By William Pfaff (With commentary by Shelley)
I simply cannot believe the arrogance of our country in it's relations with other countries of the world. This is stunning.
Last June the U.S. Department of Defense unexpectedly issued a new version of its National Defense Strategy. It was unexpected because there will be a new administration in Washington in January, which might be expected to issue a statement of its own ideas about military strategy.
Some in Washington speculated that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, only recently named to that office, a man who gets along with Democrats as well as Republicans, might be bidding to keep his job under a new administration.
The new statement lacks the Bush administration’s unilateralism or triumphalism (as if there were anything left to be triumphal about), but it foresees a “Long War” of “promoting freedom, justice and human dignity by working to end tyranny, promote effective democracies and extend prosperity; and confronting the challenges of our time by leading a growing community of democracies.”
All that is straight Bush doctrine, drawn from his second inaugural address and Condoleezza Rice’s policy statement last summer predicting decades of a “new American realism” of “nation-building” to conquer “extremism.” By now the “Long War,” realistic or not, will have become orthodoxy for most of the Washington defense and strategic studies community.
The noteworthy thing about this National Defense Strategy statement is that it says nothing directly about American national defense. It is a strategy for intervening in other countries, and preventing others from blocking or resisting American interventions. It states the responsibilities of America’s armed forces (summarizing the document’s introduction) as follows:
-- Conduct a global struggle against a violent, extremist ideology that seeks to overturn the international system.
(What is the "international system"?)
-- Deal with the threats of rogue-nation quests for nuclear weapons.
(Who is a rogue nation and who gets to make that decision?)
-- Confront the rising military power of other states.
(We created the giant that China has become and we are provoking Russia by trying to control all of the natural gas and oil in the region and we want to confront THEM for protecting their own interests?)
These duties will require “the orchestration of national and international power over years or decades to come” to accomplish the following:
(The twisting of arms and flat out bribery of tyrants who bow to our own tyranny or find themselves in Saddam Hussein's shoes.)
-- Long-term innovative approaches to counter al-Qaida’s rejection of state sovereignty, violation of borders, and attempts to deny self-determination and human dignity.
(yeah, about time we started doing something about al Qaida since it is such a serious threat and all. We are concerned that they violate borders while we just walk all over anyone we care to walk over, erase their human dignity by torturing them and implement corrupted shills in their governments to take away their right to self-determination.)
-- Deal “with the inability of many states to police themselves effectively or work with their neighbors to ensure regional security.” Armed sub-national groups must be dealt with, “including but not limited to those inspired by violent extremism” which if left unchecked will threaten the stability and legitimacy of key states, and allow instability to spread “and threaten regions of interest to the United States, its allies and friends.”
(Become the world police so that we alone determine the "good guys" and the "bad guys". And what we determine is right because we said so. and Armed sub-national groups are ok as long as it's us arming and training them like we did in Nicaragua and Venezuela and oh so many other sovereign states. The instability that is threatened is caused by the right of a foreign government to exact a price from American corporations. if they don't play with our corporate monsters, they create instability and then it's ok to arm sub-national extreamists against them. Regions of interest to the United States = anyplace in the world that has resources that we want for our corporations to make a killing off of.)
-- Form local partnerships and creative approaches to deny extremists the opportunity to gain footholds in “ungoverned, under-governed, misgoverned, and contested areas” affecting local stability and regional stability.
(We own every inch of land in the world and therefore, we determine how it should be governed. If anyone living on that land decides they want to govern themselves outside of what we find acceptable, we have "creativce approaches" to deny them their desired governance.)
-- Counter Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology and enrichment capabilities, and deal with the ability of rogue states such as Iran and North Korea to threaten international order, sponsor terrorism and disrupt fledgling democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(After all, that's our job. We don't need any competition. And we certainly don't want them to be able to defend themselves against us when we don't take anything "off the table, including nukes.")
-- Meet possible challenges from (a) “more powerful states (that) might actively seek to counter the United States in some or all domains of traditional warfare or to gain an advantage in developing capabilities that offset our own,”
(Spelled Russia and China and the excuse to keep increasing the size of the military industrial complex. We must always have an enemy. Orwell 101)
as well as (b) nations that might “choose niche areas of military capability and competition in which they believe they can develop a strategic or operational advantage (even though) some of these potential competitors (may also be partners of the U.S. in) diplomatic, commercial or security efforts.”
(We can't allow them to develop systems that would protect them from us if they start to displease us.)
-- For the foreseeable future, “hedge against China’s growing military modernization and the impact of its strategic choices on international security. ...
(Control the giant we have created.)
The objective of this effort is to mitigate near-term challenges while preserving and enhancing U.S. national advantages over time.”
(USA USA USA! NUMBER ONE! through the denial of progress for everyone else.
-- Recognize that Russia’s (pre-Georgian crisis) “retreat from openness and democracy,” “bullying of its neighbors,” and “more active military stance ... and signaled increase in reliance on nuclear weapons as a foundation for its security ... (are warnings of) a Russia exploring renewed influence” and a greater international role.
(Hey! What do they think they're doing protecting access to their regional natural resources? We're the only one's who have a right to invade countries for their resources because those are OUR resources! and how dare they look for friends around the world to ally with. That's cheating!)
-- Prevent prospective adversaries, especially non-state actors and their state sponsors, from adopting “anti-access technology and weaponry (that can) restrict our future freedom of action,”
(boy i love this one. stop them from stopping us from doing what ever we damned well want to do.)
and also from “making adversary use of traditional means of influence” such as by “manipulating global opinion using mass communications venues and exploiting international commitments and legal avenues.”
(can you say "censorship"? what if we knew what was really going on around the world? we have to stop any voices that contradict our own orwellian lies.)
-- The global “commons (space, international waters, aerospace and cyberspace) must be secured and with them access to world markets and resources,” using military capabilities and alliances and coalitions, participating in international security and economic institutions, and employing “diplomacy and soft power to shape the behavior of individual states and the international system, using force when necessary.”
(we'll ask you for your resources before we take them by force. Isn't that big of us?)
The principal preoccupation of the document is the protection of American forces operating in foreign countries,
(yeah right. if you want to protect American forces, stop sending them in to fight in other countries that disobey the corporate leadership of this country.)
and the blocking of measures by foreign states to “deny” American efforts to intervene in their countries or develop measures and technology to resist American intervention (or to send Americans to international criminal courts).
(how dare they try to deny us our efforts to intervene in their countries? how dare they try to develop measures and technology to resist American intervention!? How dare they seek justice in criminal courts against us! They have no rights! We make the rules!)
As for the United States itself, the document quotes the constitutional obligation of the government “to provide for the common defense,” but says that today, after more than 230 years, the U.S. “shoulders additional responsibilities on behalf of the world ... a beacon of light for those in dark places.” Yet the fear of those dark places that permeates the document compels the suggestion that American troops remain at home, where they will be safe from enemies and untrustworthy allies, and defend their own country.Truthdig - Reports - Bush Doctrine Becomes DoD Dogma