The answer to Will’s question is not so easy.  A ‘War in the Context of Everything Else’ can be described by simple labels and phrases: propaganda, terrorism, psychological warfare, etc. all occurring in a civilian context.  It’s a secret war by stealth against civilians – women and children included.    Officially, it’s called ‘Low Intensity Conflict’.  But none of the labels convey the complexity of this type of warfare.  It’s a coward’s war with no honor.  It’s hit and run for the purpose of creating fear.  It’s a method for a minority to impose it’s will on a majority through terror.

The difficulty of the analysis is that nothing is straightforward.  The objectives of the terrorism are inverted or lateral.  Symbolism becomes very important because symbols are coded language to the people ‘in the know’ and virtually impossible to explain to the average person. That which is subtle becomes key while that which is obvious becomes important only in the inverse or not at all because it’s a misdirection.  The analysis is a game of mental gymnastics which is why I said at the beginning of my paper:

When somebody is shooting at you, there is no doubt in your mind that you’re life is at risk so you take cover – and hopefully, you have the means to shoot back.  In a “War in the Context of Everything Else” (WICEE) war, the enemy can come at you from all directions, in ways limited only by the imagination of the enemy and because of that, you don’t know who they are or how they are coming and the war is well underway before you even realize there is one – so fighting back requires that you meet the enemy on the battlefield of the mind before you can formulate a response strategy.

The battlefield is in the mind because there is no battlefield.  There are no uniforms.  There are no boundaries. There are no rules.  There are only actions and responses like scenarios in a play; truth-tellers and liars; players, useful idiots and innocent bystanders.  For any given event, the world of possibilities must be reduced to probabilities and a score card maintained to build a case of preponderance of the evidence.

The next obvious question is who are the “terrorists” by a preponderance of the evidence?  The evidence I’ve seen and gathered seems to point to the CIA and possibly their foreign counterparts (trading places – you terrorize ours – and we’ll terrorize yours).  They were established to carry out covert warfare and simply because they draw an American paycheck doesn’t mean that they are loyal to America.  In fact, since they work with the State Department and the State Department publicly works against American interests it’s embarrassingly obvious.  I have no doubt that the only people in the world who don’t know are the majority of the American people.

The research line of inquiry that led me to that conclusion is the “supply chain” beginning with the U.S. State Department prior to World War II.  Follow the development of the idea of controlling the supply chain and transportation systems in Europe to when it began here in the United States with the Defense Highway System (Interstate), the ISTEA of 1991 and forward.  It’s the most fundamental of military principles:  Control the Supply Lines – Control the Enemy.

This view was stated by Vicky Davis in July 2, 2009