www.globalresearch.ca
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
Classified Pentagon Document
New Undeclared Arms Race:
America's Agenda for Global Military Domination
by Michel Chossudovsky
www.globalresearch.ca 17 March 2005
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO503A.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
"Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one,some bigger than others"
.
|
