®Monomakhos

The General Who Stopped WWWIII –in1999

by

General Sir Mike Jackson GCB, CBE, DSO, credited with singlehandedly stopping the outbreak of WWIII, passed at age 80, October 15, 2024.  https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/15/general-sir-mike-jackson-former-head-of-the-british-army-dies-at-80

Jackson may go down in history as “the most sensible military man in NATO,” primarily because he refused to carry out an order from US General Wesley Clark to storm the Slatina airport in Pristina (Kosovo), which Russian paratroopers had taken by force in 1999.  He, thereby, demonstrated a responsibility that is higher than responsibility to a superior and for that, we can all be grateful.

Andrei Martyonov, a well-known expert on Russian military and naval issues, described Jackson as a “rare breed of British Stiff Upper Lip” when he made the decision to stop the slide towards WW III, especially against the background of a hysterical Wesley Clark.  “I will not start World War III because of you,” General Jackson told the American, his coarse voice resounding with authority.  “Boy, the world needed then, in 1999, true British courage and toughness and General Sir Mike Jackson delivered.”

So why am I writing about Jackson today?  I mean, other than the fact that by disobeying an order he spared us nuclear annihilation.  Because by doing so, he gave the Russians some civilizational breathing room.  For those that don’t remember, the 90s were a particularly awful time for Russia economically.  It would take them another decade or so to climb out of their degraded state, becoming the superpower they are today; a superpower capable of standing up to globohomo forces bent on reordering the world to their liking.

Then, as in WWII, the Serbs (with the Greeks) delayed the Third Reich’s plans for Operation Barbarossa, their planned invasion of the Soviet Union.  Because of the resistance of the Balkan nations, the Wehrmacht invaded Russia on June 22, 1941 –the same day that Napoleon launched his invasion back in 1812.   And we all know how that worked out for him, don’t we?

Sadly, we may never see Jackson’s type again (at least not in the West).  The degenerate nature of British and American manhood today mitigates against soldiers of his caliber rising through the ranks.  Perhaps in the retelling of this story it will encourage others to do the right thing, for the right reasons, in the face of tough adversity.

Rest in peace, Sir Mike.  Rest in peace.

Comments

  2. Operation Unthinkable: 22 May 1945
    https://archive.is/m1o0Y

    Discussion:

    Who Perpetrated the 2014 Ukraine ‘Maidan Coup’ that Started Ukraine’s War? | Eric Zuesse
    https://theduran.com/who-perpetrated-the-2014-ukraine-maidan-coup-that-started-ukraines-war/

    ‘ On 22 October 2024, the BBC headlined “The ex-British army chief on why peace with Russia is not possible,” and at 5:00 in the podcast https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0jzg8ls he said “We’ve been there [in Ukraine] since 2014, we’ve had a presence in Ukraine, we’ve been working with them, and trying to build up their capability,” and then he immediately skipped forward to 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine. He didn’t say from what precise date in 2014 was — was it before, or instead only after, the 20 February 2014 coup — that the UK’s Army was “working with them, and trying to build up their capability,” to use those weapons so as to bring down the democratically elected President of Ukraine, but he went on to say that The West unfortunately “frittered away” “that wonderful unipolar moment” [the UK/U.S Governments’ control over the entire world] into “serious competition with the great powers — Russia, China, Iran, North Korea — this Axis [he was saying that this is the modern equivalent of WW2’s “Axis” or fascist-imperialist powers], and I think the world is as dangerous as I’ve known it, in some respects more dangerous than the Cold War, because The System, you know, The International Order, which kind-of kept us safe, that is a period of extraordinary peace and prosperity, has ended … and we’ve now got these great powers, this Axis of powers, trying to overturn The World Order, and I don’t think that peace with Russia is possible.” He is saying that unless and until The West will conquer Russia, there will be war between The West and Russia. … ‘

    War without end
    That’s the New Great Game
    Same as the old…

  4. The Argie way of war…

    *Argentina joins Israel’s fight against Iran by sending military support*
    https://agendamalvinas.com.ar/noticia/argentina-se-suma-a-la-lucha-de-israel-contra-iran-enviando-apoyo-militar

    ‘ Argentina is once again in line with Israel and the United States. Our country’s army, pushed into illegality by the unilateral decision of President Javier Milei , for not having authorization from the National Congress, joined the Combined Maritime Forces formed by 46 countries against Iran, led by the United States, in first place, and the United Kingdom, in second place.

