U.S. Soldiers Sacrificial Lambs

Make no mistake about this, says Phil Giraldi: “The American soldiers and airmen who are now based in Israel are the sacrificial lambs that will guarantee U.S. entry into a war that Israel intends to start.” 

By Philip Giraldi

The current crisis with Pyongyang in part relates to the presence of 30,000 U.S. troops at or near the demilitarized zone that separates North from South Korea. A relic of the Cold War, the Korean “police action” never actually ended with a peace treaty that might have created a modus vivendi, allowing the two states to develop without the threat of military intervention coming from either side. The American soldiers continue to serve as a guarantor of the uneasy ceasefire that ended the fighting in that they are, in a sense, hostages to the situation, guaranteeing that there would be massive retaliation if the North were ever to push south in force and kill Americans. Pyongyang knows that and has sought for years a final peace agreement that would remove those hostages and end what it sees as a continuous threat from a nuclear armed and unfriendly United States.

Many observers might well challenge the government-promoted perception that the U.S. military is actually in Korea to guarantee that there be no war, but even they would have to admit that is how the deployment has been successfully sold to the American public and the international audience.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Consider for a moment, however, a somewhat different scenario in which American soldiers are stationed in a foreign country and even integrated with that country’s own military ostensibly for defensive purposes, but the host country, though not in fact actually threatened by its neighbors, wants to start a war of aggression. Its plans might include deliberately involving the United States in the conflict, making the Americans de facto hostages, with U.S. casualties guaranteeing Washington’s direct and immediate involvement in the fighting. That is exactly what is happening with Israel.

The United States has just completed the largest ever joint military exercises with Israel even though it has no defense agreement or treaty. That is, in part, because military alliances are dependent on an attack on one partner mandating support from all parties to the agreement. Israel has balked at such an arrangement, because it cannot define its own borders, which are constantly expanding. Without a border it is impossible to maintain that you have been attacked, which means that Israel and the U.S. have no treaty obligation to come to their mutual assistance in case of war. In fact, no Israeli soldier has ever fought by the side of an American soldier and likely never will.

The recent maneuvers featured scenarios in which U.S. troops fought Syrians, Lebanese, and Palestinians to defend Israel. Washington’s vulnerability derives from the recent opening of a U.S. permanent facility at Mashabim Air Base in Israel. It is described as a base within a base, completely contained by an Israeli air force installation and operating “under Israeli military directives,” meaning that if the facility is attacked, Americans will likely die. It has no function in support of U.S. regional interests but is instead a shell facility that can be ramped up considerably if Israel goes to war and calls for American assistance. Together with billions of dollars-worth of U.S. military equipment that is pre-positioned in Israel and can be used by the Israelis as needed, it is all about supporting Israeli war-making and has nothing to do with American security or defense interests except as a tripwire to bring about U.S. involvement.

Against Our Better Judgment, Alison Weir
In stock at the AFP Online Store. Against Our Better Judgment: The hidden history of how the U.S. was used to create Israel, by Alison Weir.

For that reason, all of the above is something more than just the latest “we have to support Israel” gimmick. The American soldiers and airmen who are now based in Israel are the sacrificial lambs that will guarantee U.S. entry into a war that Israel intends to start, make no mistake about that statement.

A group of U.S. senators who have just returned from Israel have confirmed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is preparing for a major regional war. Their recommendation? Give Israel more money so it can “defend” itself, a proposal that might be well received in the White House, which is also itching to confront both Syria and Iran.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, and the president himself have all been particularly ratcheting up the rhetoric against Iran. At the UN, Nikki Haley recently warned that the U.S. is prepared to attack Syria again because “there are times when states are compelled to take their own action.” Wrong, Nikki. Attacking a country that is not threatening to attack you has been recognized as the ultimate war crime since the Nuremberg trials of 1945-1946.

