VIETNAM VETERANS FOR ACADEMIC REFORM
The University of Kansas Student Auxiliary
V.V.A.R.: Leading the student revolt on campus against speech codes, political correctness, multiculturalism, gender feminism, dormitory re-education, lying about Vietnam, and other instruments of academic oppression.
Leonard Magruder - Founder/President
Former professor of psychology - Suffolk College, N.Y.
Member: National Association of Scholars
CONTACT: Magruder44@aol.com - Phone: 785-312-9303
(Vietnam vet contact: General Carl Schneider (ret.) Korea, Vietnam
dukesch@aol.com, 480-595-7668)
MEDIA MAY HAVE DECIDED AMERICA SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSING NEW NUCLEAR DOCTRINE - ALL MENTION ERASED?
Our last newsletter, titled, Media Endangering National Security, ended with this incoming late news:
“IMPORTANT UPDATE! - This just in from The Washington Times of Sept. 11, quoting the Associated Press. The possibility of a stunning new change of nuclear policy with promise of turning into the doctrine that we and Congressman Tancredo have been proposing.
WASHINGTON (Associated Press) - A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies. Its existence was initially reported by The Washington Post which said that the document was posted on a Pentagon Internet site.
The document, written by the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, has not yet been finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. The document is unclassified and was available until recently on a Pentagon web site. It is expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz , director of the Joint Staff, according to Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer in Meyers’s office.”
(The following utilizes excerpts from the Associated Press release, the Washington Post article, and the new Pentagon 69-page draft.)
The first example of potential nuclear weapons use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is “using or intending to use” WMD against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces, or civilian populations. It says “deterrence of potential adversary WMD use requires the potential adversary leadership to believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective. This will be particularly difficult with nonstate (non-government) actors who employ or attempt to gain use of WMD. Here, deterrence may be directed at states that support their efforts as well as the terrorist organization itself.”
The draft explicitly warns that “any attempt by a hostile power to hand over weapons of mass destruction to militant groups to enable them to strike a devastating blow against the United States will likely trigger a US nuclear response against the culprit.”
“If a potential adversary is convinced that US forces can deny them their goals by damage to their military, its support, or other things of value, and if that perception leads to the potential adversary to limit their actions, that deterrence is effective. The continuing proliferation of WMD along with the means to deliver them increases the probability that someday a state/nonstate actor nation/terrorist may, through miscalculation or by deliberate choice, use those weapons.
In such cases, deterrence, even based on the threat of massive destruction, may fail and the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary.
A spokesman for the United States said the United States would “respond with overwhelming force to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States.”
The draft document included this statement, “Because the use of nuclear weapons in a conflict could provoke serious diplomatic, political, economic, and military consequences, clear allied and potential adversary understanding of US nuclear weapons policy is essential.” We assume this meant it was the original intention of the Pentagon that news of this draft be broadcast world-wide, when in fact it does not seem to have gotten out to the American people.
A search in our local library beginning on September 11, 2005, and checking to the 18th reveals that none of the national newspapers, such as The New York Times, U.S.A. Today, The Chicago Tribune, or Kansas papers such as The Wichita Eagle, or two university town newspapers, The Lawrence Journal-World or The Manhattan Mercury, ever mentioned either the Associated Press release, or the Washington Post article or any other reference to the new nuclear doctrine. We did receive a report from one of our readers that he had found over 250 references on the Internet from various websites and bloggers. We found these references through a search engine. 95% were typical “ blue state” (left/liberal) websites screaming, as usual, at the elementary idea of pre-emptive strikes, since the beginning a part of national policy, but other than that demonstrating total ignorance of the issues. The remaining were from two newspapers, and a couple of government sources. The source most quoted was the Washington Post article. Nobody mentioned the Associated Press release.
Then the unclassified draft of this new U.S. nuclear doctrine review was removed from its Pentagon website. We do not know for certain when this occurred. But Lawrence DiRita, a Pentagon spokesman, announced on Monday, September 19, 2005 , that the document had been taken down, “because even in an unclassified world this is not the kind of thing you want flying around the Internet.”
Inasmuch as The Washington Post article ran on September 11th, this suggests that there were up to eight days during which the national media could have reported on the document, but did not. The only two reasons why it did not could only be collusion between news wire services to ignore the story, or an immediate request from the Pentagon to cancel the story. If we find out there is another explanation, or that we have missed something, we will report that. It may also mean the Pentagon was upset that the news was appearing only in negative commentary on the Internet.
COMMENTARY
What this new policy says is that in the case of terrorists—who hide behind the fact that they occupy no nation—deterrence, that is, our threat of retaliation, may be directed at states that support terrorists and that if that fails, that is, if they strike us, the U.S. will retaliate with nuclear weapons. This is essentially what we and Congressman Tancredo have been proposing, except that in both our cases we have pointed out the connection between terrorism and Islam, such that any retaliation should also include attacks on holy sites such as Mecca, Medina, and major mosques as symbols of the true enemy.
