Stormtroopers of the New World Order

July 20, 2005
Stormtroopers of the New World Order
Posted by Daniel McAdams at July 20, 2005 09:34 PM


Today Congress passed the truly terrifying foreign affairs authorization act with an amendment that few seem to have paid attention to, but which will codify the new world order and will provide the critical back side of the people's revolution Leninist tsunamis. I am referring to an amendment by California Congressman David Drier to establish an "Active Response Corps" composed of federal employees, "employees of the Department of State including foreign service nationals, employees of the United States Agency of International Development, employees of any other Executive agency...and employees of the legislative and judicial branches," as well as employees of the non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The purpose of these rapid-response shock troops will be to "provide assistance in support of stabilization and reconstruction activities in foreign countries that are in, or are in transition from, or are likely to enter into, conflict or civil strife."

What does this mean in plain language? The color-coded revolutions that are funded by the US government overtly through the National Endowment for Democracy, its various cutout organizations like the CIA-front Freedom House, and USAID, and others, and covertly through the CIA itself have heretofore somewhat neglected the stabilization phase of the immediate post coup d'etat period, and that is a lot to leave up to chance after so much money has been spent. It is one thing to produce a mountain of black propaganda about the phony massacre in Uzbekistan, but as we have seen the variables can be tricky and may not produce the action required on the ground in the short run. And then critical momentum is lost. Additionally, look at how much money was spent to overthrow popular (and freely-elected) Belarusian leader Aleksander Lukashenka and there was no "stabilization" to back-up the couple of dozen paid protesters in the streets.

As John Laughland has pointed out in the must-read two-part series, "The technique of a coup d'etat" on Sanders Research Associates' website (not a subscriber yet? Give all your money to Lew and what is left to Chris Sanders):
the survival of the myth of spontaneous popular revolution is depressing in view of the ample literature on the coup d'etat, and on the main factors and tactics by which to bring one about.

It was, of course, Lenin who developed the organizational structure for overthrowing a regime which we now know as a political party. He differed from Marx in that he did not think that historical change was the result of inelecutable anonymous forces, but it had to be worked for.

But what use is the application of the Lenin and Trotsky perfected techniques of the coup d'etat without the stabilization shock troops on the ground to consolidate the gains? Lebanon's Cedar Revolution was ambiguous to say the least. Imagine what could have been done with stabilization troops available to husband the votes into a more creative expression of the universal democratic imperative.

John Laughland writes:
One final historical point before we move onto part II, a discussion of the present, and that is the role of the military in conducting covert operations and influencing political change. This is something which some contemporary analysts are happy to admit is deployed today: Robert Kaplan writes approvingly of how the American military is and should be used to "promote democracy." Kaplan says deliciously that a phone call from a US general is often a better way for promoting political change in a third country than a phone call from the local US ambassador. And he approvingly quotes an Army Special Operations officer saying, "whoever the president of Kenya is, the same group of guys run their special forces and the President's bodyguards. We've trained them. That translates into diplomatic leverage."

That is fine, but how much better to cover over the military footprint and leave the "stabilization" aspect of the coup d'etat up to the "Active Response Corps" in the foreground, backed up by the military of course.

So the little noticed Active Response Corps will provide the core "stabilization" force to resist the backlash against obviously foreign-engineered coups d'etat. After all, the revolution is still relatively easy to foment, particularly considering the economies of scale created since the CIA coup against Sali Berisha in Albania in 1996 (after Berisha refused to allow Sazan Island to be used by the CIA as a listening post for Yugoslavia). After the post-modern performance art color coded revolutions, the previous messy attempts against folks like Kocharian in Armenia and successful coups against Meciar in Slovakia and so many others in the 1990s seem positively crass and common by comparison.

No more. This is a new dawn in cooperation between the State Department, CIA and NGOs to make sure that the democratic universal imperative is not only initiated but guaranteed to consolidate. It is not guaranteed that every regime will have the consolidation moxie that an Eduard Shevardnadze had after he was set by the CIA to lead the coup against popularly-elected Zviad Gamsakurdia (who was judged too pro-Moscow). And even poor old Shevy stands as a cautionary tale of what can happen if the consolidation and stabilization bones go flaccid: there is always a minister or aide who is willing to court the empire to overthrow the nouveau regime as it passes into ancienne territory.

And the shock trooper amendment? It passed unanimously by voice vote. No one on the floor would offer opposition. Of course my boss Ron Paul voted against the final passage, for this and a million other reasons. But the storm troopers are now law. Look out.

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/ar...8522.html#more

--

NeoCons: Radical Foreign Policy for U.S. Global Empire

What is a NeoCon? Neocon is a neo-conservative who began as anti-Stalinist Trotskist before moving to the far right in U.S. politics. NeoCons have roots in the Leon Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s. In the 1950s and 1970s that movement morphed into anti-communist liberalism. Today the NeoCons are embedded in the imperial right and militarism of the U.S. defense and foreign affairs departments. If this sounds like muddled thinking, then you are not alone in such an assessment.

Continued:

http://www.peaceaware.com/NeoCon.shtml