When Israel attacks Syria or Lebanon, as it clearly intends to do, Hezbollah will retaliate with its missiles, some of which will surely be directed towards the Mashabim Air Base, which will be a prime target to inhibit the base’s ability to bomb Lebanese targets. And once Washington is well and truly engaged in what is referred to as “force protection,” Israel will undoubtedly widen the conflict by drawing in Iran through attacks on that country’s identified bases in Syria that are supporting the al-Assad regime. The bigger war will suddenly become America’s responsibility after Israel inevitably proves itself incapable of handling the escalation.

During the recent bilateral military exercises, Air Force Lt. Gen. Richard Clark enthused that American soldiers are “prepared to die for the Jewish state” and also added that they would “probably” be under the command of Israeli Air Force Gen. Zvika Haimovitch, who would decide on the involvement of U.S. personnel. Haimovitch commented, “I am sure . . . we will find U.S. troops on the ground . . . to defend the state of Israel.”

I somehow doubt if Clark would be so sanguine if his own son were told to prepare to die for the Jewish state. And I have to wonder if the good general has considered Article 2 of the Constitution about declaring war, the 1973 War Powers Act, and the issue of national sovereignty itself in allowing another country to declare war for you.

Clark is a perfect example of how we have been sold out by the people we have honored and rewarded to defend our country when it comes to pandering to Israel. He and the other administration hawks clamoring for more war for Israel are a national disgrace.

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer and a columnist and television commentator. He is also the executive director of the Council for the National Interest. Other articles by Giraldi can be found on the website of the Unz Review.

The Eternal Lure of Nationalism

While the global elites continue to argue we must become “one happy global family” for the good of the planet, people everywhere are choosing nationalism instead. Examples from the winter Olympic games, Putin’s popularity, the Brexit vote, and our own “America-first” focus suggest the NWO is not winning this argument.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

In a surprise overtime victory in the finals of the Olympic men’s hockey tournament, the Russians defeated Germany, 4-3.

But the Russians were not permitted to have their national anthem played or flag raised, due to a past doping scandal. So, the team ignored the prohibition and sang out the Russian national anthem over the sounds of the Olympic anthem.

One recalls the scene in “Casablanca,” where French patrons of Rick’s saloon stood and loudly sang the “La Marseillaise” to drown out the “Die Wacht am Rhein” being sung by a table of German officers.

Drowning in IRS debt? The MacPherson Group could be a lifesaver!

When the combined North-South Korean Olympic team entered the stadium, Vice President Mike Pence remained seated and silent. But tens of thousands of Koreans stood and cheered the unified team.

America may provide a defensive shield for the South, but Koreans on both sides of the DMZ see themselves as one people. And, no fool, Kim Jong Un is exploiting the deep tribal ties he knows are there.

Watching the Russians defiantly belt out their anthem, one recalls also the 1968 summer Olympics in Mexico City where sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos stood on the podium, black gloved fists thrust skyward in a Black Power salute, asserting their separate racial identity.

Western elites may deplore the return of nationalism. But they had best not dismiss it, for assertions of national and tribal identity appear to be what the future is going to be all about.

Some attendees at the CPAC conclave this past week were appalled that Britain’s Nigel Farage and France’s Marion Le Pen were present.

But Farage was the man most responsible for Brexit, the historic British decision to leave the EU. Le Pen is perhaps the most popular figure in a National Front (NF) Party that won 35% of the vote in the runoff election won by President Emmanuel Macron.

And the most unifying stand of the NF appears to be “Let France Be France!” The French people do not want their country invaded by unassimilable millions of migrants from Africa and the Islamic world.

New World Order In Action, Vol. 1, by Takis Fotopolous
“Globalization, the Brexit Revolution and the ‘Left’ ” – Order now from AFP Online Store while this book is on sale!

They want France to remain what she has been. Is this wrong?

Is preservation of a country, the national family one grew up in, not conservative?

In Hungary and Poland, ethnonationalism, the belief that nation-states are created and best suited to protect and defend a separate and unique people, with its separate and unique history and culture, is already ascendant.