Unless this new doctrine clearly defines Islam as the true enemy, the policy may have no effect on deterring terrorists. Since any retaliation must be instantaneous, the enemy needs to be spelled out beforehand as Islam, therefore letting the entire Muslim world know that all of it is at risk. Terrorists strike in the name of expanding Islam. If they are told beforehand that any attack by them would result in the destruction of any or all Muslim nations, along with all major symbols of Islam, this would deny them their objective.
.
The new policy clearly intends that there be nuclear retaliation in case of a nuclear attack on America. However, the mechanism is marred due to the fact that, as the policy recognizes, “this will be particularly difficult with nonstate (non government) actors who employ or attempt to gain use of WMD. Here, deterrence may be directed at states that support their efforts.”
Instead of seeking to show this connection between a terrorist attack and a state, which would delay any retaliation, the terrorists need to be understood, in spite of all kinds of factional infighting, as stemming from one source, Islam, with its threat to the world of “jihad,” thereby making any or all Muslim lands vulnerable to instantaneous retaliation.
In the case of a nuclear attack by the terrorists on America, if we have to wait until we track down the culprits, as specified by the new policy, then essentially we are just sitting here waiting for an attack. The policy needs to be modified, focusing clearly and unambiguously on the enemy.
Increasingly, articles on the connection between terrorism and Islam, something never mentioned by media or university, are appearing on the Internet. Here is an exception by German Munoz, a professor of international relations at Miami Dade College, reproduced in the last AIM Report. He speaks of an “intellectual deficit” among some of our academic and media elites.
“Their failure might be due to the scandalous lack of ideological diversity in the editorial boards of media establishments and in university academic departments. They preach diversity but do not believe in it. As a result, they cannot even think of asking the essential questions.”
The story being missed, or purposively kept away from the American people, is the direct connection between the actions of Muslim terrorists and the commands of Allah and Muhammad in the Koran. Our secularized elites do not want us to understand or discuss the religious base underlying the terrorists’ political agenda for world domination. Why have our elites not exposed what the Koran says about non-Muslims and the commands to kill them? If they would read the Koran they would find out that Allah wants Muslims to kill the infidels (Koran 9:5) wherever they are found. That the heads and fingers of unbelievers should be cut off, and that Muslims should fight and humiliate Jews and Christians. Power must belong to Muslims only (63:8) and they must exert power over non-Muslims.(4:141)
Why are the establishment media and academia keeping all this information from the American public? Why are Americans told Islam is a religion of peace? They are the types who sacrifice national security on the altar of political correctness and of a self-righteousness and irresponsible tolerance. They cannot be trusted to provide America the accurate information Americans need to protect themselves. These killers have not “hijacked” Islam as our elites argue absurdly. They are implementing verses found in the Koran itself.
The crucial thing now is how to inform the American people, over 90% of whom are Jews, Christians, and atheists, about this religious threat to their existence. The hour is late, but America can fight and yet win this war against Islamic terrorism. The first step is to tell the truth about the Koran and its impact on the present jihad.”
In all nine of our articles on this subject since the first on July 31, 2003, we have concentrated on exposing the connection between terrorism and Islam or the Koran. Excerpts from these articles may be seen under our Articles on Islam. All were ignored by the local and national media, although we were interviewed on a number of talk shows, including POW/MIA and Geoff Metcalf National.
A very important breakthrough on this front is expected to result from the upcoming national symposium organized by Jeff Epstein and others, The Radical Islamic Threat to World Peace and National Security, time and place to be announced, which will focus on this connection between Islam and terrorism, or “jihad.” Unfortunately, the media has also gone out of its way to boycott any mention of this development, as we detailed in out last newsletter. But if reported on, this could be the turning point, redirecting America towards a true understanding of the deadly enemy it faces, and the beginning of the end of left/liberal attempts to misinform on the crisis, on campus and in the media. (see our Manifesto Against Leftist Tyranny) This may be when Americans will learn how our intellectual elites have lied to them, who the real enemy is, and where the solution lies to the problem of terrorism. It lies, as spelled out in the new nuclear policy, in a threat of nuclear retaliation on any entity that attempts to destroy an American city.
The new nuclear doctrine, when approved, will be a major step in the right direction. That is, the roll-back of leftist and liberal tyranny that has been tyrannizing higher education and the media for forty years, ever since they first lied about the Vietnam War.
Another force is bearing down on those in the media and academia who have repeatedly misrepresented our foreign involvements to the American people. Coming out of a symposium on Vietnam that met during the days of the Democratic Convention in Boston, the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation was created to better educate and inform the public about the Vietnam War. Almost by definition, this means challenging campus and media. Its goal is to “continue the work of countering more that three decades of misinformation and propaganda and to set the record straight.” Already it has produced one booklet for high school and college students, Whitewash/Blackwash: The Myths of the Vietnam War. Bill Laurie, a member of our Board of Advisors, a Vietnam vet and a historian, was a co-author. As probably the first organization to publicly protest that the campus had lied about the Vietnam War, V.V.A.R. will be very involved in this new movement.
But back to the problem: Did the media fail to tell the American people about this new nuclear doctrine? We need answers.
This article may be reproduced in any form. Copy this article, distribute, add us as a link.
Founder/President, V.V.A.R.
Phone: 785-312-9303
Website design and management courtesy of Annette R. Hall. Hosted by www.i-served.com.