    Specifically, a US commander and a British deputy commander lead this military force, which was created after the attacks on the US on September 11, 2001.

    In this first stage, Argentina will send soldiers to the Persian Gulf, specifically to the base located in Bahrain , but according to the Ministry of Defense, no military equipment will be sent.

    In any case, the Ministry of Defense plans to send aircraft and vessels to carry out maritime patrols in 2025 and 2026. ‘

    Soldiers without military equipment?

    Well, having seen what the Russians can do
    with shovels and washing machine chips,
    who needs military equipment?

  6. Now we have those who would start WWIII…

    Alastair Crooke: “Israel does what it does; it was always planned this way”
    https://katehon.com/en/article/israel-does-what-it-does-it-was-always-planned-way

    ‘ With the assassination of Sayed Hassan Nasrallah and a number of the Hizbullah senior leadership in Beirut – expressly without prior warning being given to the Pentagon – Netanyahu fired the start gun on an implicit Israeli widening of war to – using Israel’s term – the ‘octopus’ tentacles’: Hizbullah in Lebanon; Ansarullah in Yemen; the Syrian government and the Iraqi Hash’ad A-Shaabi forces.

    Well, after the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh and part of Hizbullah’s leadership cadre (including a senior Iranian general), Iran – demonised as the ‘octopus head’ – entered the conflict with a volley of missiles that targeted airfields, military bases and the Mossad HQ – but intentionally caused no deaths.

    Israel thus made the U.S. (and most of Europe) partners or accomplices to a war now definitively cast as neo-imperialism versus the whole of the non-West. Palestinians – the global icons of the aspiration for national liberation – were to be annihilated from historic Palestine.

    Further, the bombing in Beirut, and Iran’s riposte to it, now ranges Israel backed and materially supported by the U.S. vs Iran, backed and materially supported by Russia. Israel, the military correspondent of Yedioth Ahronoth warns, ‘must go crazy and strike Iran – because striking Iran “will end the current war”’.

    Plainly, it marks the end to ‘playing nice’ – of incrementally escalating, one calculated step after another – as if playing chess with an opponent who calculates similarly. Both now threaten to take a hammer to the chess board. ‘Chess is over’.

    It seems that Moscow too, understands that ‘chess’ simply cannot be played when the opponent is no ‘adult’, but a reckless sociopath ready to sweep away the board – to gamble all on an ephemeral ‘great victory’ move.

    Looked at dispassionately, either the Israelis are inviting their own demise by over-extending across seven fronts. Or their hope lies with invoking the threat of their demise as the means to bring in the United States. As with Zelensky in Ukraine, there is ‘no hope’ unless the U.S. adds its fire-power decisively – both Netanyahu and Zelensky assume.

    So, in West Asia the U.S. is now supporting, no less, than a war against humanity per se, and against the world. This clearly cannot be in America’s self-interest. Do its power-broker Panjandrums realise the possible consequences for it to stand against the World in an act of gross immorality? Netanyahu is betting his house – and now the West’s – on the outcome of his roulette table ‘bet’.

    Is there a sense amongst the Panjandrums that the U.S. is betting on the wrong horse? Whilst it seems there are some contrarians placed at a high level in the U.S. military who do have reservations – as in every ‘war game’ the U.S. loses in the Near East – their voices are few. The wider political class clamours for revenge on Iran.

