Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Thu

08

Jul

2010

The Case for War: The Iron Mountain Report
Thursday, 08 July 2010 05:28
by Stephen Lendman

In his 1966 book, "How the World Really Works," Alan B. Jones included a chapter on the "Report from Iron Mountain: On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace," later published in 1967 by The Dial Press. It became a bestseller, then disappeared. Now few copies are available, but when circulating in the 1960s, it was reported that concerned Johnson administration officials ordered global US embassies to downplay it, saying it had nothing to do with policy. Later accounts doubted the material's authenticity, suggesting it was a hoax. True or false, its findings are reviewed below because they accurately reflect longstanding US policy.

Prepared by unnamed 15-man "Special Study Group, (SSG)" they were commissioned "by some governmental entity which wished to remain unknown" because of the sensitive nature of its assignment, completed after two and a half years work, from August 1963 - March 1966, at a secret Iron Mountain, New York "underground nuclear hideout."

First surfacing in 1961, the idea originated during the Kennedy administration, senior officials Robert McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, Dean Rusk, and others, knowing there was no serious plan for peace at a time the president wanted to end the Cold War. An SSG member only identified as "John Doe" revealed it.

Secrecy wasn't mandated, but all members except Doe wanted no public disclosure or discussion of its:

— "Letter of Transmittal (saying Report conclusions and recommendations were unanimous)
— Introduction
— Scope of the Study
— Disarmament and the Economy
— War & Peace as Social Systems
— The Functions of War
— Substitutes for the Functions of War
— Summary and Conclusions (and)
— Recommendations"

Writer Leonard C. Lewin wrote a foreward, referring to a SSG midwest social science professor, identified only as "John Doe" for reasons his task would clarify:

"to determine, accurately and realistically, the nature of the problems that would confront the United States if and when a condition of 'permanent peace' should arrive, and to draft a program for dealing with this contingency."

The Report was suppressed, "both by the Special Study Group itself and by the government INTERAGENCY committee to which it had been submitted. After months of agonizing, Doe" decided to go public.
 

Group members were carefully chosen for their physical and social sciences expertise, as well as their years of academic, government and/or business experience, qualifying them for their assignment.

In releasing the material, "Doe" said his:

"responsibility to the society for which I am part supersedes any self-assumed obligation on the part of the fifteen individual men....What is needed now, and needed badly, is widespread public discussion and debate about the elements of war and the problems of peace." 

Issues addressed included:

— the notion that the "basic authority of a modern state over its people resides in its war powers;" 
— world peace would cause "unparalleled and revolutionary" social structure changes;
— disarmament's economic impact;
— far-reaching "political, sociological, cultural, and ecological changes," and two broad questions pertaining to:
— expectations if peace comes; and
— policies to follow if it does.

Other issues included:

— the "real functions of war in modern societies" beyond defending the national interest;
— without war, "what other institutions exist or might be devised to fulfill these functions;"
— the possibility of abolishing war;
— the desirability and repercussions of doing it; and
— possible social system improvements from war-readiness.

Doe hoped for public discussions about "the elements of war and the problems for peace." None followed. Wars persist, and so do Report notions like:

Wars are an economic, political and ecological necessity, important to continue indefinitely. Peace "would almost certainly not be in the best interest of (a) stable society" and might be "catastrophic."

General disarmament would require "scrapping....a critical proportion of the most highly developed occupational specialties in the economy."

Diverting an arms budget to a "non-military system (is) remote (in a) market economy." Replacing it with public works is "wishful thinking (and) unrealistic."

War is "the basic social system, within which other secondary modes of social organization conflict or conspire. (It's) the system (that's) governed most human societies of record, as it (does) today."

No other control mechanism has been devised even close to it in effectiveness.

War-making potential doesn't result from threats. In fact, "threats against the national interest are usually created or accelerated to meet the changing needs of the war system."

Significant nonmilitary functions and benefits of wars were claimed to exist, including economic protections against depression, and stimulus contributing to the rise of gross national product and individual productivity. Nothing else devised "can remotely compare to it in effectiveness." It's the "essential economic stabilizer."

War's political importance is crucial. It defines and enforces relations with other nations. National sovereignty and the traditional nation-state depend on it. The war system is essential to internal political stability. "Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain acquiescence (to) its legitimacy, or right to rule its society."

A nation's authority over its people "resides in its war powers," including local police to deal with "internal enemies in a military manner."

Military service has a patriotic purpose "that must be maintained for its own sake."

Wars also serve an ecological purpose - "to reduce the consuming population to a level consistent with the survival of the species," but mass destruction is inefficient, and nuclear weapons are indiscriminate, removing physically stronger members important to save.

Because of medical and scientific advances, pestilence no longer can control populations effectively, balancing them with agriculture's potential. As a result, other measures are needed to control "undesirable genetic traits."

An effective political substitute for war requires "alternate enemies....of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration." Most likely, "such a threat will have to be invented."

Other extreme ideas included:

Poverty is necessary and desirable, the same Orwellian social stability 1884 idea, about "keeping the Low's in poverty and the High's in power, forever."

