[Peace-discuss] Fwd: America's Agenda for Global Military Domination

[Morton K.Brussel]

To get back from arguments for and against common sense, here is an 
alarming commentary that directly lies within the ambit of AWARE. --mkb

Begin forwarded message:

>
>  America's Agenda for Global Military Domination
>  by Michel Chossudovsky
> http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO503A.html
>
>     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 that 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)
>
>      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.
>
>
>
>  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 18307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20050331/b5bb5be3/attachment-0001.bin