    The dilemma of why there are so few opposing voices in Washington has been addressed and explained by Professor Michael Hudson. Hudson explains that matters are not so simple; that context is missing. Professor Hudson’s reply is paraphrased below from two long commentaries (here and here):

    “Everything that’s happened today was planned out just 50 years ago, back in 1974 and 1973. “I worked at the Hudson Institute for about five years, 1972 to ‘76. I sat in on meetings with Uzi Arad, who became Netanyahu’s chief military advisor after heading Mossad. I worked very closely with Uzi there … I want to describe how the whole strategy that led to the United States today, not wanting peace, but wanting Israel to take over the whole Near East, took shape gradually.

    “On one occasion, I brought my mentor, Terrence McCarthy, to the Hudson Institute, to talk about the Islamic worldview, and every two sentences, Uzi would interrupt: “No, no, we’ve got to kill them all”. And other people, members of the Institute, were also just talking continually about killing Arabs”.

    The strategy of using Israel as the regional battering ram to achieve U.S. (imperial) objectives was worked out essentially in the 1960s by Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson. Jackson was nicknamed ‘the Senator from Boeing’ for his support for the military-industrial complex. And the military-industrial complex backed him to become chair of the Democratic National Committee. He was too twice an unsuccessful candidate for the Democratic nomination for the 1972 and 1976 Presidential elections.

    Well, he was backed by Herman Kahn too, who became the key strategist for U.S. hegemony in the Hudson Institute.

    Initially, Israel didn’t really play a role in the U.S. plan; Jackson (of Norwegian descent) simply hated communism, he hated the Russians, and had a lot of support within the Democratic Party. But when all of this strategy was being put together, Herman Khan’s great achievement was to convince the U.S. Empire builders that the key to achieving their control in the Middle East was to rely on Israel as its foreign legion.

    And that arms-length arrangement enabled the U.S. to play the role, Hudson says, of the ‘good cop’, whilst designating Israel to play its role as ruthless proxy. And that’s why the State Department turned over management of U.S. diplomacy to Zionists – to separate and distinguish Israeli behaviour from the claimed probity of U.S. imperialism.

    Herman Khan described the virtue of Jackson for Zionists to Professor Hudson as precisely that he was not Jewish, a defender of the military complex and a strong opponent of the arms control system that was underway. Jackson fought against arms control – “we’ve got to have war”. And he proceeded to stuff the State Department and other U.S. agencies with neocons (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl, Douglas Fife, among others), who, from the beginning, planned for a permanent worldwide war. The takeover of government policy was led by Jackson’s former senate aides.

    Herman’s analysis was systems analysis: Firstly, define the overall aim and then work backwards.“Well, you can see what the Israeli policy is today. First of all, you isolate the Palestinians [into] strategic hamlets. That’s what Gaza had already been turned into for the last 15 years”.

    “The aim all along has been to kill them. Or first of all, to make life so unpleasant for them that they’ll emigrate. That’s the easy way. Why would anyone want to stay in Gaza when what’s happening to them is what’s happening today? You’re going to leave. But if they don’t leave, you’re going to have to kill them, ideally by bombing because that minimizes the domestic casualties”, Hudson notes.

    “And nobody seems to have noticed that what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank now – is all based on the “strategic hamlets” idea from the Vietnam war: the fact that you could just divide all of Vietnam into little parts, having guards at all the transition points from one part to another. Everything that Israel is doing to the Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere throughout Israel was pioneered in Vietnam”.

    If you analysed these neo-cons, Hudson relates,

    “they had a virtual religion. I met many at the Hudson Institute; some of them, or their fathers, were Trotskyists. And they picked up Trotsky’s idea of permanent revolution. That is, an unfolding revolution – whereas Trotsky said began in Soviet Russia was going to spread around the world: The neo-cons adapted this and said, “No, the permanent Revolution is the American Empire – it’s going to expand, and expand and nothing can stop us – to the entire world”.