A modern, sophisticated form of slavery serves the same social control purpose.

Government must optimize the number of warfare deaths, never letting a good opportunity go to waste.

"Intensified environment pollution," including air and water is acceptable, and, without war, a comprehensive eugenics program and "universal test-tube procreation might have to substitute."

SSG members rejected individual freedom, opting for subservience to a ruling elite, the system that governs world nations and America since inception, instituted by the Founders so the country's owners could run it, and wage wars to solidify control.

The Report concluded that:

"The permanent possibility of war is the foundation for stable government. It supplies the basis for general acceptance of political authority." It lets societies maintain class distinctions, and ensures the subordination of citizens to the state, run by elites with "residual war powers."

As for policy measures in a world at peace, SSG members stated "as strongly as we can, that the war system cannot responsibly be allowed to disappear," absent a credible alternative to ensure social stability and societal control. Only then should transitional measures be considered.

However:

"Such solutions, if indeed they exist, will not be arrived at without a revolutionary revision of the modes of thought heretofore considered appropriate. Some observers....believe" the obstacles can't be overcome "in our time, that the price of peace is, simply, too high....It is uncertain....whether peace will ever be possible. It is far more questionable....that it would be desirable even if it were demonstrably attainable."

Though repugnant to many, "The war system....has demonstrated its effectiveness since the beginning of recorded history." A viable peace alternative would constitute a giant leap "into the unknown" with its inevitable risks. Genuine peace will be destabilizing until proved otherwise.

SSG recommendations included establishing a "permanent WAR/PEACE Research Agency" with unlimited funds to be used at its own discretion.

It would be organized like the National Security Council "responsible solely to the President" or officials he designates - then operate secretly for two purposes. First, to determine, from what's known and can be learned, the statistical probability for an eventual peace. Second, to conduct "War Research" to ensure "the continuing viability of the war system" as long as it's believed necessary and/or desirable for society's stability and survival.

The Iron Mountain Report "has already created our present. It is now shaping our future," one single-mindedly for war to the detriment of all but imperial interests and profiteers that benefit handsomely.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

More from this author:
James Petras' New Book: The Power of Israel in the United States - Book Review by Stephen Lendman (24723 Hits)
by Stephen Lendman James Petras is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He's a noted academic figure on the US...
Threats to Hugo Chavez As Venezuela's December Presidential Election Approaches (11298 Hits)
by Stephen Lendman On December 3, 2006 voters in Venezuela will again get to choose who'll lead them as President for the next six...
Agitprop Capital of the World (the USA) Exports Its Poison to Venezuela (11307 Hits)
by Stephen Lendman Agitprop, electoral fraud and dirty tricks may not have been invented in the US, but they certainly were perfected in...
A Trial Giving Kangaroos A Bad Name (9933 Hits)
by Stephen Lendman As the dominant corporate media in the US made sure everyone in the country would know just ahead of the mid-term...
New Faces, Same Agenda (11181 Hits)
by Stephen Lendman The political firmament shook briefly post-November 7 raising hopes change would follow the Republican's drubbing at the...
Related Articles:
The Anti-Empire Report - Some things you need to know before the world ends (11451 Hits)
by William Blum The jingo bells are ringing "Who really poses the greatest danger to world peace: Iraq, North Korea or the United...
Canada at War: You Must Remember This (7450 Hits)
More than 5,000 Victorians attended Americanex-president, Bill Clinton's book fair yesterday, if the Times-Colonist newspaper is to be...
Freshman Class War: New Senator Sends Message on Economic Injustice (9926 Hits)
by Chris Floyd I don't know that much about Jim Webb. I don't know how he will actually vote when lobbyist push comes to corporate shove in...
Criminalizing Compassion in the War on Terror: Muslim Charities and the Case of Dr. Rafil A. Dhafir (7749 Hits)
By Katherine Hughes “The first question which the priest and the Levite asked was: ‘If I stop to help this man, what...
Double Standards in the Phony War: Small Errors Cost Big Bucks, but Enormous Lies Remain Standing (6963 Hits)
by Winter Patriot Here's something you don't see every day! Papers compensate man wrongly implicated in alleged bomb plot: A group...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (2)add comment

Project Humanbeingsfirst.org said:

0
political science explanation of all this calculated social engineering?
So why make this report public? It can be read here: http://www.teachpeace.com/Repo...untain.pdf

Why is the Grand Chessboard, or the PNAC public reports public?

Why is the following interview of Brzezinski, for instance, wherein he gives damning testimony of how a private unaccountable to the public organization like the CFR makes public policy, public:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzX62zhZjf8

If that is how policy is constructed behind the un-elected scene in the world's most egregious superpower, why isn't that not kept as a state-secret - when even the details surrounding the assassination of Lincoln 150 years ago are still classified?