Globalists may see the UN, EU, NAFTA, TPP as stepping stones to a “universal nation” of all races, tribes, cultures, and creeds. But growing numbers in every country, on every continent, reject this vision. And they are seeking to restore what their parents and grandparents had, a nation-state that is all their own.

Nationalists like Farage, who seek to pull their countries out of socialist superstates like the EU, and peoples seeking to secede and set up new nations like Scotland, Catalonia, Corsica, and Veneto today, and Quebec yesterday, are no more anti-conservative than the American patriots of Lexington and Concord who also wanted a country of their own.

Why are European peoples who wish to halt mass migration from across the Med, to preserve who and what they are, decried as racists?

Did not the peoples of African and Middle Eastern countries, half a century ago, expel the European settlers who helped to build those countries?

The Rhodesia of Spitfire pilot Ian Smith was a jewel of a nation of 250,000 whites and several million blacks that produced trade surpluses even when boycotted and sanctioned by a hating world.

When Smith was forced to yield power, “Comrade Bob” Mugabe took over and began the looting of white Rhodesians and led his Shona tribesmen in a slaughter of the Matabele of rival Joshua Nkomo.

Eighty-five percent of the white folks who lived in Rhodesia, prior to “majority rule,” are gone from Zimbabwe. More than half of the white folks who made South Africa the most advanced and prosperous country on the continent are gone.

Are these countries better places than they were? For whom?

Looking back over this 21st century, the transnational elite that envisions the endless erosion of national sovereignty, and the coming of a new world order of open borders, free trade, and global custody of mankind’s destiny, has triggered a counter-revolution.

Does anyone think Angela Merkel looks like the future?

Consider the largest countries on Earth. In China, ethnonationalism, not the ruling Communist Party, unites and inspires 1.4 billion people to displace the Americans as the first power on Earth.

Nationalism sustains Vladimir Putin. Nationalism and its unique identity as a Hindu nation unites and powers India.

Here, today, it is “America-first” nationalism.

Indeed, now that George W. Bush’s crusade for democracy has ended up like Peter the Hermit’s Children’s Crusade, what is the vision, what is the historic goal our elites offer to inspire and enlist our people?

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of a new book, Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Online Store


Little Rocket Man Wins the Round

It would appear Kim Jong Un’s strategy has worked, and nuclear war has yet again been averted. Now, says Pat Buchanan, is the time to reconsider our longstanding obligation to defend South Korea.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

After a year in which he tested a hydrogen bomb and an ICBM, threatened to destroy the United States, and called President Trump “a dotard,” Kim Jong Un, at the gracious invitation of the president of South Korea, will be sending a skating team to the “Peace Olympics.”

An impressive year for Little Rocket Man.

Thus the most serious nuclear crisis since Nikita Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba appears to have abated. Welcome news, even if the confrontation with Pyongyang has probably only been postponed.

Still, we have been given an opportunity to reassess the 65-year-old Cold War treaty that obligates us to go to war if the North attacks Seoul, and drove us to the brink of war today.

2017 demonstrated that we need a reassessment. For the potential cost of carrying out our commitment is rising exponentially.

Two decades ago, a war on the Korean Peninsula, given the massed Northern artillery on the DMZ, meant thousands of U.S. dead.

Today, with Pyongyang’s growing arsenal of nuclear weapons, American cities could face Hiroshima-sized strikes, if war breaks out.

What vital U.S. interest is there on the Korean Peninsula that justifies accepting in perpetuity such a risk to our homeland?

We are told that Kim’s diplomacy is designed to split South Korea off from the Americans. And this is undeniably true.

For South Korean President Moon Jae-in is first and foremost responsible for his own people, half of whom are in artillery range of the DMZ. In any new Korean war, his country would suffer most.

And while he surely welcomes the U.S. commitment to fight the North on his country’s behalf as an insurance policy, Moon does not want a second Korean war, and he does not want President Trump making the decision as to whether there shall be one.

