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.
