How to Start a War:
The American Use of War Pretext Incidents (1848-1989)
By Richard Sanders
“Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive!”
Sir Walter Scott, Marmion. Canto vi. Stanza 17
Throughout history, war planners have used various forms of
deception to trick their enemies. Because public support is
so crucial to the process of initiating and waging war, the
home population is also subject to deceitful stratagems. The
creation of false excuses to justify going to war is a major
first step in constructing public support for such deadly
ventures. Perhaps the most common pretext for war is an
apparently unprovoked enemy attack. Such attacks, however,
are often fabricated, incited or deliberately allowed to
occur. They are then exploited to arouse widespread public
sympathy for the victims, demonize the attackers and build
mass support for military “retaliation.”
Like schoolyard bullies who shout ‘He hit me first!’, war
planners know that it is irrelevant whether the opponent
really did ‘throw the first punch.’ As long as it can be
made to appear that the attack was unprovoked, the bully
receives license to ‘respond’ with force. Bullies and war
planners are experts at taunting, teasing and threatening
their opponents. If the enemy cannot be goaded into ‘firing
the first shot,’ it is easy enough to lie about what
happened. Sometimes, that is sufficient to rationalize a
schoolyard beating or a genocidal war.
Such trickery has probably been employed by every military
power throughout history. During the Roman empire, the
causes of war -- cassus belli -- were often invented to
conceal the real reasons for war. Over the millennia,
although weapons and battle strategies have changed greatly,
the deceitful strategem of using pretext incidents to ignite
war has remained remarkably consistent.
Pretext incidents, in themselves, are not sufficient to
spark wars. Rumors and allegations about the tragic events
must first spread throughout the target population. Constant
repetition of the official version of what happened, spawns
dramatic narratives that are lodged into public
consciousness. The stories become accepted without question
and legends are fostered. The corporate media is central to
the success of such ‘psychological operations.’ Politicians
rally people around the flag, lending their special oratory
skills to the call for a military “response.” Demands for
“retaliation” then ring out across the land, war hysteria
mounts and, finally, a war is born.
Every time the US has gone to war, pretext incidents have
been used. Upon later examination, the conventional
perception of these events is always challenged and
eventually exposed as untrue. Historians, investigative
journalists and many others, have cited eyewitness accounts,
declassified documents and statements made by the
perpetrators themselves to demonstrate that the provocative
incidents were used as stratagems to stage-manage the march
to war.
Here are a few particularly blatant examples of this
phenomenon.
1846: The Mexican-American War
CONTEXT
After Mexico’s revolution in 1821, Americans demanded about
$3,000,000 in compensation for their losses.1 Mexico
abolished slavery in 1829 and then prohibited further U.S.
immigration into Texas, a Mexican state. In 1835, Mexico
tried to enforce its authority over Texas. Texans, rallying
under the slogan "Remember the Alamo!”, drove Mexican troops
out of Texas and proclaimed independence. For nine years,
many Texans lobbied for US annexation. This was delayed by
northerners who opposed adding more slave territories to the
US and feared a war with Mexico.2
In 1844, Democratic presidential candidate, James Polk,
declared support for annexing Texas and won with the
thinnest margin ever.3 The following year, Texas was annexed
and Mexico broke off diplomatic relations with the US. Polk
sent John Slidell to Mexico offering $25 million for New
Mexico, California and an agreement accepting the Rio Grande
boundary. Mexican government officials refused to meet the
envoy.4
PRETEXT
John Stockwell, a Texan who led the CIA’s covert 1970s war
in Angola, summed up the start of Mexican American war by
saying “they offered two dollars-a-head to every soldier who
would enlist. They didn't get enough takers, so they offered
a hundred acres to anyone who would be a veteran of that
war. They still didn't get enough takers, so [General]
Zachary Taylor was sent down to parade up and down the
border -- the disputed border -- until the Mexicans fired on
him.... And the nation rose up, and we fought the war.”5
President Polk hoped that sending General Taylor’s 3,500
soldiers into Mexico territory, would provoke an attack
against US troops.6 “On May 8, 1846, Polk met with his
Cabinet at the White House and told them that if the Mexican
army attacked the U.S. forces, he was going to send a
message to Congress asking for a declaration of war. It was
decided that war should be declared in three days even if
there was no attack.”7
When news of the skirmish arrived, Polk sent a message to
Congress on May 11: “Mexico has passed the boundary of the
U.S. and shed American blood on American soil.”8 Two days
later Congress declared war on Mexico.9
RESPONSE
Newspapers helped the push for war with headlines like:
“‘Mexicans Killing our Boys in Texas.’10
With public support secured, U.S. forces occupied New Mexico
and California. US troops fought battles across Mexico and
stormed their capital. A new more US-friendly government
quickly emerged. It signed over California and New Mexico
for $15 million and recognized the Rio Grande as their
border with the US state of Texas.11
General Taylor became an American war hero and he rode his
victory straight into the White House by succeeding Polk as
president in 1849.
REAL REASONS
The US secured over 500,000 square miles from Mexico,
including Texas, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, California and
parts of Colorado and Wyoming.
The war was a boon to US nationalism, it boosted popular
support for a very weak president and added vast new
territories to the US where slavery was allowed.
