.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

24 March 2005

The real issues are still out there...

Despite the fact that Congress is enjoying itself playing with non-issues such as the "Baseball Hearings" and now the fate of a brain-dead woman in Florida, the re-organization of empire continues.

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Release


The Department of Defense (DoD) released its National Defense Strategy (NDS) and National Military Strategy (NMS) today. These strategies outline an active, layered approach to the defense of the nation and its interests. ...

The National Defense Strategy of the United States, March 2005

Just to set the tone, the opening line after Rumsfeld's prologue is, of course, a lie... "America is a nation at war." Of course there is no declaration of war, no defined enemy, and no defined goal or objective beyond vague abstractions regarding "terrorism" and the like, i.e. Bush's militarist adventurism is just that, adventurism and naked aggression against whoever on any pretext. If America is legitimately "at war" the only possible target of this war is the entire world at large in the absence of any defined enemy or objective. Just for clarification, "war" has a defined meaning and the last "war" we were engaged in was World War II. The "war on terrorism" is a campaign, akin to the "war on drugs" or the "war on breast cancer", not a "war" per se.

A few notable excerpts with commentary:

[pdf p.9] "We will have no global peer competitor and will remain unmatched in traditional military capability"

There is no question that the earlier stance of the Bush White House - that the U.S. will tolerate NO competitors regarding military superiority is still a leading principle. I believe the old term was "full spectrum dominance"

[pdf p.9] "Our strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international for a, judicial processes, and terrorism."

I thought this was nice - the weak who often resort to the United Nations (Palestinians, Sudanese, &c.) for relief or international judicial bodies (re: the ICJ ruling against Israel's Apartheid Wall, the Belgian indictment of Bush, the German indictment of Rumsfeld, the International Criminal Court, &c.) are now firmly equated with "terrorists" as far as the Pentagon is concerned.

[pdf p.9] "Crises related to political stability and governance will pose significant security challenges. Some of these may threaten fundamental interests of the United States, requiring a military response."

That is, governments who "threaten fundamental interests" may stimulate a U.S. "military response". An ominous warning to say Venezuela (threatening to sell its oil to other countries as opposed to the U.S.) or Iran (threatening to follow Iraq's lead in selling oil in a different currency than the U.S. dollar), and so on. The message is clear, the Pentagon considers military action a suitable response to other country's internal political issues that do not suit our interests.

[pdf p.10] Strategic Objective #2 - "Secure Strategic Access and Retain Global Freedom of Action: The United States cannot influence that which it cannot reach. Securing strategic access to key regions, lines of communication, and the global commons: promotes the security and prosperity of the United States; ensures freedom of action; helps secure our partners; and helps protect the integrity of the international economic system."

This accurately reflects the earlier goals of ensuring that the U.S. military has immediate access to all regions of the world, i.e. military governance of the empire. However, what is interesting is that the Pentagon is now playing a leading role in global economics, i.e. the "integrity of the international economic system" is now part and parcel of the military's mission. Of course we (like other imperial powers) have always used the military to enforce and impose our economic interests on others, however, this is usually hidden behind some military/security fa├žade - e.g. we invaded Iraq to 'defend' against weapons of mass destructions, not to monopolize Iraqi oil and destroy the one country in the world to start selling oil in a currency other than the U.S. dollar. I suppose we should respect the White House for at least being honest now - the military is a key aspect of our economic domination.

[pdf p. 13] "At the direction of the President, we will defeat adversaries at the time, place, and in the manner of our choosing - setting the conditions for future security."

The idea of unilateral U.S. "pre-emptive" strikes is a constant theme in this document. The line above highlights that the United States reserves the right to act as it sees fit despite U.S. treaty obligations and the interests of other countries and/or the world community in general.

[pdf p. 13] "The United States will seize the strategic initiative in all areas of defense activity - assuring, dissuading, deterring, and defeating. Our first priority is the defeat of direct threats to the United States. Terrorists have demonstrated that they can conduct devastating surprise attacks. Allowing opponents to strike first - particularly in an era of proliferation - is unacceptable. Therefore the United States must defeat the most dangerous challenges early and at a safe distance, before they are allowed to mature."

If we were in fact in a real war - with a defined enemy - this would of course make sense. In World War II, such a policy against the Japanese empire would make perfect sense in that we knew who the enemy was, where they were, and their intentions toward us, i.e. war. However, when dealing with non-state actors, i.e. individual people and small groups of individual people, the above principle effectively justifies the murder of anyone based on absolutely nothing. With no legal review or due-process, the idea that the military is reserving the right to unilaterally declare anyone an "enemy" and then killing them is effectively no different than the Nazi policy against the Jews. After all, by its actions the Nazi government reasonably guaranteed that most Jews were its enemies and therefore - using the Pentagon's logic as portrayed here - the Holocaust was a perfectly justified "pre-emptive" attack on potential enemies. Make no mistake about it, this new Pentagon policy effectively gives the U.S. military carte blanche to commit any murder, mass murder, or even genocide it so feels like.

[pdf p.14] "Preventive actions also might entail other military operations - for example, to prevent the outbreak of hostilities or to help defend or restore a friendly government."

Effectively the Pentagon is declaring that it has the right to impose and defend U.S. installed puppet regimes (i.e. Iraq, Colombia, Panama, &c.) over others. Notice there is certainly no mention of any sort of "democratic" criteria here, thus we can continue to support vicious and bloody dictatorships as long as they remain "friendly", i.e. obedient, to the United States like Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and so on.

[pdf p. 17] "Ceding our historic maritime advantage would unacceptably limit our global reach. Our capacity to operate from international airspace and outer space will remain important for joint operations. In particular, as the nation's reliance on space-based systems continues to grow, we will guard against new vulnerabilities. Key goals, therefore are to ensure our access to and use of space, and to deny hostile exploitation of space to adversaries."

Having overwhelming military power on land, sea, and sky; the Pentagon now seeks to monopolize space as part of America's "full spectrum dominance" scheme to properly enslave the world to serve U.S. interests.

[pdf p.19] "In addition, we will need to train units for sustained stability operations. This will include developing ways to strengthen their language and civil-military affairs capabilities as required for specific deployments."

"Stability operations" is the euphemism for military occupations of victim peoples having U.S. will imposed on them at the barrel of U.S. guns, e.g. "sovereign Iraq". The real question here is whether the Pentagon is talking about improving the U.S. occupation force in Iraq or preparing for another occupation elsewhere.

also released today...

National Military Strategy of the United States of America

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?