Revelations like this Report from Iron Mountain, Carrol Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, Antony Sutton's monumental disclosures from declassified and Pentagon documents on the American oligarchy through their Wall-Street frontmen and their UN connections running both sides of the Vietnam War, all came about the same time-frame, as were all social the revolutions of the 1960s from women's lib to the black-man's lib, as did all the monumental assasination of that decade.

One would think the oligarchy and the king-makers would be afraid of such disclosures and social upheavels - they sure don't exist in any other nation from USSR of yesteryear to the UK to EU to Russia to China du jour, unless they are CIA orchestrated. Only in the US are such egregious disclosures publicly available which directly contradict its own sham electoral process as representatitve democracy! Why aren't the rulers afriad of the reaction in the public? Why do they wish to hand ammuniation to the handful of dissent-sayers? Why do they in fact create the ammunition to "tickle" such dissent? Any why does such dissent never produce anything substantial, like a real revolution and overthrow of the war-mongers when their own words and deeds sufficiently indict them?

Can you give a political science explanation of all this calculated social engineering?

Zahir Ebrahim
So why make this report public? It can be read here: http://www.teachpeace.com/Repo...untain.pdf

Why is the Grand Chessboard, or the PNAC public reports public?

Why is the following interview of Brzezinski, for instance, wherein he gives damning testimony of how a private unaccountable to the public organization like the CFR makes public policy, public:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzX62zhZjf8

If that is how policy is constructed behind the un-elected scene in the world's most egregious superpower, why isn't that not kept as a state-secret - when even the details surrounding the assassination of Lincoln 150 years ago are still classified?

Revelations like this Report from Iron Mountain, Carrol Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, Antony Sutton's monumental disclosures from declassified and Pentagon documents on the American oligarchy through their Wall-Street frontmen and their UN connections running both sides of the Vietnam War, all came about the same time-frame, as were all social the revolutions of the 1960s from women's lib to the black-man's lib, as did all the monumental assasination of that decade.

One would think the oligarchy and the king-makers would be afraid of such disclosures and social upheavels - they sure don't exist in any other nation from USSR of yesteryear to the UK to EU to Russia to China du jour, unless they are CIA orchestrated. Only in the US are such egregious disclosures publicly available which directly contradict its own sham electoral process as representatitve democracy! Why aren't the rulers afriad of the reaction in the public? Why do they wish to hand ammuniation to the handful of dissent-sayers? Why do they in fact create the ammunition to "tickle" such dissent? Any why does such dissent never produce anything substantial, like a real revolution and overthrow of the war-mongers when their own words and deeds sufficiently indict them?

Can you give a political science explanation of all this calculated social engineering?

Zahir Ebrahim
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org


 
July 11, 2010
Votes: +0

Simon76 UK said:

0
Iron Mountain..Someone took it seriously?
Despite all the publicity, which can only encourage interest or revenue, personally I don't find it even vaguely convincing.

Most of it's entirely laughable. Comparable to watching a bunch of neanderthals attempt to philosophise on what mankind requires, entirely based on their limited intelligence and understanding of true human nature.

Any angles of "mankind's good" is instantly dismissed when viewing a works that proposes widescale war or destruction as a potential solution. The writer displays limited grasp of events and people's perceptions following hardship. Following their "solution" being carried out, they are left eith, ineveitably, the same problem they started with a number of years down the line, and still no actual solution.

There is no attempt to grasp at mankinds needs or psychology and resolve the social issues underlying everything.

I'd compare it to current government policies on discrimination and the EU human rights acts. At first glance, the general principles are great. Protecting the weak, promoting equality and all. Great! Sadly when it gets carried a few steps to far, the reverse situation begins to ensure, and policy actively promotes dislike of the government, or the minorities they saught to pursue, but anyone can see that. It doesn't take a minority to keen intellect to spot policies that are blatant stupidity.

Take trivial recent news in the UK.. plastic pigs from farmsets and piggybanks being removed from some location for "religious reasons", and so as "not to offend". All such moves achieve is to encourage dislike of policy and anyone making such objections - we all know the net effect for future reference. These are just typical cases of positive frameworks being put to ill use.

On a more general level, people need to feel valued to some extent, and understand their importance. All men are indeed created equal (yes and ladies), and as such, despite those who would rather not accept their nature, we are shaped the same way. If there were two clones of myself brought up in differing circumstances, one could hold general compassion for all things, regardless of their character and nature, accepting that this is an inherant part of what we are. Another could hold hatred and be a serial killer. (For the records, I'm not the latter, but I accept that essentially we can be shaped in any manner). Of course, half the populace would need to be mind readers or experience the lives of others in their full to accept this as fact, or so it seems.

Any gathering of truly learned men attempting to improve the longer term outlook of the world would not be so short sighted or foolish. Nor would they be short sighted enough to profess they held all the answers. People are indeed a resource, and no man is infallible. If the people in general can demonstrate possible courses of action and solutions that may have the potential for the greater good they should be pursued.

Next they will propose that "The planet is messed up, so lets hide in our scrubland / desert retreat and flood the world to wash all it's problems away". In that scenario, the problem remains... in their retreat!

 
November 21, 2010
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top