1898: The Spanish-American War
CONTEXT
Cubans fought several wars to free themselves from Spanish
colonial rule, including 1868-1878, 1879-1880 and
1895-1898.12 In 1898, Cubans were on the brink of finally
winning their independence. The US government agreed to
respect Cuba’s sovereignty and promised they would not step
in.
"On January 24, [1898] on the pretext of protecting the life
and safety of Mr. Lee, U.S. consul in Havana, and other U.S.
citizens in the face of street disturbances provoked by
Spanish extremists, the Maine battleship entered the bay of
Havana.”13
PRETEXT
On February 15, 1898, a huge explosion sank the USS Maine
killing 266 of its crew.14
In 1975, an investigation led by US Admiral Hyman Rickover
concluded that there was no evidence of any external
explosion. The explosion was internal, probably caused by a
coal dust explosion. Oddly, the ship's weapons and
explosives were stored next to the coal bunker.15
RESPONSE
The Maine’s commander cautioned against assumptions of an
enemy attack. The press denounced him for "refusing to see
the obvious." The Atlantic Monthly said anyone thinking this
was not a premeditated, Spanish act of war was "completely
at defiance of the laws of probability."16
Newspapers ran wild headlines like: “Spanish Cannibalism,”
“Inhuman Torture,” “Amazon Warriors Fight For Rebels.”17
Guillermo Jimpnez Soler notes: “As would become its usual
practice, U.S. intervention in the war was preceded by
intensive press campaigns which incited jingoism, pandering
to the most shameless tales and sensationalism and
exacerbated cheap sentimentality. Joseph Pulitzer of The
World and William Randolph Hearst from The Journal, the two
largest U.S. papers... carried their rivalry to a paroxysm
of inflaming public opinion with scandalous, provocative and
imaginary stories designed to win acceptance of U.S.
participation in the first of its holy wars beyond its
maritime borders.”18
US papers sent hundreds of reporters and photographers to
cover the apparent Spanish attacks. Upon arrival, many were
disappointed. Frederick Remington wrote to Hearst saying:
“There is no war .... Request to be recalled.” Hearst’s
now-famous cable replied: "Please remain. You furnish the
pictures, I'll furnish the war." For weeks, The Journal
dedicated more than eight pages per day to the explosion.19
Through ceaseless repetition, a rallying cry for retaliation
grew into a roar. “In the papers, on the streets and
in…Congress. The slogan was "Remember the Maine! To hell
with Spain."20
With the US public and government safely onboard, the US set
sail for war launching an era of ‘gunboat diplomacy.’
Anti-war sentiments were drowned out by the sea of cries for
war. On April 25, 1898, the US Congress declared war on
Spain.
REAL REASONS
Within four months “the US replaced Spain as the colonial
power in the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico, and devised
a special status for Cuba. Never again would the US achieve
so much…as in that ‘splendid little war,’ as…described at
the time by John Hay, future secretary of state.”21
Historian Howard Zinn has said that 1898 heralded “the most
dramatic entrance onto the world scene of American military
and economic power.… The war ushered in what Henry Luce
later referred to as the American Century, which really
meant a century of American domination.”22
1915: World War I
CONTEXT
In 1915, Europe was embroiled in war, but US public
sentiment opposed involvement. President Woodrow Wilson said
they would “remain neutral in fact as well as in name.”23
PRETEXT
On May 7, 1915, a German submarine (U-boat) sank the
Lusitania, a British passenger ship killing 1,198, including
128 Americans.24
The public was not told that passengers were, in effect, a
‘human shield’ protecting six million rounds of US
ammunition bound for Britain.25 To Germany, the ship was a
threat. To Britain, it was bait for luring an attack. Why?
British Admiralty leader, Winston Churchill, had already
commissioned “a study to determine the political impact if
an ocean liner were sunk with Americans on board.”26 A week
before the incident, Churchill wrote to the Board of Trade’s
president saying it is “most important to attract neutral
shipping to our shores, in the hopes especially of
embroiling the U.S. with Germany.”27
British Naval Intelligence Commander, Joseph Kenworthy,
said: “The Lusitania was sent at considerably reduced speed
into an area where a U-boat was known to be waiting and with
her escorts withdrawn.”28
Patrick Beesly’s history of British naval intelligence in
WWI, notes: "no effective steps were taken to protect the
Lusitania.” British complicity is furthered by their
foreknowledge that:
· U-boat commanders knew of the Lusitania’s route,
· a U-boat that had sunk two ships in recent days was in the
path of the Lusitania,
· although destroyers were available, none escorted the
Lusitania or hunted for U-boats,
· the Lusitania was not given specific warnings of these
threats.29
RESPONSE
US newspapers aroused outrage against Germany for ruthlessly
killing defenceless Americans. The US was being drawn into
the war. In June 1916, Congress increased the size of the
army. In September, Congress allocated $7 billion for
national defense, “the largest sum appropriated to that
time.”30
In January 1917, the British said they had intercepted a
German message to Mexico seeking an alliance with the US and
offering to help Mexico recover land ceded to the US. On
April 2, Wilson told Congress: “The world must be safe for
democracy.” Four days later the US declared war on
Germany.31
REAL REASONS
Influential British military, political and business
interests wanted US help in their war with Germany. Beesly
concludes that “there was a conspiracy deliberately to put
the Lusitania at risk in the hope that even an abortive
attack on her would bring the U.S. into the war.”32
Churchill’s memoirs of WWI state: "There are many kinds of
maneuvres in war, some only of which take place on the
battlefield.... The maneuvre which brings an ally into the
field is as serviceable as that which wins a great
battle."33
In WWI, rival imperialist powers struggled for bigger
portions of the colonial pie. “They were fighting over
boundaries, colonies, spheres of influence; they were
competing for Alsace-Lorraine, the Balkans, Africa and the
Middle East.”34 US war planners wanted a piece of the
action.