    The Scoop Jackson neo-cons were brought in – from the beginning – to do exactly what they’re doing today. To empower Israel as America’s proxy, to conquer the oil-producing countries, and make them part of greater Israel.

    “And the aim of the United States was always oil. That meant the United States had to secure the Near East and there were two proxy armies to do it. And these two armies fought together as allies, down to today. On the one hand, the al-Qaeda jihadis, on the other hand, their managers, the Israelis, hand in hand”.

    “[W]hat we’re seeing is, as I said, a charade that somehow what Israel is doing is “all Netanyahu’s fault, all the fault of the Right-wing there” – and yet from the very beginning they were promoted, supported with huge amounts of money, all of the bombs they needed, all the armaments they needed, all the funding they needed … All of that was given to them precisely to do exactly what they’re doing today”.

    “No, there can’t be a two-state solution because Netanyahu said, “We hate the Gazans, we hate the Palestinians, we hate the Arabs – there cannot be a two-state solution and here’s my map,” before the United Nations, “here’s Israel: there’s no one who’s not Jewish in Israel – we’re a Jewish state” – he comes right out and says it”.

    Hudson then gets to the bottom of it all. He points us to the fundamental game-changer: Why it is difficult for the U.S. to change its approach – the Vietnam War had shown that any attempted conscription by western democracies was not viable. Lyndon Johnson in 1968 had to withdraw from running for election precisely because everywhere he would go, there would be non-stop stop-the-war demonstrations.

    The ‘bedrock’ which Hudson underlines, is the understanding that western democracies no longer can field a domestic army through conscription. ‘And what that means is that today’s tactics are limited to bombing, but not occupying countries.Thus, Israel – whose forces are limited – can drop bombs on Gaza and Hezbollah, and try to knock out things, but neither the Israeli army, nor any other army, would really be able to invade and try to take over a country, or even south Lebanon – in the way that armies did in World War II – so the U.S. drew the lesson. It turned to proxies’.

    “So what is left for the United States? Well, I think there’s only one form of non-atomic war that democracies can afford, and that’s terrorism [i.e positively seeking huge collateral deaths]. And I think you should look at Ukraine and Israel as the terrorist alternative to atomic war”, Hudson suggests.

    The bottom line, he notes, is what then does this imply with Israel continuing to insist on engaging the U.S. in its regional war? The U.S. is not going to send troops. It can’t do that. The ruling cadre have tried terrorism and the result of terrorism is to align the rest of the world against the West, appalled by the wanton killing and by the breaking of all of the rules of war.

    Hudson concludes, “I don’t see Congress being reasonable. I think that the State Department and the National Security Agency and the Democratic Party leadership, with its basis in the military-industrial complex, is absolutely committed”.

    The latter might say “Well, who wants to live in a world where we can’t control? Who wants to live in a world where other countries are independent, where they have their own policy? Who wants to live in a world where we can’t siphon off their economic surplus for us? If we can’t take everything and dominate the world, well, who wants to live in that kind of a world?”

    That’s the mentality with which we’re dealing; ‘Playing nice’ won’t change that paradigm. Failure does. ‘

  7. James Blunt was the British Army Captain
    whose troop was ordered by Gen Clark
    to take Pristina Airport by force.
    He questioned the order.
    Jackson refused it.
    Blunt is a hero.

    Blunt is now a singer/songwriter.
    Here is his song about those times:

    “James Blunt – No Bravery (Official Music Video)”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh41Wxez9PE

    [Video – 03:34]

  8. As I understand it, the conversation went something like this:
    Gen Clark: “I’m a 4-star general and you are only a 3-star.
    I outrank you”. I order you to take Pristina Airport!”

    General Jackson: “F*ck off! I’m not going
    to start World War Three for you.”

    Clark complained to NATO and the Pentagon.
    They both sent complaints to London.
    London *rebuked* Jackson;

    …and the Queen gave him a knighthood!