Understandably so. He is looking out for South Korea first.

Yet Moon rightly credits Trump with bringing the North Koreans to the table: “I give President Trump huge credit for bringing about the inter-Korean talks, and I’d like to thank him for that.”

But again, what are the U.S. interests there that we should be willing to put at risk of nuclear attack tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Korea and our bases in Asia, and even our great cities, in a war that would otherwise be confined to the Korean Peninsula?

China shares a border with the North, but is not treaty-bound to fight on the North’s behalf. Russia, too, has a border with North Korea, and, with China, was indispensable to saving the North in the 1950-53 war. But Russia is not committed by any treaty to fight for the North.

Why, then, are Americans obligated to be among the first to die in a second Korean War? Why is the defense of the South, with 40 times the economy and twice the population of the North, our eternal duty?

Kim’s drive for a nuclear deterrent is propelled by both fear and calculation. The fear is that the Americans who detest him will do to him and his regime and country what they did to Saddam Hussein.

The calculation is that what Americans fear most, and the one thing that deters them, is nuclear weapons. Once Soviet Russia and Communist China acquired nukes, the Americans never attacked them.

If he can put nuclear weapons on U.S. troops in Korea, U.S. bases in Japan, and U.S. cities, Kim reasons, the Americans will not launch a war on him. Have not recent events proven him right?

Iran has no nuclear weapons and some Americans clamor daily for “regime change” in Tehran. But because Kim has nukes, the Americans appear more anxious to talk. His policy is succeeding.

What he is saying with his nuclear arsenal is: As you Americans have put my regime and country at risk of annihilation, I am going to put your cities at risk. If we go down in your nuclear “fire and fury,” so, too, will millions of Americans.

The whole world is watching how this plays out.

For the American Imperium, our system of alliances, is held together by a credible commitment: If you attack any of our scores of allies, you are at war with the United States.

From the Baltic to the Black Sea to the Persian Gulf, from the South China Sea to Korea and Japan today, the costs and the risks of maintaining the imperium are growing.

With all these promissory notes out there—guarantees to go to war for other nations—one is inevitably going to be called.

And this generation of Americans, unaware of what their grandfathers obligated them to do, will demand to know, as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan: What are we over doing there, on the other side of the world?

America First is more than a slogan.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of a new book, Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Bookstore


U.S. Ghost Walkers in North Korea

Beginning in 1962, secret U.S. military units, referred to as “Ghost Walkers,” operated clandestinely in North Korea. Their missions were so secret, in fact, the U.S. government refuses to acknowledge the experiences in the records of these black-ops veterans. One woman has spent years trying to correct her late husband’s military record to properly honor his service to the U.S. 

Exclusive to American Free Press

By Dave Gahary

While tensions flare in the Korean Peninsula, American Free Press has learned of a clandestine joint military and intelligence unit that has been conducting brazen cross-border raids into North Korean territory since at least the early 1960s. The outfit, known as the “Ghost Walkers,” performed top-secret missions on North Korean soil, including infiltrating a nuclear power plant in 1963 and kidnapping a North Korean general straight from his camp, who was later interrogated and executed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Information on this unit is so classified that the men who served in it have been unable to prove so, as it is not listed on their service records, and they have been denied veteran benefits for over 50 years, including but not limited to treatment for toxic chemical exposure, i.e., herbicides like the defoliant Agent Orange. The main reason the Pentagon refuses to recognize the service and sacrifice of these vets is the fact that, in carrying out their top-secret missions, treaty and other laws were violated, which would create a diplomatic firestorm if revealed.