"War is the health of the state," said Randolph Bourne
during WWI. Zinn explains: “Governments flourished,
patriotism bloomed, class struggle was stilled.”35
1941: World War II
CONTEXT
US fascists opposed President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR)
from the start. In 1933, "America's richest businessmen were
in a panic. Roosevelt intended to conduct a massive
redistribution of wealth.[and it] had to be stopped at all
costs. The answer was a military coup.secretly financed and
organized by leading officers of the Morgan and du Pont
empires."36
A top Wall Street conspirator said: "We need a fascist
government in this country.to save the nation from the
communists who want to tear it down and wreck all that we
have built."37
The Committee on Un-American Activities said: "Sworn
testimony showed that the plotters represented notable
families -- Rockefeller, Mellon, Pew, Pitcairn, Hutton and
great enterprises -- Morgan, Dupont, Remington, Anaconda,
Bethlehem, Goodyear, GMC, Swift, Sun."38
FDR also faced "isolationist" sentiments from such
millionaires who shared Hitler's hatred of communism and had
financed Hitler's rise to power as George Herbert Walker and
Prescott Bush, predecessors of the current president.39
William R.Hearst, mid-wife of the war with Spain, opposed a
war against fascism. Hearst employed Hitler, Mussolini and
Goering as writers. He met Hitler in 1934 and used Readers'
Digest and his 33 newspapers to support fascism.40
PRETEXT
On December 7, 1941, Japanese bombers attacked the US
Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbour, Hawaii, killing about
2,460.41
FDR, and his closest advisors, not only knew of the attack
in advance and did not prevent it, they had actually
provoked it. Lt. Arthur McCollum, head of the Far East desk
for U.S. Navy intelligence, wrote a detailed eight-step plan
on October 7, 1940 that was designed to provoke an attack.42
FDR immediately set the covert plan in motion. Soon after
implementing the final step, Japan attacked Pearl Harbour.
After meeting FDR on October 16, 1941, Secretary of War
Henry Stimson wrote: "We face the delicate question of the
diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure Japan is put
into the wrong and makes the first bad move -- overt move."
On November 25, after another meeting with FDR, Stimson
wrote: "The question was: how we should maneuver them [the
Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot."43
The US had cracked Japanese diplomatic and military codes.44
A Top Secret Army Board report (October 1944), shows that
the US military knew "the probable exact hour and date of
the attack."45 On November 29, 1941, the Secretary of State
revealed to a reporter that the attack's time and place was
known. This foreknowledge was reported in the New York Times
(Dec. 8, 1941).46
RESPONSE
After Pearl Harbour, the US quickly declared war against
Japan. With media support, "Remember Pearl Harbour!" became
an American rallying cry. On December 11, Germany and Italy
declared war on the US.
As the war wound down, decoded messages revelaed to the US
military that Japan would soon surrender. They knew the
atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was
unnecessary. Although nuclear weapons are commonly believed
to have ended WWII, they were an opening salvo in the Cold
War against the USSR.
REAL REASONS
The US used WWII to maneuver itself into a position of
superiority over former imperial rivals in Europe. In
Parenti's words the US "became the prime purveyor and
guardian of global capitalism."47 As the only nation
wielding nuclear weapons, the US also became the world's
sole superpower. z
1950: The Korean War
CONTEXT
There is "extensive evidence of U.S. crimes against peace
and crimes
against humanity" KWCT committed after they occupied
southern Korea in
September 1945. The US worked to "create a police
state.using many former
collaborators with Japanese rule, provoke tension.between
southern and
northern Korea, opposing and disrupting any plans for
peaceful
reunification. The U.S. trained, directed and supported ROK
[South Korea]
in systematic murder, imprisonment, torture, surveillance,
harassment and
violations of human rights of hundreds of thousands.,
especially.nationalists, leftists, peasants seeking land
reform, union
organizers and/or those sympathetic to the north."48
University of Hawaii professor, Oliver Lee, notes a "long
pattern of South
Korean incursions" into the north. In 1949, there were more
than 400 border
engagements. A US Army document states: "Some of the
bloodiest engagements
were caused by South Korean units securing and preparing
defensive
positions that were either astride or north of the 38th
parallel. This
provoked violent North Korean actions."49
PRETEXT
On June 25, 1950, the North Korean military were said to
have moved three
miles into South Korea territory.
