroying the economy?

You can find the impeachment petition here: [link]


NOTES:

[1] OMAHA, Neb. (AP) - Investment guru Warren Buffett offered a bleak prediction for the nation's national security, saying a terrorist attack on American soil is "virtually a certainty." ... "We're going to have something in the way of a major nuclear event in this country," said Buffett ... "It will happen. Whether it will happen in 10 years or 10 minutes, or 50 years ... it's virtually a certainty." -Billionaire Predicts Nuclear Attack, Sun May 5,10:28 PM ET, By Joe Ruff, Associated Press Writer. [ return]

[2] Shays is almost certainly incorrect in the size: These are not "briefcase" nukes, but "backpack" nukes and they weigh somewhere in the vacinity of 160 pounds - - - so they're not "backpacks" for just anybody. Ah-oh! Didn't the hi-jackers show an affinity for working out?? Anyway, it takes "critical mass" of fissionable material, and a very sturdy container to keep the critical mass together in a "critical size" long enough for the chain reaction to convert as much mass as possible according to e=mc squared. This critical mass and it's container set the lower limit of size and weight to such devices. So, once again, they're not brief-case nukes. Suitcase or backpack maybe, but not briefcase. - LRW. [ return]

[3] A synopsis of the Department of Justice draft legislation known as "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," also known as "PATRIOT Act II" from the ACLU just came across my monitor. You can add, "elimination of the Bill of Rights and scrapping the U.S. Constitution to the list of costs of Doc Dubya's Iraq attack. See for yourself here: [link] [ return]


TLE AFFILIATE

banner 10000004 banner
Brigade Quartermasters, Ltd.

Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations!


Next
to advance to the next article
Previous
to return to the previous article
Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 212, February 24, 2003