The Tom Bearden
Website

Help support the research

 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 4:09 PM
Subject: RE: Star Bettis question to Tom Bearden re: Sharon+Putin meeting

 
Dear Ms. B*******:
 
The old KGB (now the FSB) is not a monolith.
 
It has two factions which differ dramatically in their approach to the West.
 
The old diehard faction is led by the old diehard communists who still intend to eventually destroy the West, and particularly the United States.
 
The younger and more modern faction, from which Putin comes, would like to reach an accommodation with the West. Putin would dearly like to become our "trusted cheap oil supplier", so that he could and would pump much needed oil funds into the Russian economy. Accordingly, he has moved a long way down that path, and hopes to continue. Our gas at the gas pump would already be out of sight were it not for Putin opening all the oil spigots he could.
 
The old faction of the KGB, however, is the faction that still controls all the superweapons (called by the Russians "energetics weapons"). At the same time that Putin seeks accommodation, the old faction with its energetics weapons still maneuvers toward our destruction. It is ideological, so it is ceaseless. It will never stop.
 
For many years, since early on during the so-called "cold war", the kind of warfare we have been in -- whether we knew it or not, or whether we acknowledged it or not --  is loosely called "asymmetrical warfare". In it, war is continuous and there is no such thing as "peace". Instead, there are only two phases of warfare: (1) the insertion phase, during which weapons of mass destruction are inserted into the cities and population centers and main target areas of one's foe, and (2) the operations phase, when the WMD are unleashed, destroying the foe. Note that the insertion phase replaces what used to be called "peace", in that full bore warfare and shooting are not going on. Note also that it substitutes for the old "massive ICBM attack etc.". It is just as massive when it comes, but the business of getting the warheads to their target areas has dramatically changed, and is now accomplished in "peacetime" itself. Ergo, there is no peace now, and there never will be again, until this thing is won or lost utterly.
 
Here's something you may not have realized. We did not "win the cold war" by the strength of our own forces and our ICBMs, submarines, and nuclear bombers as most Americans think.  Instead, way back there in the cold war, the Soviets inserted nuclear weapons in all our major cities and population centers, over a period of some years, along with the Spetznaz teams to detonate them on command. As they achieved sufficient inserted nukes (some 50 cities and targets), their intention was to just go ahead and detonate them all at once or rapidly, in the dirt and dirty, thereby destroying the United States (150 million casualties, unrecoverable physical and economical damage). They would have accepted the retaliation strike of whatever we may have had left to throw at them, and accepted the damage as the necessary cost of winning the war.
 
That plan was countered by Israel when it acquired nuclear weapons, including hydrogen bombs.  We ourselves were not in position to insert sufficient weapons into Russian cities to produce a credible deterrent (which, if produced, was known as "dead man fuzing"). Against a rational foe, dead man fuzing works. He could destroy you at will, but then he would also be destroyed himself, inevitably.  But it wasn't our nuclear bombers and ICBMs that made up the deciding deterrent and "dead man fuzing" that insured the effectiveness of the "Mutual Assured Destruction" concept and capability.
 
Instead, the State of Israel -- with a very large Jewish contingent in Russia -- simply inserted nukes (including hydrogen bombs) into most all the important Russian cities and strategic target areas, with teams to set them off on order.  They thereby achieved -- actually for the entire West --- "dead man fuzing" against a chess playing rational Russian foe. That put the "assured" in the phrase of "Mutual Assured Destruction".
 
The nukes are still there, in the cities of both the U.S. and Russia, just waiting.  That has been what really nailed down the "mutual assured destruction" capability each country saw against it, in the hands of the opposing nation or nations friendly to the opposing nation.
 
So since early on in the cold war, Israel has saved all our collective bacon.  Quietly and without a lot of fanfare.
 
The irrational opponents -- such as the fanatical wings of the terrorists -- saw the success of the dead man fuzing.  Since they are irrational (any nation or group sending children in with bombs tied to their bodies to blow themselves up etc. is obviously irrational), then they cannot be dead-man fuzed. Instead, once they get sufficient insertion accomplished, they will unleash the WMD, thereby destroying the U.S.
 
Al Qaeda has announced to the Arab world that it already has seven nuclear weapons hidden in seven U.S. cities, and that insertion effort continues. That is the strategic plan of the terrorists (such as Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc.), not their tactical plan. All the news media covers with its "talking heads" approach is to cover all the tactical incidents. Those are distressing and do cause casualties and loss of life, but they do not win the strategic war. It is the strategic insertion which is the real and most deadly enemy action.
 
In the face of an irrational foe using asymmetrical warfare and strategic WMD insertion, one has a quandary. There is no choice but to win the insertion phase. If one loses the insertion phase (i.e., if it is completed), then one has just lost one's nation and the war, because very shortly the foe will unleash the WMD and thereby destroy the United States.
 