Dr. Channing Liem, the former South Korean ambassador to the
UN (1960-1961)
wrote: "For Washington, the question, 'who fired the first
shot?' carried
special significance.. Assistant Secretary of State for UN
Affairs.[revealed] before the Senate Appropriations
Committee, 1950, the US
had devised a plan prior to the start of the war to gain
approval from the
UN to send its troops to Korea under the UN flag in the
event that South
Korea was attacked. It was imperative, therefore, that the
'first shot' be
fired by the North, or at least that such an argument could
be made."50
ROK President Syngman Rhee triggered the war "with behind
the scene support
of John Foster Dulles," the former-U.S. Secretary of State
who met Rhee
(June 18, 1950) just days before the pretext incident.
Dulles told Rhee
that "if he was ready to attack the communist North, the
U.S. would lend
help, through the UN.. He advised Rhee.to persuade the world
that the ROK
was attacked first, and to plan his actions accordingly."51
Albert Einstein told Liem in 1955 that "the US was
manipulating the UN..
[It] was being exploited by the great powers at the expense
of the small
nations.. He went on to say great powers do not act on the
basis of facts
only but manufacture the facts to serve their purposes and
force their will
on smaller nations."52
I.F.Stone was perhaps the first to expose how a US diplomat
deceived the UN
Secretary General into believing there had been an
unprovoked North Korean
attack.53
North Korea claimed the attack began two days earlier when
ROK divisions
launched a six-hour artillery attack and then pushed 1 or 2
kilometers
across the border. They responded to "halt the enemy's
advance and go over
to a decisive counterattack."54
RESPONSE
Secretary of State, Dean Acheson was "quick to seize the
opportunity to
blame the war on North Korea regardless of the evidence."
North Korea was
accused of "brutal, unprovoked aggression."55
The public was told that this 'invasion' was the first step
in Soviet plans
for world domination. Anyone opposing the war was called a
communist.
McCarthyism was on.
On June 27, 1950, Truman orders US troops to support South
Korea, Congress
agrees and the UN Security Council approves the plan.56
About three million civilians were killed, two-thirds in
North Korea.57
REAL REASONS
To maintain power, South Korea required major US military
support. One
month before the pretext, Rhee suffered a terrible electoral
defeat.
Opposing North Korea, diverted public attention from Rhee's
repression to
the communist north.
The war was used to triple the Pentagon budget, boost NATO's
military
build-up and create a new military role for the UN that
could be
manipulated by the US.
1964: The Vietnam War
CONTEXT
Long before WWII, Vietnamese fought for independence from
French Indochina.
Resistance continued when Japanese troops occupied the
colony during the
war. Much of the region reverted to French control after the
war. As early
as 1950, the US aided French efforts to defeat the Ho Chi
Minh's
revolutionary forces. When France lost a decisive battle in
1954, the
Geneva Accord recognized the independence of Vietnam, Laos
and Cambodia.
Vietnam was "temporarily" divided. Ngo Dinh Diem's
repressive regime in
South Vietnam was backed by thousands of US military
"advisors." A military
coup overthrew Diem in November 1963.58
That same month, President Kennedy -- who had resisted
escalating the war
-- was assassinated. President Johnson took power and began
intensified US
involvement in Vietnam.
PRETEXT
On July 30, 1964, enemy torpedo boats supposedly attacked a
US destroyer,
the USS Maddox, in North Vietnam's Gulf of Tonkin. This lie
of an
"unprovoked attack" against a "routine patrol" threw the
U.S. headlong into
war.
The Maddox was actually involved in "aggressive intelligence
gathering in
coordination with actual attacks by South Vietnam and the
Laotian Air Force
against targets in North Vietnam."59 They wanted to provoke
a response "but
the North Vietnamese wouldn't bite. So, Johnson invented the
attack."60
The US task force commander for the Gulf of Tonkin "cabled
Washington that
the report was the result of an 'over-eager' sonarman who
picked up the
sounds of his own ship's screws and panicked."61
RESPONSE
On August 5, 1964, although he knew the attack had not
occurred, Johnson
couldn't resist this opportunity for a full-scale war.
Johnson went on national TV to lie about the Tonkin incident
and to
announce a bombing campaign to "retaliate." The media
repeated the lie ad
nauseum. The fabricated assault was "used as justification
for goading
Congress into granting the president the authorization to
initiate a
protracted and highly lucrative war with North Vietnam."62
Johnson asked
Congress for powers "to take all necessary measures to repel
any armed
attack against the forces of the US and to prevent further
aggression."63
Before the war ended in 1975, about four million in
Southeast Asia were killed.
REAL REASONS
As during the Spanish-American war, the American business
elite sought to
acquire colonies from failing imperial powers.
President Dwight Eisenhower propounded the 'Domino Theory'
in 1954.64 If
South Vietnam 'fell,' then other countries would too, 'like
a set of
dominos.' The Vietnam War was a threat to all
revolutionaries and their
supporters.
The war also gave a huge boost to US war industries. Other
US corporations
wanted access to region's markets and resources, like tin,
tungsten, rubber.65
1983: The Invasion of Grenada
CONTEXT
For decades, Eric Gairy dominated the tiny British colony of
Grenada. Gairy
"a vicious dictator.[was] the only Caribbean leader to
maintain diplomatic
relations with Pinochet's Chile." When his "notorious
security forces"
returned from training in Chile "'disappearances' became
frequent."66
'Gariyism' was so bad that when Britain offered
independence, Grenadans
united to "shut down the country.prior to Independence Day,
February 7,
1974."67
The New Jewel Movement (NJM) led a successful uprising on
March 13, 1979.