The joint CIA-Army-Navy-Marines-Air Force unit operated out of South Korea from ASCOM City, near Inchon, and may still be functioning, although its top-secret nature precludes those without a need to know from confirming its existence. ASCOM, or Army Support Command, is a U.S. Army Materiel Support Center that “had its beginnings in the mid-1930s when the Japanese built a large supply depot and arsenal at Bupyong-Dong, Inchon City, to support their troops in Manchuria.” After the Japanese surrender at the end of World War II, Army Support Command Korea was established and acquired the acronym ASCOM.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The wife of Oregon native Joseph Wayne Dunagan, one of the Ghost Walkers, who served in Korea from May 1962 to March 1964, reached out to this reporter with information she feels proves the unit’s existence. She explained how she began her quest over 15 years ago to force the U.S. government to honor its commitment to not just her husband but to all those who served in the unit. Dunagan was trained as a military policeman at Fort Gordon, Ga.

Barbara Ann Wright sat down with AFP for an exclusive 45-minute interview.

Listen to AFP’s interview with Mrs. Wright by clicking the image below.

“I know that my husband’s eligible for benefits, and I know that what they asked him to do in Korea was exceptionally dangerous,” Mrs. Dunagan said. “It would scare the pants right off of you if you knew some of the stuff that they had those guys do.”

She showed this reporter Dunagan’s Veterans Administration (VA) Form 21-4138, “Statement in Support of Claim,” which describes, in some parts in gory detail, the missions he was a part of, including infiltration of the nuclear power plant, replete with their fake names. Dunagan’s was “Skinny.”

The form read, in part:

In March of 1963, Army Intel asked us to go look at an atomic power plant up near the capital. We boarded a cruiser, Ghost Walkers with our counterparts the ROKs [Republic of Korea soldiers] and SEALs, and sailed west out of some naval port. After sailing all afternoon and at night and changing many directions, we approached the North Korean mainland.

We offloaded into rubber boats not knowing how far inland the atomic power plant was. They stationed us every 100 yards, realizing that it was further inland than they thought. One of the SEALs came back and stationed us every half mile because it was 15 to 17 miles inland. “Injin” and three or four of the SEALs went into the atomic power plant through unlocked doors and took pictures of the control room and part of the working facilities.

They saw nobody even though it was running full steam, noting that the lettering on the instruments [was] Chinese and Russian.

Mrs. Dunagan explained how she learned about her husband’s connection to the ghost unit.

“In 2001, he told me that he had a back injury and that he was getting no compensation for it,” she began, so they filed a claim with the VA.

When they received Dunagan’s service record, they were shocked.

“What came was nothing to do with Joe’s service in Korea,” she said. “All it talked about was what he’d done in the reserves.”

Mrs. Dunagan pressed her husband about his unit, and he told her that all he knew was it was called “HQ HQ Seoul.” A friend told Mrs. Dunagan that, when a soldier wears no shoulder patches and carries no ID or dog tags, they are “Army Intel/CIA.”

“The first time I queried the CIA was 2004,” Mrs. Dunagan said, and she came up empty-handed. The same happened in 2006. Barbara approached her congressional representative in 2009, who was unsuccessful as well.

Gideon Elite book cover

Her luck changed when she paid a visit to her U.S. senator, Jeffrey A. Merkley’s office, where his new veteran’s representative was a second lieutenant in Korea in 1980.

“She said her CIA contact said to send a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request to the CIA,” Mrs. Dunagan said, which she did—despite having had no luck in the past—but with a twist.

“I had sent a separate request for confirmation of his service in the unit; I didn’t ask for confirmation that the unit existed since they never acknowledged that,” she explained.

The FOIA response she received from the CIA, she believes, based on discussions with experienced veteran representatives, is confirmation that the unit existed, specifically because the CIA didn’t dispute her claims.

It read: “In accordance with Section 3.6(a) of Executive Order 13526, the CIA can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records responsive to your request.”

She explained just how clandestine the unit was.

“When those guys went to Korea, and there were 1,800 that left Fort Lewis 4 o’clock in the morning on May 6, 1962 out of McChord Air Force Base [now Joint Base Lewis-McChord, located nine miles from Tacoma, Washington], they left their dog tags, their military IDs, and all that stuff was sent home,” she said.

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, prevailed in a suit brought by the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him.