LaRouche: The Fundamental Issue of Afghanistan Is the British Drive To Get Us To Fight a Land War in Asia

Lyndon LaRouche made the following remarks on Afghanistan, during a discussion with colleagues on September 19 concerning what he called "the fundamental issue of Afghanistan":

What we've had, is the United States has been destroyed, in a large degree since Franklin Roosevelt, but also it was tried earlier, by getting the United States into wars, land wars in Asia! And other places, but essentially land wars in Asia, has been the post-Roosevelt period attack. So therefore, we're now fighting a land war in Asia.

Now, Bill Clinton and Company will tend to argue on the basis of accepting, or negotiating, the improvement of policy for conducting land wars in Asia. And which he is, of course, opposed to getting into these things, but from a standpoint of politics, he says, you have to compromise with the people who want to have a land war in Asia. We say, "land war in Asia is a crime against humanity." We say, the issue of land war in Asia, was the reason that Kennedy was killed! Because he opposed launching a major land war in Asia, and for that, he was killed! And he was killed by international circles, which were tied to the British, but came through the French and Spanish-speaking side, in what was done in Dallas.

And so, we say, "Land wars in Asia are the chief device by which the British induce the United States, to shoot itself, not only in the foot, but the head." Therefore, we're against land wars in Asia. And when we look at the thing from that standpoint, we see that there never was a good reason for getting the United States in land wars in Asia.

Our war is with the British Empire. Or what we call the British Empire. And we have no other reason for war against anybody else, except defensive wars against attacks, by other forces. But we're suckers, because we're constantly drawn in by the Brits, into destroying ourselves for the greater glory of the British Empire, by getting into land wars in Asia! You look at this thing in 1966-1967, and you look at it from the standpoint of Kennedy was trying to revive the U.S. economy, from the damage done by previous circles, and got involved in a number of things, which just set him up. And on the question of the land war in Asia, he dug his heels in and said, "No!" He said, no to McNamara; he said no to all these other creeps. And they killed him! For that! Then we got into a land war in Asia! Because Johnson was afraid they were going to shoot him, too. And, we were going into that until 1975, in Indo-China.

Now, we got into a couple of Iraq wars, a land war in Asia; we're dragged down into a permanent land war in Asia, called the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is orchestrated by the British; and that's a central feature — we are involved more, mentally, in the Arab-Israeli thing, than in any actual war that we're directly involved in! Our mentality is controlled by that! Look at the way the Congress behaves, look at the way the politicians behave. A land war in Asia, is the ideology by which we are corrupted and destroyed!

So, now, you get into this kind of thing, where they want a compromise, on land war in Asia. And some people want to compromise with Obama on land war in Asia. So you have a McChrystal Standstill, while the war goes on, an ulcerated war. And you have all this thing about "who's our enemy?" We operate on a list that we got to defend the United States against our enemy. We have really one enemy! That enemy is the British Empire!

That's where the problem arises: The failure to see the historic issue here, between — it's in our Constitution — the issue between a credit system, which is our Constitutional system, and a monetarist system, which is an imperialist system! That's been the issue! That's been the issue internally, between Wall Street, for example, and this banking issue and so forth. The monetarist issue as against the credit system issue: The question of the U.S. sovereignty as a republic, as opposed to be part of a patchwork — of imperialists sowing together a patchwork.

LaRouche continued, in response to a question about the Korean War:

It was provoked, but it was done to try to destroy Douglas MacArthur. Because the British had lost World War II to Douglas MacArthur in the Pacific. And on top of everything, you had Australia had taken the position of the United States and MacArthur, against the position of Churchill, on this whole area.

Then you had Truman, and Churchill induced Truman to drop two nuclear weapons — the only ones we had, and they were experimental models — on Japan! A Japan which was already defeated! And for this purpose, Truman and Churchill and company, postponed the peace settlement, which had been negotiated through the Vatican, with Japan, with the Mikado, in order to have the opportunity to drop two nuclear weapons on the civilian population of Japan — huh? — in order to take the credit of this away from MacArthur. MacArthur, in a sense, was then destroyed, in his influence, deliberately, under the Truman administration, on behalf of Churchill, through the Korean War.

And that's one of the reasons that was taken into account by MacArthur, exactly that history, in advising President Kennedy no land war in Asia, for the United States!