The NJM "organized agrarian reform., expanded trade union
rights, advanced
women's equality., established literacy programs and
instituted free
medical care."68
The CIA "relentlessly used every trick in its dirty bag"
including "an
unending campaign of economic, psychological and openly
violent
destabilization." Reagan met Caribbean leaders, the US urged
"regional
governments to consider military action" and CIA chief,
William Casey, met
Senate Intelligence Committee members "to discuss CIA
involvement." Gairy
began "recruiting mercenaries from.the Cuban exile community
in Miami."69
In October1981, a US military exercise simulated an invasion
of Grenada
ostensibly to rescue Americans and "install a regime
favorable to the way
of life we espouse."70
In March 1983, Reagan exclaimed on TV that Grenada's tourist
airport
threatened US oil supply routes.71
On October 19, 1983, NJM leader Maurice Bishop, and others,
were put under
house arrest during an coup by NJM's Deputy PM Bernard Coard.
Oddly, they
were freed by a "well organized crowd.including
counter-revolutionary
elements.with anti-communist banners.. [led by] well known
businessmen..
Who organized this rally, planned so well, and in advance?"
Freed NJM
leaders were whisked away and as a "crowd gathered.the
soldiers, apparently
panicked by explosions, opened fire.. something provoked
them, leading to a
massacre." NJM leaders surrendered to soldiers and were soon
executed.72
Significantly, "Pentagon officials informed Members of
Congress that they
had known of the impending coup.two weeks in advance."73
The coup plotters were charged with the murders but their
lawyer, former US
Attorney General Ramsey Clarke believe them innocent of the
murders.74 It
seems the coup was hijacked by US interests to kill some NJM
leaders, jail
the rest and set the stage for an invasion.
PRETEXT
In his Naval Science course, Captain M.T.Carson lists the
invasion's
"stated reasons" as "protect Americans, eliminate hostage
potential;
restore order; requested by OECS [Organization of Eastern
Caribbean States]."75
The US helped form the OECS, and then got it and the
Grenadan governor to
"request" an invasion. Under "potential problem," Carson
notes "Act fast
with surprise and present world with fait accompli. If not,
world opinion
of U.S. invasion of tiny country will be critical. So:
· "Get OECS to request action."
· "Get Governor Scoon to request action."
· "Emphasize students-in-danger aspect"76
Carson quotes a "medical school official": "Our safety was
never in danger.
We were used as an excuse by this government to invade..
They needed a
reason.and we were it." MTC Most students "insisted" that
they were "not.in
any danger before the US invasion; only afterwards."77
RESPONSE
On October 22, 1983, "Operation Urgent Fury" was ordered.78
Three days
later, the invasion hit like a cyclone.
The Organization of American States "deeply deplored" the
invasion and the
UN Security Council voted 11 to 1 against it.79
REAL REASONS
Grenada threatened the US by providing a powerful example of
viable
alternative ways to organize social, political and economic
structures.
Carson lists these reasons:
· "Chance to eliminate Communist regime and replace with
pro-U.S. government"
· "Demonstrate U.S. military capabilities"
· "President Reagan commented that U.S. military forces were
back on their
feet and standing tall."80
US military morale was damaged two days before the invasion
when 241
Marines were killed in Lebanon.81
The Wall Street Journal said the invasion made Grenada a
"haven for
offshore banks."82
1989: The Invasion of Panama
CONTEXT
The Panama Canal has dominated Panama's history. US military
invasions and
interventions occurred in 1895, 1901-1903, 1908, 1912,
1918-1920, 1925,
1950, 1958, 1964 and 1989.83
In November 1903, US troops ensured Panama's secession from
Colombia.
Within days, a treaty gave the US permanent and exclusive
control of the
canal.84
Former Panamanian military leader, Manuel Noriega, recruited
by US military
intelligence in 1959, attended the US Army School of the
Americas in 1967
and led Panama's military intelligence the next year. By
1975, the US Drug
Enforcement Agency knew of Noriega's drug dealing. He met,
then-CIA
Director, George Bush in 1976.85
In 1977, Presidents Jimmy Carter and Omar Torrijos, signed a
treaty to
return the canal to Panamanian control in 1999. Other
Americans undermined
the treaty using "diplomatic.and political pressure, through
to economic
aggression and military invasion."86
In the early-1980s, Noriega's drug smuggling helped fund the
contras in
Nicaragua. He took control of Panama's National Guard in
1983 and helped
rig elections in 1984. Falling from US favour, the US
indicted Noriega for
drug crimes in 1988.87
On April 14, 1988, Reagan invoked "war powers" against
Panama. In May, the
Assistant Defense Secretary told the Senate: "I don't think
anyone has
totally discarded the use of force."88
PRETEXT
On December 16, 1989, there was what media called an
"unprovoked attack on
a US soldier who did not return fire."89 The soldier was
killed when
driving "through a military roadblock near a sensitive
military area."90
Panama's government said "U.S. officers.fired at a military
headquarters,
wounding a soldier and.a 1-year-old girl. A wounded
Panamanian
soldier.confirmed this account to U.S. reporters."91 The
wife of a US
officer was reportedly arrested and beaten.
