Human Intelligence for Human Policymaking

Feb. 8—“How does an individual citizen acquire the best intelligence service in the world?” How can, in the midst of distractions, intentional misrepresentation, and coercion, individual Americans acquire the knowledge they need to act in such a way as to ensure that this country, and the world survive? What is the actual, though undiscussed and unacknowledged, subject of the ongoing fight around the nominations for Director of National Intelligence and the FBI Director? What is the issue that has surfaced in the “auditing” and radical downsizing of the bloated USAID? Why are criminal, but legal organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), that routinely overthrow governments worldwide in the name of “spreading democracy,” finally coming under scrutiny after nearly 40 years of operating with impunity? The LaRouche Organization has played a marginal but decisive role in what is now transpiring, and will continue to do so. But what is that role, and can a new world security and development architecture be brought about through the efforts of “individual citizens that acquire the best intelligence service in the world?”

That question—“How does an individual citizen acquire the best intelligence service in the world?” was posed to then-Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche in New Hampshire by a reporter. Here is that exchange.

Reporter: “Norman Bailey, who was a former economics official with the National Security Council, says that you have one of the best private intelligence services in the world. How does an individual citizen acquire the best intelligence service in the world?”

LaRouche: "Well, I mean, in a very informal basis, partly formal, I’m sort of a primus inter pares of an international group of journalists and investigators. I set up the system years ago as a suggestion to friends of mine back in ’71, when I said we’ve got to do something about this. So, we set up what looked like a news bureau, organized like Time magazine, or Newsweek, or something like that in terms of organization.

“But I did something else. I said, in most publications, you have the editorial function and the intelligence function is combined.

That’s a mistake. You set the thing up so you have an intelligence function, which works without prejudice as to what the editorial department is going to use. They just have the ongoing work on the intelligence work. Then the editorial department comes over and dips into what the intelligence department does, takes what they want and goes up and runs an editorial function.

So, I set up this double, two-track system: intelligence independent of editorial control, and editorial control separate from intelligence. And the system was used by my friends in various countries. It works. We maintain daily links. We run a sophisticated news bureau. We don’t get into everything in the world, but we get into things that we think are more important."

Why is this method of intelligence work of central importance to everyone in the United States, from the President of the United States, to you? It’s because what is actually happening is often what you would prefer not to know. Good intelligence will break apart your axioms, presenting, for example, the United States with choices it would prefer not to know that it has.

For example, take the “Middle East.” In the aftermath of world reaction and response to President Donald Trump’s announcement of his proposal that the United States would “run Gaza,” Helga Zepp-LaRouche, speaking at the meeting of the International Peace Coalition pointed out that “U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz said that since this is the only proposal and Trump’s proposal is the best proposal; he said: ‘The fact is that nobody has a realistic solution, and he [Trump] put some very bold fresh new ideas out on the table, I don’t think should be criticized in any way. It’s going to bring the entire region to come up with their own solutions if they don’t like Mr. Trump’s solutions. But one of the key points President Trump made last night was “tell me what real better alternatives they have ever been offered.”’”

This shows a consummate failure of American intelligence, other than those retired American and other intelligence officials who have discussed and endorsed, sometimes with criticisms and qualifications, the Oasis Plan originally formulated by economist Lyndon LaRouche in 1975, now restated by Helga Zepp-LaRouche and associates of Executive Intelligence Review for the current era. Zepp-LaRouche, author of the Ten Principles for a New International Security and Development Architecture, remarked that Mike Waltz’s proposal “that people come up with something better” “is for us the absolute opportunity to first of all make sure that everybody knows about the Oasis Plan.” Now is the time for all who have dreamed of putting an end to the Greek tragedy-like cycle of war, murder and death in Southwest Asia to embrace this alternative.

In conclusion, we demonstrate why Executive Intelligence Review is indispensable, particularly at this time, and in this crisis, on this particular policy-front. In 2005, in an article titled, “How Wolfowitz and the Neo-Cons
Sabotaged First ‘Oasis Plan’,” Executive Intelligence Review’s Dean Andromidas pointed out:

“On June 5, 1967, Israel launched the Six-Day War, whose catastrophic consequences the world is still suffering. Within days of the ceasefire, former President Dwight D. Eisenhower presented President Johnson with a peace initiative under the laconic title of ‘A Proposal for Our Time.’ Drafted in cooperation with former Atomic Energy Commissioner Adm. Lewis L. Strauss, and Alvin Weinberg, director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the proposal called for the construction of three dual-purpose nuclear desalination electric power stations, referred to as ‘atomic desalting’ plants, one each to be built in Jordan, Israel, and Egypt. They would produce a combined output of 1,400 million cubic meters of water a year, equivalent to the entire flow of the Jordan River system!

“Later, in June 1968, Eisenhower wrote an article about the initiative for Reader’s Digest. The purpose of building large atomic desalting stations in the troubled region, Eisenhower wrote, ‘is not only to bring large arid regions into production and supply useful work for hundreds of thousands of people, but also, hopefully, to promote peace in a deeply troubled area of the world through a new cooperative venture among nations. I am optimistic enough to believe that the proposal, when implemented—as it is sure to be someday—may very well succeed in bringing stability to a region where endless political negotiations have failed….’”

Under the subtitle “A Power for Peace,” Eisenhower wrote that “the plants would be dual purpose, producing both water and electricity in order to enable development across 1,750 square miles (4,500 square kilometers) of barren land, which would form the centerpiece of a scheme to settle more than a million Palestinian refugees….” With the amount of work to be done, with the amount of history to be restored, with the amount of cooperation that could be initiated among nations, why should the Palestinians go anywhere? And shouldn’t the current President be told, what a prior President—the one who warned about the dangers of the military-industrial complex—proposed to do, to produce “a power for peace”? That is the function of intelligence, and the indispensable function of EIR.