[Peace-discuss] Military planning

[Brussel Morton K.]

How imperialism (Called the "global war on terror"!  Better, the  
global war of terror–) is to be maintained in coming decades; a  
military analysis. --mkb

Monday, September 22, 2008
US generals planning for resource wars

In this section »
Should we introduce charges for domestic water usage?
Bye, bye American pie as capitalism comes a cropper
Bankers chasing profits selling us all short
Combat Poverty Agency can play a vital role but it must remain  
independent
Rising from the dead and a strange case of eating bicycle tools



US troops on the streets in Baghdad in the aftermath of a car bomb  
explosion. In January, the next president of the United States will  
conclude America's timetable for a phased withdrawal from the country  
in final negotiations with the Iraqi government. Photograph:Khalid  
Mohammed/AP

ANALYSIS: The US military sees the next 30 to 40 years as involving a  
state of continuous war against ideologically-motivated terrorists  
and competing with Russia and China for natural resources and  
markets, writes Tom Clonan

AS GENERAL Ray Odierno takes command of US forces in Baghdad from  
troop surge architect Gen David Petraeus, America has begun planning  
in earnest for its phased withdrawal.

The extra brigade combat teams - or battlegroups - deployed to Iraq  
by Petraeus have already withdrawn and a further 8,000 troops have  
been diverted to Afghanistan.

In January, the next president of the United States will conclude  
America's timetable for withdrawal in final negotiations with the  
Iraqi government.

Further evidence of America's future military intentions is contained  
in recently published strategy documents issued by the US military.

Under the auspices of the US department of defence and department of  
the army, the US military have just published a document entitled  
2008 Army Modernization Strategy which makes for interesting reading  
against the current backdrop of deteriorating international fiscal,  
environmental, energy resource and security crises.

The 2008 modernisation strategy, written by Lieut Gen Stephen  
Speakes, deputy chief of staff of the US army, contains the first  
explicit and official acknowledgement that the US military is  
dangerously overstretched internationally. It states simply: "The  
army is engaged in the third-longest war in our nation's history  
and . . . the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) has caused the army to  
become out of balance with the demand for forces exceeding the  
sustainable supply."

Against this backdrop, the 90 page document sets out the future of  
international conflict for the next 30 to 40 years - as the US  
military sees it - and outlines the manner in which the military will  
sustain its current operations and prepare and "transform" itself for  
future "persistent" warfare.

The document reveals a number of profoundly significant - and  
worrying - strategic positions that have been adopted as official  
doctrine by the US military. In its preamble, it predicts a post cold  
war future of "perpetual warfare".

According to its authors: "We have entered an era of persistent  
conflict . . . a security environment much more ambiguous and  
unpredictable than that faced during the cold war."

It then goes on to describe the key features of this dawning era of  
continuous warfare. Some of the characteristics are familiar enough  
to a world audience accustomed to the rhetoric of the global war on  
terror.

"A key current threat is a radical, ideology-based, long-term  
terrorist threat bent on using any means available - to include  
weapons of mass destruction - to achieve its political and  
ideological ends."

Relatively new, "emerging" features are also included in the  
document's rationale for future threats.

"We face a potential return to traditional security threats posed by  
emerging near-peers as we compete globally for depleting natural  
resources and overseas markets."

This thinly-veiled reference to Russia and China will, perhaps, come  
as little surprise given recent events in Ossetia and Abkhazia. The  
explicit reference in this context to future resource wars, however,  
will probably raise eyebrows among the international diplomatic  
community, who prefer to couch such conflicts as human rights-based  
or rooted in notions around freedom and democracy.

The document, however, contains no such lofty pretences. It goes on  
to list as a pre-eminent threat to the security of the US and its  
allies "population growth - especially in less-developed countries -  
[which] will expose a resulting 'youth bulge'."

This youth bulge, the document goes on to state, will present the US  
with further "resource competition" in that these expanding  
populations in the developing world "will consume ever increasing  
amounts of food, water and energy".

The document goes on to describe in broad-strokes the manner in which  
its downsized military might ensure survival of the fittest for the  
US and its allies in future resource wars for water, food and energy.

As a consequence of identifying growing populations in the developed  
world as a threat in itself, the strategy document highlights a  
number of paradigm shifts in the way future wars are to be conducted.

It predicts that "21st Century operations will require soldiers to  
engage among populations and diverse cultures instead of avoiding them".

The document reveals that new US tactical doctrine provides a  
template by which air, naval and field commanders will no longer just  
secure traditional strategic targets such as airspace, seaports and  
bridgeheads, but will, of necessity, also deploy and fight amongst  
and against the target population itself to win wars.

The document refers to this euphemistically as "commanders employing  
offensive, defensive and stability or civil support operations  
simultaneously".

The remainder of the document is devoted to describing in detail how  
a downsized all volunteer US military - numbering approximately one  
million soldiers, aircrew and sailors - could maintain an ever- 
present, international, offensive posture in many countries across  
many time-zones.

It describes how information communication technologies and digital  
technologies will create a new "networked" human soldier - the  
'Future Force Warrior' - who will deploy among the target population  
and will operate simultaneously several remote, unmanned ground and  
air weapons systems.

To this end, the US military is rapidly expanding its inventory of  
computerised, robotic ground weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles .

According to the strategy document, by supplementing relatively small  
forces of US troops - brigade combat teams - with ever-larger fleets  
of remotely controlled, unmanned weapons systems, America will be  
able to successfully deploy its downsized military to maximum effect  
among the emerging international youth bulge.

Supplementing these future global offensive operations, according to  
the strategy document, is the US military's planned domination of  
inner space or the earth's exo-atmospheric zone.

The document states: "Space is a significant area of joint  
development that supports battle space awareness and is the backbone  
for the national and military intelligence, surveillance and  
reconnaissance architecture, as well as being the domain of choice  
for commercial broad-area sensing enterprises with military utility."

Together with the US Missile Defence Agency, the US military is  
currently developing "space-based assets continuously monitoring the  
globe".

The report elaborates on this by stating that "army space forces are  
deployed worldwide supporting US efforts to fight and win [the global  
war on terror]."

The report adds that US military "space control operations ensure  
freedom of action in space for the United States and its allies and  
when necessary, deny an adversary freedom of action in space".

The document refers to operations in Iraq in the past tense. It  
implies that operations in Afghanistan may be expanded.

It states explicitly that the US military is preparing to fight  
continuous resource wars "for the long haul".

The document also describes explicitly the manner in which the  
earth's orbit is now deemed a legitimate zone for offensive military  
activity. This extraordinary document describes US strategic doctrine  
in terms worthy of 20th century science fiction.

The mix of 20th century science fiction and Orwellian perspectives  
unwittingly contained in the document appear rapidly to be  
materialising as fact.

Dr Tom Clonan is the Irish Times Security Analyst. He lectures in the  
School of Media, DIT. tclonan at irish-times.ie

© 2008 The Irish Times

This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times
-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type multipart/related