RESPONSE
George Bush called the attack on US soldiers an "enormous
outrage"92 and
said he "would not stand by while American womanhood is
threatened."93 Noam
Chomsky questions why Bush "stood by" when a US nun was
kidnapped and
sexually abused by Guatemalan police only weeks earlier,
when two US nuns
were killed by contras in Nicaragua on January 1, 1990, and
when a US nun
was wounded by gunmen in El Salvador around the same time.94
The US media demonized Noriega and turned the "'Noriega'
issue into an
accepted justification for the invasion.. Colonel Eduardo
Herrera,
ex-Director of [Panama's] 'Public Forces,'.said: "If the
real interest of
the US was to capture Noriega, they could have done so on
numerous
occasions. [They] had all of his movements completely
controlled."95
On December 20, 1989, "Operation Just Cause" began. More
than 4,000 were
killed. US crimes included indiscriminate attacks, extra
judicial
executions, arbitrary detentions, destruction of property
(like leveling
the Chorrillo neighborhood), use of prohibited weapons,
erasing evidence
and mass burials.96
A US-friendly president, Guillermo Endara, was soon sworn in
on a US
military base.
REAL REASONS
The Carter-Torrijos Treaty was torn up and the Panama's
military was
dismantled.
A right-wing, US think tank stated in 1988 that: "once
[Panama] is
controlled by a democratic regime..discussions should begin
with respect to
a realistic defense of the Canal after.2000. These
discussions should
include the maintenance, by the US, of a limited number of
military
installations in Panama.to maintain adequate projection of
force in the
western hemisphere."97
The invasion was a testing ground for new weapons, such as
the B-2 bomber
(worth US $2.2 billion) that was used for the first time.
The invasion also:
· rectified "Bush's 'wimpy' foreign relations image"
· gave a "spectacular show of U.S. military might in the
final months
before the Nicaraguan elections, hinting.that they might
want to vote for
the 'right' candidate."
· "sent a signal.that the US.[would] intervene militarily
where the control
of illegal drugs was ostensibly at stake.
· "demonstrated the new U.S. willingness to assume active,
interventionist
leadership of the 'new world order' in the post-Cold War
period."98
CONCLUSIONS
There are dozens of other examples from US history besides
those summarized
here. The "Cold War" was characterized by dozens of covert
and overt wars
throughout the Third World. Although each had its specific
pretexts, the
eradication of communism was the generally-used backdrop for
all rationales.99
Since the Soviet Union's demise, US war planners have
continued to use
spectacular pretext incidents to spawn wars. Examples
include Iraq (1991),
Somalia (1992), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995) and Yugoslavia
(1999).
Throughout this time, the US "War on Drugs" has been fought
on many fronts.
Lurking behind the excuse to squash illicit drug
trafficking, are the
actual reasons for financing, training and arming
right-wing, US-backed
regimes, whose officials have so often profited from this
illegal trade.
The CIA has used this trade to finance many of its covert
wars.100 The "War
on Drugs" has targeted numerous countries to strengthen
counter-insurgency
operations aimed at destroying opposition groups that oppose
US corporate
rule.
Military plotters know that the majority would never support
their wars, if
it were generally known why they were really being fought.
Over the
millennia, a special martial art has been deliberately
developed to weave
elaborate webs of deceit to create the appearance that wars
are fought for
"just" or "humanitarian" reasons.
If asked to support a war so a small, wealthy elite could
shamelessly
profit by ruthlessly exploiting and plundering the natural
and human
resources in far away lands, people would 'just say no.'
We now face another broad thematic pretext for war, the
so-called "War
Against Terrorism." We are told it will be waged in many
countries and may
continue for generations. It is vitally important to expose
this latest
attempt to fraudulently conceal the largely economic and
geostrategic
purposes of war. By asking who benefits from war, we can
unmask its
pretense and expose the true grounds for instigating it. By
throwing light
on repeated historical patterns of deception, we can promote
skepticism
about the government and media yarns that have been spun to
encourage this war.
The historical knowledge of how war planners have tricked
people into
supporting past wars, is like a vaccine. We can use this
understanding of
history to inoculate the public with healthy doses of
distrust for official
war pretext narratives and other deceptive stratagems.
Through such
immunization programs we may help to counter our society's
susceptibility
to "war fever."
Endnotes
1. "History of Mexico, Empire and Early Republic, 1821-55,"
Area Handbook,
US Library of Congress.
http://home.carolina.rr.com/wormold/mexico/history-8.htm
2. Shayne M. Cokerdem, "Unit Plan: Manifest Destiny and The
Road to the
Civil War."
http://www.duke.edu/~cokerdem/dailylessonscontentoutline.html
3. P.B.Kunhardt, Jr., P.B.Kunhardt III, P.W.Kunhardt, "James
Polk," The
American President, 2000.
http://www.americanpresident.org/kotrain/courses/JP/JP_In_Brief.htm
4. "Diplomatic Approaches: U.S. Relations with Mexico:
1844-1846,"
LearnCalifornia.org, 2000.
http://www.learncalifornia.org/doc.asp?ID=603
5. John Stockwell, "The CIA and the Gulf War," Speech, Santa
Cruz, CA,
Feb.20, 1991, aired by John DiNardo, Pacifica Radio.
