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)
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.
Annex
Rumsfeld
details big military shift in new document
by Greg
Jaffe,
The
Wall Street Journal
11
March 2005
Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld outlines in a new, classified planning
document a vision for remaking the military to be far more engaged in
heading off threats prior to hostilities and serve a larger purpose of
enhancing U.S. influence around the world.
The
document sets out Mr. Rumsfeld's agenda for a recently begun massive
review of defense spending and strategy. Because the process is
conducted only once every four years, the review represents the Bush
administration's best chance to refashion the military into a force
capable of delivering on the ambitious security and foreign-policy
goals that President Bush has put forth since the terrorist attacks of
Sept. 11, 2001. It is being conducted by senior members of Mr.
Rumsfeld's staff along with senior officers from each of the armed
services.
Mr.
Rumsfeld's goals, laid out in the document, mark a significant
departure from recent reviews. Deeply informed by both the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and by the military's bloody struggle in
Iraq, the document emphasizes newer problems, such as battling
terrorists and insurgents, over conventional military challenges.
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.
In the
document, Mr. Rumsfeld tells the military to focus on 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.
"The
question we are asking is: How do you prevent problems from becoming
crises and crises from becoming all-out conflicts?" said one senior
defense official involved in writing the guidance.
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.
The
document comes early in the review process, which is conducted at the
behest of Congress. Each of the military services already has assembled
a large staff to craft plans for attacking the key problem areas
identified by Mr. Rumsfeld.
When
complete, the review will be sent to Congress, likely early next year.
Congress doesn't have a vote on the secretary's review, which will be
used by the administration to guide its decisions on strategy and
spending over the next several budget cycles. The review is unlikely to
require any major changes in overall defense spending, which is
projected to grow through at least 2009.
But it is
likely to trigger some nasty political battles, and potentially pose
challenges to defense contractors. The core problems outlined in Mr.
Rumsfeld's review, for example, don't seem to favor the F/A-22 jet,
made by Lockheed Martin Corp., which is the Air Force's top priority.
"I think you are likely to see the Air Force push back hard to preserve
the F-22," said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer at the
Lexington Institute and a consultant to several of the military
services. "Unfortunately, you can't find a lot of justification for
more F/A-22s in the problem sets the services are being asked to
address."
Already,
the review is prodding the services to question the need for expensive
weapons systems, like short-range fighter jets and naval destroyers and
tanks that are used primarily in conventional conflicts. "A big
question is exactly how much is enough to win the conventional fights
of the future, and where can we shift some resources to some of these
less traditional problems," said one person involved in drafting the
guidance.
The Wall
Street Journal reviewed a summary of the document and spoke with
several officials who contributed to it.
Mr.
Rumsfeld has made transforming the military a priority since the Bush
administration took power. But in recent years that push took a back
seat to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Inside the Pentagon, the
review is widely seen as Mr. Rumsfeld's last big push to instill his
views. Many insiders speculate that he will leave early next year when
the review is completed; he has repeatedly dismissed all such
speculation and refused to comment on his plans.
Mr.
Rumsfeld's guidance pushes the services to rethink the way they fight
guerrilla wars and insurgencies. Instead of trying to stamp out an
insurgency with large conventional ground formations, 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.
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.
That
represents a challenge for a military already stretched thin by wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan. There aren't currently enough of these specially
trained soldiers and Marines to make the strategy work.
In the
past decade, the U.S. military has shied away from helping allies
battle internal threats out of concern that U.S. forces would get mired
in endless internal conflicts. Instead, the military has focused on
helping allies ward off cross-border aggression by selling them
higher-end weapon systems.
But 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.
The shift
is reminiscent of the situation in the early 1900s, when Marines fought
a series of small wars in Central America and were frequently referred
to as the "State Department's soldiers."
At the
same time the U.S. military re-equips itself to deal with low-tech
insurgent threats, it also 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.
Copyright
the WSJ, 2005. The complete version of this article is available in the
print edition
©
Copyright MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY, GLOBAL RESEARCH 2005.
