Michael Meacher MP was environment minister for Britain from 1997 to 2003, on September 6, 2003 he wrote a article for The Guardian that exposed the fallacies of the war on terrorism. In the article he states that the conventional explanation for the war on terrorism does not fit all the facts, in this fascinating article he states;
"We know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defense secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush(George Bush's younger brother), and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The Plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must
"discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently...as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "its time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".
The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that target specific genotypes and may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a political useful tool".
Finally-written a year before 9/11-it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways...
None of this assembled evidence, all which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism. The catalogue of evidence does, however fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geo-political objectives....
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11...
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pre-text for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The Us national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advanced warnings of the attacks were received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the Us into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the Us to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda-the Us goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project."