<http://serendipity.magnet.ch/cia/stock2.html>
6. Betsy Powers, "The U.S.-Mexican War of 1846-48," War,
Reconstruction and
Recovery in Brazoria County.
<http://www.bchm.org/wrr/war/p4cw.html>
7. "The White House and Western Expansion," Learning Center,
White House
Historical Association.
http://www.whitehousehistory.org/02_learning/subs_4/frame_b_405a.html
8. Powers
9. White House Historical Association
10. Stockwell
11. P.B.Kunhardt, Jr., P.B.Kunhardt III, P.W.Kunhardt
12. Ed Elizondo, "History of the Cuban Liberation Wars,"
Oct.2, 2001.
http://www.cubagenweb.org/mil/war-hist.htm
13. Guillermo Jimpnez Soler, "The emergence of the United
States as a world
power", Granma International, Aug.7, 1998.
http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/date1.htm
14. Bill Sardi, "Remember the Maine! And the Other Ships
Sunk to Start a War"
Oct.16, 2000.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi1.html
15. Michael Rivero, "Dictatorship through Deception," New
Republic Forum,
Dec.24, 1999.
16. Rivero
17. J. Buschini, "The Spanish-American War," Small Planet
Communications, 2000.
http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/remember.html
18. Soler
19. Buschini
20. Buschini
21. Soler
22. Howard Zinn, "History as a Political Act," Revolutionary
Worker,
December 20, 1998.
http://rwor.org/a/v20/980-89/987/zinn.htm
23. Woodrow Wilson, Message to Congress, Aug. 19, 1914,
Senate Doc.#566,
pp.3-4, World War I Document Archive.
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1914/wilsonneut.html
24. Greg D.Feldmeth, "The First World War," U.S. History
Resources, Mar.31,
1998.
http://www2.mde.k12.ms.us/6600/wegner/chap11.htm
25. James Perloff, "Pearl Harbor," The New American, Vol. 2,
No. 30,
December 8, 1986.
<http://www.thenewamerican.com/departments/feature/1999/070499.htm>
26. James Perloff
27. Winston Churchill, cited by Ralph Raico, "Rethinking
Churchill," The
Costs of War: America's Pyrrhic Victories, 1997.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/raico-churchill2.html
28. Harry V.Jaffa, "The Sinking of the Lusitania: Brutality,
Bungling or
Betrayal?" The Churchill Center.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/lusitania.htm
29. Patrick Beesly, Room 40: British Naval Intelligence,
1914-18, 1982
cited by RR
30. Peter Young, "World War I," World Book Encyclopedia,
1967, pp. 374-375.
31. Wendy Mercurio, "WWI Notes, From Neutrality to War,"
Jan.2002.
http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/mercurio/wwi_notes.htm
32. Patrick Beesly, cited by Ralph Raico
33. Winston Churchill, cited by Ralph Raico
34. Howard Zinn, "War Is the Health of the State," A
People's History of
the United States, 1492-Present, Sept. 2001.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/WarHealth_PeoplesHx.html
35. Zinn
36. Steve Kangas, "The Business Plot to Overthrow
Roosevelt," Liberalism
Resurgent: A Response to the Right, 1996.
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/Coup.htm
37. Gerald MacGuire, cited by Steve Kangas
38. Dale Wharton, Book review of The Plot to Seize the White
House (1973)
by Jules Archer, Eclectica Book Reviews.
http://www.eclectica.org/v1n1/reviews/wharton_plot.html
39. Webster G.Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, "The Hitler
Project," George
Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, 1992.
http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm
40. David Nasaw, "Remembering 'The Chief,'" interview,
Newshour, Sept.7, 2000.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec00/nasaw_9-7.html
41. Joseph Czarnecki, Richard Worth, Matthias C. Noch and
Tony DiGiulian,
"Attack on Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941," The Battles Of
The Pacific.
http://www.warships1.com/W-OOB/OOB_WWII_Pacific/OOB_WWII_Pearl_Harbor.htm
42. Steve Fry, "Author: FDR knew attack was coming," The
Capital-Journal,
June 12, 2001.
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/120601/pea_fdrknew.shtml
43. Henry Stimson, cited by Robert Stinnett, Day of Deceit:
The Truth about
FDR and Pearl Harbour, 2000.
44. "The MAGIC Documents: Summaries and Transcripts of the
Top-Secret
Diplomatic Communications of Japan, 1938-1945," GB 0099
KCLMA MF 388-401.
45. Paul Proteus, "Part One: Pearl Harbour," America's
Phoney Wars.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/americas_phoney_wars.html
46. Rivero
47. Michael Parenti, Against Empire, 1995, p.36.
48. "Final Judgement of the Korea International War Crimes
Tribunal," June
23, 2001.
http://www.iacenter.org/ktc_verdict.htm
49. Oliver Lee, "South Korea Likely Provoked War with
North,"
Star-Bulletin, June 24, 1994.
http://www.korea-np.co.jp/pk/054th_issue/koreanwar/98080501.htm
50. Channing Liem, The Korean War (6.25, 1950 - 7.27, 1953)
- An Unanswered
Question, 1993.
