America's Agenda for Global Military Domination

[Guest guest]

L

Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:16:56 -0800 (PST)

 

 

America's Agenda for Global Military Domination

 

This is chilling, long but worth the pain of reading

it. Halfway through this, I had a strong awareness or

" sense " of millions of people knitting, or playing

fiddles.

 

Lisa, quoting:

 

 

 

 

http://tinyurl.com/3w58b

 

 

America's Agenda for Global Military Domination

 

by Michel Chossudovsky

 

03/17/05 " CRG " - - The Pentagon has released the

summary of a top secret Pentagon document, which

sketches America's agenda for global military

domination.

 

This redirection of America's military strategy seems

to have passed virtually unnoticed. With the exception

of The Wall Street Journal (see below in

annex), not a word has been mentioned in the US media.

 

There has been no press coverage concerning this

mysterious military blueprint. The latter outlines,

according to the Wall Street Journal, America's

global military design which consists in " enhancing

U.S. influence around the world " , through increased

troop deployments and a massive buildup of America's

advanced weapons systems.

 

While the document follows in the footsteps of the

administration's " preemptive " war doctrine as detailed

by the Neocons' Project of the New American

Century (PNAC), it goes much further in setting the

contours of Washington's global military agenda.

 

It calls for a more " proactive " approach to warfare,

beyond the weaker notion of " preemptive " and defensive

actions, where military operations are

launched against a " declared enemy " with a view to

" preserving the peace " and " defending America " .

 

The document explicitly acknowledges America's global

military mandate, beyond regional war theaters. This

mandate also includes military operations directed

against countries, which are not hostile to America,

but which are considered strategic from the point of

view of US interests.

 

From a broad military and foreign policy perspective,

the March 2005 Pentagon document constitutes an

imperial design, which supports US corporate interests

Worldwide.

 

" At its heart, the document is driven by the belief

that the U.S. is engaged in a continuous global

struggle that extends far beyond specific

battlegrounds, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The

vision is for a military that is far more proactive,

focused on changing the world instead of just

responding to conflicts such as a North Korean attack

on South Korea, and assuming greater prominence in

countries in which the U.S. isn't at war. (WSJ, 11

March 2005)

 

The document suggests that its objective also consists

in " offensive " rather than run of the mill

" preemptive " operations. There is, in this regard, a

subtle nuance in relation to earlier post-911 national

security statements:

 

" [The document presents] 'four core' problems, none of

them involving traditional military confrontations.

The services are told to develop forces that can:

build partnerships with failing states to defeat

internal terrorist threats; defend the homeland,

including offensive strikes against terrorist groups

planning attacks; influence the choices of countries

at a strategic crossroads, such as China and Russia;

and prevent the acquisition of weapons of mass

destruction by hostile states and terrorist groups. "

(Ibid)

 

The emphasis is no longer solely on waging major

theater wars as outlined in the PNAC's Rebuilding

America's Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources for

a New Century " , the March 2005 military blueprint

points to shifts in weapons systems as well as the

need for a global deployment of US forces in

acts of Worldwide military policing and intervention.

The PNAC in its September 2000 Report had described

these non-theater military operations as

" constabulary functions " :

 

The Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the

current peace in ways that fall short of conduction

major theater campaigns. ... These duties are

today’s most frequent missions, requiring forces

configured for combat but capable of long-term,

independent constabulary operations. " (PNAC,

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

, p.18)

 

Recruitment of Troops to Police the Empire

 

The underlying emphasis is on the development and

recruitment of specialized military manpower required

to control and pacify indigenous forces and factions

in different regions of the World:

 

" the classified guidance urges the military to come up

with less doctrinaire solutions that include sending

in smaller teams of culturally savvy soldiers

to train and mentor indigenous forces. " (Ibid)

 

The classified document points to the need for a

massive recruitment and training of troops. These

troops, including new contingents of special forces,

green berets and other specialized military personnel,

would be involved, around the World, in acts of

military policing:

 

" Mr. Rumsfeld's approach likely will trigger major

shifts in the weapons systems that the Pentagon buys,

and even more fundamental changes in the training

and deployment of U.S. troops throughout the world,

said defense officials who have played a role in

crafting the document or are involved in the review.

 

The U.S. would seek to deploy these troops far earlier

in a looming conflict than they traditionally have

been to help a tottering government's armed

forces confront guerrillas before an insurgency is

able to take root and build popular support. Officials

said the plan envisions many such teams

operating around the world.

 

US military involvement is not limited to the Middle

East. The sending in of special forces in military

policing operations, under the disguise of

peace-keeping and training, is contemplated in all

major regions of the World. A large part of these

activities, however, will most probably be carried out

by private mercenary companies on contract to the

Pentagon, NATO or the United Nations. The military

manpower requirements as well as the equipment

are specialized. The policing will not be conducted by

regular army units as in a theater war:

 

" the new plan envisions more active U.S. involvement,

resembling recent military aid missions to places like

Niger and Chad, where the U.S. is dispatching

teams of ground troops to train local militaries in

basic counterinsurgency tactics. Future training

missions, however, would likely be conducted

on a much broader scale, one defense official said.

