| 
       
          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:  
      
 
        
        
        
        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
           
       |