<http://www.korea-np.co.jp/pk/054th_issue/koreanwar/98080502.htm>
51. Liem
52. Albert Einstein cited by Channing Liem.
53. I.F.Stone, Hidden History of the Korean War, 1952, cited
by Channing Liem.
54. Liem
55. Lee
56. Jim Caldwell, "Korea - 50 years ago this week, June
25-28, 1950,"
ArmyLINK News, June 20, 2000.
http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Jun2000/a20000620korea50yrs.html
57. Jon Halliday and Bruce Cumings, Korea: The Unknown War,
1988, p.200,
cited by Robin Miller, "Washington's Own Love Affair with
Terror"
http://www.zmag.org/millerterror.htm
58. Sandra M.Wittman, "Chronology of US-Vietnamese
Relations," Vietnam:
Yesterday and Today.
http://servercc.oakton.edu/~wittman/chronol.htm
59. Rivero
60. John DiNardo, "The CIA and the Gulf War," aired by
Pacifica Radio.
61. Rivero
62. DiNardo
63. Joint Resolution, U.S. Congress, Aug.7, 1964, "The
Tonkin Bay
Resolution, 1964," Modern History Sourcebook, July 1998.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1964Tonkinbay.html
64. Dwight D. Eisenhower, "Domino Theory Principle, 1954,"
Public Papers of
the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954, pp.381-390.
(News Conference,
April 7, 1954.)
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/domino.html
65. Eisenhower
66. Ellen Ray and Bill Schaap, "US Crushes Caribbean Jewel."
Covert Action
Information Bulletin (CAIB), winter 1984, p.8
67. Jeff Hackett, "Burying 'Gairyism.'" Bibliographies
http://www.nalis.gov.tt/Biography/Eric_Gairy.html
68. Preface to Maurice Bishop speech "In Nobody's Backyard,"
April 13,
1979, The Militant, Mar.15 1999.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43/208.html
69. Ray and Schaap, pp.3-5
70. Ray and Schaap, p.6
71. Clarence Lusane, "Grenada, Airport '83: Reagan's Big
Lie," CAIB,
Spring-Summer 1983, p.29.
72. Ray and Schaap, pp.10-11
73. Ray and Schaap, p.5
74. Alan Scott, "The Last Prisoners of the Cold War Are
Black," letter, The
Voice (Grenada), April 20, 2001.
http://www.grenada17.cwc.net/Alan4.htm
75. Capt. M.T.Carson, USMC, (Marine Officer Instructor),
"Grenada October
1983," History of Amphibious Warfare (Naval Science 293),
Naval Reserves
Officer Training Corps, University of Illinois at Urbana
Champaign.
http://www.uiuc.edu/unit/naval_science/NS293/Grenada.ppt
76. Carson
77. Ray and Schaap, p..8.
78. Carson
79. "Failures of U.S. Foreign Policy," Alternativeinsight,
Sept.1, 2001
http://www.alternativeinsight.com/Foreign_Policy_Failures.html
80. Carson
81. Alternativeinsight, Sept.1, 2001
82. Anthony Arnove and Alan Maass, "Washington's war
crimes," Socialist
Worker, Nov.16, 2001.
www.socialistworker.org/384Pages/384_06_WashWarCrimes.shtml
83. Zoltan Grossman, "One Hundred Years of Intervention,"
2001.
http://www.neravt.com/left/invade.htm
84. Commission for the Defence of Human Rights in Latin
America (CODEHUCA),
This is the Just Cause, 1990, p.115.
85. Richard Sanders, "Manuel Noriega," Press for
Conversion!, Dec. 2000, p.40.
86. CODEHUCA, pp.117, 108
87. Sanders
88. CODEHUCA, p.108
89. Richard K. Moore, "The Police State Conspiracy an
Indictment," New Dawn
Magazine, Jan.-Dec. 1998.
http://cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/ND/PoliceState/may98Day3.shtml
90. Noam Chomsky, "Operation Just Cause: the Pretexts,"
Deterring
Democracy, 1992.
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c05-s05.html
91. Chomsky
92. Alexander Safian, "Is Israel Using 'Excessive Force'
Against
Palestinians?" Fact sheet: Myth of Excessive Force, Nov.9,
2000
http://www.israelactivism.com/factsheets/israel_using_Force.htm
93. Chomsky
94. Chomsky
95. CODEHUCA, p.106.
96. CODEHUCA, passim
97. Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), "Panama: A Test for
U.S.-Latin
American Foreign Relations," Interhemispheric Resource
Center Bulletin, May
1995
http://www.irc-online.org/bulletin/bull40.html
98. FOR
99. William Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA
Interventions Since
World War II, 2000.
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm
100. Alfred McCoy, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in
the Global
Drug Trade, 1991.
Richard Sanders is the coordinator of the Coalition to
Oppose the Arms
Trade (COAT) and the editor of COAT's quarterly magazine,
Press for
Conversion! For a free, sample copy, contact <ad207@ncf.ca>
or visit their
website: <www.ncf.ca/coat>
All rights reserved. Copyright belongs to the author.