 

Of the military's services, the Marines Corps right

now is moving fastest to fill this gap and is looking

at shifting some resources away from traditional

amphibious-assault missions to new units designed

specifically to work with foreign forces. To support

these troops, military officials are looking at

everything from acquiring cheap aerial surveillance

systems to flying gunships that can be used in messy

urban fights to come to the aid of ground troops.

One " dream capability " might be an unmanned AC-130

gunship that could circle an area at relatively low

altitude until it is needed, then swoop in to lay

down a withering line of fire, said a defense

official. " (Ibid)

 

New Post Cold War Enemies

 

While the " war on terrorism " and the containment of

" rogue states " still constitute the official

justification and driving force, China and

Russia are explicitly identified in the classified

March document as potential enemies.

 

" ... the U.S. military ... is seeking to dissuade

rising powers, such as China, from challenging U.S.

military dominance. Although weapons systems designed

to fight guerrillas tend to be fairly cheap and

low-tech, the review makes clear that to dissuade

those countries from trying to compete, the U.S.

military

must retain its dominance in key high-tech areas, such

as stealth technology, precision weaponry and manned

and unmanned surveillance systems. "

(Ibid)

 

While the European Union is not mentioned, the stated

objective is to shunt the development of all potential

military rivals.

 

" Trying to Run with the Big Dog "

 

How does Washington intend to reach its goal of global

military hegemony?

 

Essentially through the continued development of the

US weapons industry, requiring a massive shift out of

the production of civilian goods and services. In

other words, the ongoing increase in defense spending

feeds this new undeclared arms race, with vast amounts

of public money channeled to America's major

weapons producers.

 

The stated objective is to make the process of

developing advanced weapons systems " so expensive " ,

that no other power on earth will able to compete or

challenge " the Big Dog " , without jeopardizing its

civilian economy:

 

" [A]t the core of this strategy is the belief that the

US must maintain such a large lead in crucial

technologies that growing powers will conclude

that it is too expensive for these countries to even

think about trying to run with the big dog. They will

realize that it is not worth sacrificing their

economic growth, said one defense consultant who was

hired to draft sections of the document. " (Ibid,

emphasis added) [but the US can sacrifice ITS

economic growth, particularly at the expense of the

middle class, the poor, the sick and the elderly.

Think of N. Korea when you imagine what the Bush cabal

has in mind for us. M.]

 

Undeclared Arms Race between Europe and America

 

This new undeclared arms race is with the so-called

" growing powers " .

 

While China and Russia are mentioned as a potential

threat, America's (unofficial) rivals also include

France, Germany and Japan. The recognized partners

of the US --in the context of the Anglo-American

axis-- are Britain, Australia and Canada, not to

mention Israel (unofficially).

 

In this context, there are at present two dominant

Western military axes: the Anglo-American axis and the

competing Franco-German alliance. The European

military project, largely dominated by France and

Germany, will inevitably undermine NATO. Britain

(through British Aerospace Systems Corporation) is

firmly integrated into the US system of defense

procurement in partnership with America's big five

weapons producers.

 

Needless to say, this new arms race is firmly embedded

in the European project, which envisages under EU

auspices, a massive redirection of State financial

resources towards military expenditure. Moreover, the

EU monetary system establishing a global currency

which challenges the hegemony of the US dollar is

intimately related to the development of an integrated

EU defense force outside of NATO.

 

Under the European constitution, there will be a

unified European foreign policy position which will

include a common defense component. It is

understood, although never seriously debated in

public, that the proposed European Defense Force is

intended to challenge America's supremacy in military

affairs:

 

" under such a regime, trans-Atlantic relations will

be dealt a fatal blow. " (according to Martin Callanan,

British Conservative member of the

European Parliament, Washington times, 5 March 2005).

 

Ironically, this European military project, while

encouraging an undeclared US-EU arms race, is not

incompatible with continued US-EU cooperation in

military affairs. The underlying objective for Europe

is that EU corporate interests are protected and that

European contractors are able to effectively cash in

and " share the spoils " of the US-led wars in the

Middle East and elsewhere. In other words, by

challenging the Big Dog from a position of strength,

the EU seeks to retain its role as " a partner " of

America in its various military ventures.

 

There is a presumption, particularly in France, that

the only way to build good relations with Washington,

is to emulate the American Military Project,--

i.e. by adopting a similar strategy of beefing up

Europe's advanced weapons systems.

