The lesson of Indo-China: “No U.S. Land War In Asia!”
The lesson of Indo-China:
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
October 31, 2009
Sometimes, as in the launching of that insane U.S. 1964-75 war in Indo-China, which was made possible by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, that disease of parliamentarianism sometimes named as “go along to get along,” carries the U.S.A. to self-destruction, even when all other efforts by our republic’s British and related enemies to induce our republic to ruin itself have failed.
In all visible history of mankind, when the enemies of a powerful nation, or some other “pro-globalist” agency, are unable, otherwise, unable to induce the targeted nation to ruin itself otherwise, they induce it, as did the ancient Greeks, to destroy itself in those long wars during which the enemy is soon shown to be no one as much as itself.
Such was the method by which the British East India Company became an empire, through using the same trick as did the imperialist enemies of Greece in the Peloponnesian War, or, modern Europe in the so-called “Seven Years War.”
So, as Otto von Bismarck warned, the coming new war in Europe, now the so-called “World War I,” like so-called “World War II,” maintained a British empire by engaging foolish nations, including a foolish U.S.A. walking over the dead body of an assassinated U.S. President William McKinley, to put into place bearers of the British-directed Confederacy, Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, to engage the U.S.A., against U.S. strategic interests, in the World War I pre-organized by the Prince of Wales Edward Albert, as the British Empire’s ruin of continental Europe and our U.S. destiny, through a “New Seven Years” within continental Europe.
So-called “strategists” who engage our U,S,A, in new, long wars in Eurasia, become ever more and more foolish as the centuries and their long wars roll on.
Those who have not heeded Bismarck’s warning should not be respected very much as statesmen, however well they fight the wars which only fools, or worse, send them to fight. There are much better ways to choose to “skin a strategic cat.”
True: the British imperialist interests have been the greatest war-criminals in all great wars, such as President Barack Obama’s mentor, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whether fought by themselves, or only by others, since the 1648 Peace of Westphalia.
Take the most relevant clinical example of this problem, the history of the British role in crafting the presently permanent state of warfare which the British launched initially in the form of London’s “Young Turk” stunt, which spawned “Sykes-Picot” and the career of British agent Alexander Helphand (“Parvus”), which spawned, in turn, the perpetual state of religious and related forms of warfare in Southwest Asia, still ongoing today.
It could be fairly argued, that the birth of Sykes- Picot and London’s “Young Turk” operation, were born, immediately, as a by-product of the British strategic scheme developed in the time of Prince of Wales Edward Albert, for using a British Royal-imperial control over what is called today Kuwait, as a crucial naval strategy for Prince Edward Albert’s intended “World War I.”
To wit: The British development of petroleum, to replace reliance on coal for capital naval ships, and in the process which connects Saudi Arabia with Britain’s BAE still today, is, historically, the role of the Red Sea’s role, since ancient times, as a continuation of the process from the ancient rise and fall of what became the Achaemenid Empire, through the ruin of Greece in the Peloponnesian War organized by the cult of Delphi, into the formation of the Roman Empire, and Eighteenth-century Britain’s adoption, as by Lord Shelburne and his crew, the actual founders of the British Foreign Office, of the self-image of a new Roman Empire.
By such methods as the wars which British Prince Edward Albert was enabled to arrange one he had brought about elimination of his great obstacles of that time, Bismarck’s diplomacy, France’s President Sadi Carnot, and U.S. President William McKinley,
In all seriously competent forms of customary ancient through modern European strategic history, the case of the competence of a European political strategist of ancient through present times, is understood to be locked up with the use of long wars as a means for bringing about the mutual great-weakening and self-destruction of once-powerful nation-state civilizations.