That is the kind of warfare and the stage we are now in.  Sweet negotiations in the UN are necessary, but they are not primary. To the terrorists, such as mere delaying tactics to enable them to continue to pursue the strategic insertion phase.
 
To the nuclear insertion, one today must also include such things as biological weapons, particularly anthrax, smallpox, etc.  If (and when) smallpox is unleashed in a single major city on this planet, it will eventually kill some 2 billion persons -- nearly one third of the human population. And when the economy of the old Soviet Union collapsed, anyone who wanted smallpox and smallpox biological warfare specialists, could easily buy them. The terrorist backing nations did want them, and they did buy. You could also buy nuclear weapons etc. More than a hundred warheads came up "missing" in one part of the Soviet empire alone. Nuclear weapons do not "go missing". They get stolen and sold on the black market for incredible prices.
 
Asymmetrical warfare is favored by all our foes these days because of one of our great vulnerabilities of the American society. When one does a Strategic Estimate (a standard military analysis of great importance), one area is called "National Style". That area captures the schisms and knee jerk reactions that a society has. One of our national style characteristics is a deadly vulnerability: We almost never react to a slowly increasing threat. We react to the rattler who bites us, but not to the boa constrictor slowly strangling us. To wit, the threat did not change one whit with the advent of 9/11 and the strike on the Twin Towers (and the deaths of some 3,000 Americans). What did change was that the snake had now bitten us sufficiently hard to get our attention. The boa constrictor had revealed himself to have fangs after all.
 
The other part of our national style that is a disadvantage is that, because we abhor war, we tend only to fight a short war. We go to war, take the battlefield and defeat the main forces, then tend to dust our hands off and go home, particularly if patches of guerrilla warfare and resistance continue. Anything resembling a "Vietnam" where the dragon continues to bleed, will result in a rising clamor to bring the troops home and be done with it. That reaction vis a vis Iraq is already started, and it will grow.
 
So the terrorists, knowing such things, are exhorting the faithful to flock in from other surrounding nations, and continue attacking Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is happening, and the dragon will continue to bleed. In turn, with an election campaign in full hue and cry, that is being made perhaps the major issue. Our folks had better train more Iraqis to take over the military defense actions against harassment attacks, because our own activists will do precisely what the activists did in Vietnam -- force the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
 
The terrible problem we have is this: Asymmetrical war is continuous, unrelenting war. It never ends, until either one side or the other is destroyed. Not defeated on the battlefield, but destroyed. If an idiot keeps shooting at you wherever you go, laying ambush after ambush, etc., the only way that ultimately you can stop him is to kill him. Or perhaps in a few cases capture and imprison him for the rest of his life.
 
The briefings that Bush and Cheney received after 9/11 must have been very sobering, as the full realization of what kind of action we are in sank home. About a month or so after 9/11, Cheney came out of one series of meetings in a very solemn and wry mood, and made this sobering statement: 
 

The war on terrorism will not be over in our lifetime.  It is different than the Gulf War was in the sense that it may never end. At least not in our lifetime.  The way I think of it is, its a new normalcy. Vice President Dick Cheney, October 21, 2001.

 
So that is our problem. We are in a very long struggle against a very determined, highly indoctrinated foe, who is in it for the long run. This year, next year, the year after, and the three decades after that.
 
We have not had any experience in our Republic with the kind of warfare the British and French once fought for 100 years.
 
Now we may well be going to find out.
 
The problem is that now, with weapons of mass destruction, the foe doesn't just strive to hit a ship or an apartment building. He does that, of course, but that is the tactical action which "bleeds the dragon".
 
The real war will be decided -- and won or lost -- on the success or failure of the strategic plan of the terrorists: to insert sufficient WMD (preferably nukes) in U.S. cities so that a real knock-out punch can be initiated.
 
There are other forces maneuvering against us simultaneously, and these other forces are also very powerful.  They are also very patient -- and patience is not an American virtue.
 
So time and our own cultural biases will eventually tell the tale.
 
Till then, we can only hope that our beloved nation survives, and that we "hold the fort" somehow.
 
And we fervently hope that we will win the insertion phase. Otherwise, we will surely lose and just as surely be utterly destroyed.
 
Best wishes and a little prayer for all of us,
 
Tom Bearden
 
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 11:31 AM
Subject: Correspondence

 
Dear Sir:
 
I have checked and rechecked Colonel Bearden's website and not been able to find an email address to which I can send the following question. Perhaps you can help me?
 
My Question:
 
After reading the Excalibur Briefing book, I am wondering WHY Prime Minister Sharon of Israel visited Putin in Russia last month?
 
Sincerely,
 
Star