 

In other words, what we are dealing with is a fragile

love-hate relationship between Old Europe and America,

in defense systems, the oil industry as

well as in the upper spheres of banking, finance and

currency markets. The important issue is how this

fragile geopolitical relationship will evolve in

terms of coalitions and alliances in the years to

come. France and Germany have military cooperation

agreements with both Russia and China. European

Defense companies are supplying China with

sophisticated weaponry. Ultimately, Europe is

viewed as an encroachment by the US, and military

conflict between competing Western superpowers cannot

be ruled out. (For further details, see Michel

Chossudovsky, The Anglo-American Axis,

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303B.html )

 

From skepticism concerning Iraq's alleged weapons of

mass destruction (WMD) to outright condemnation, in

the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion,

Old Europe (in the wake of the invasion) has broadly

accepted the legitimacy of the US military occupation

of Iraq, despite the killings of civilians, not

to mention the Bush administration's policy guidelines

on torture and political assassinations.

 

In a cruel irony, the new US-EU arms race has become

the chosen avenue of the European Union, to foster

" friendly relations " with the American

superpower. Rather than opposing the US, Europe has

embraced " the war on terrorism " . It is actively

collaborating with the US in the arrest of presumed

terrorists. Several EU countries have established Big

Brother anti-terrorist laws, which constitute a

European " copy and paste " version of the US Homeland

Security legislation.

 

European public opinion is now galvanized into

supporting the " war on terrorism " , which broadly

benefits the European military industrial complex and

the oil companies. In turn, the " war on terrorism "

also provides a shaky legitimacy to the EU security

agenda under the European Constitution. The latter

is increasingly viewed with disbelief, as a pretext to

implement police-state measures, while also

dismantling labor legislation and the European

welfare state.

 

In turn, the European media has also become a partner

in the disinformation campaign. The " outside enemy "

presented ad nauseam on network TV, on both sides

of the Atlantic, is Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab

Al-Zarqawi. In other words, the propaganda campaign

serves to usefully camouflage the ongoing

militarisation of civilian institutions, which is

occurring simultaneously in Europe and America.

 

Guns and Butter: The Demise of the Civilian Economy

 

The proposed EU constitution requires a massive

expansion of military spending in all member countries

to the obvious detriment of the

civilian economy.

 

The European Union's 3% limit on annual budget

deficits implies that the expansion in military

expenditure will be accompanied by a massive

curtailment of all categories of civilian expenditure,

including social services, public

infrastructure, not to mention government support to

agriculture and industry. In this regard, " the war on

terrorism " serves --in the context of the neoliberal

reforms-- as a pretext. It builds public acceptance

for the imposition of austerity measures affecting

civilian programs, on the grounds that money is

needed to enhance national security and homeland

defense.

 

The growth of military spending in Europe is directly

related to the US military buildup. The more America

spends on defense, the more Europe will want to

spend on developing its own European Defense Force.

" Keeping up with the Jones " , all of which is for a

good and worthy, cause, namely fighting

" Islamic terrorists " and defending the homeland.

 

EU enlargement is directly linked to the development

and financing of the European weapons industry. The

dominant European powers desperately need the

contributions of the ten new EU members to finance the

EU's military buildup. In this regard, the European

Constitution requires " the adoption of a

security strategy for Europe, accompanied by financial

commitments on military spending. "

(European Report, 3 July 2003). In other words, under

the European Constitution, EU enlargement tends to

weaken the Atlantic military alliance (NATO).

 

The backlash on employment and social programs is the

inevitable byproduct of both the American and European

military projects, which channel vast

amounts of State financial resources towards the war

economy, at the expense of the civilian sectors.

 

The result are plant closures and bankruptcies in the

civilian economy and a rising tide of poverty and

unemployment throughout the Western World. Moreover,

contrary to the 1930s, the dynamic development of the

weapons industry creates very few jobs.

 

Meanwhile, as the Western war economy flourishes, the

relocation of the production of civilian manufactured

goods to Third World countries has increased in

recent years at an dramatic pace. China, which

constitutes by far the largest producer of civilian

manufactured goods, increased its textile exports

to the US by 80.2 percent in 2004, leading to a wave

of plant closures and job losses (WSJ, 11 March 2005)

 

The global economy is characterized by a bipolar

relationship. The rich Western countries produce

weapons of mass destruction, whereas poor countries

produce manufactured consumer goods. In a twisted

logic, the rich countries use their advanced weapons

systems to threaten or wage war on the poor developing

countries, which supply Western markets with large

amounts of consumer goods produced in cheap labor

assembly plants.

 

America, in particular, has relied on this cheap

supply of consumer goods to close down a large share

of its manufacturing sector, while at the same time

redirecting resources away from the civilian economy

into the production of weapons of mass destruction.

And the latter, in a bitter irony, are slated to be

used against the country which supplies America with a

large share of its consumer goods, namely China.

 

 

 

" It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are

punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the

sound of trumpets. "

-- Voltaire (French author, humanist, rationalist,

& satirist (1694 - 1778)

 

Please visit: http://americansagainstthedraft.com/