Global Domination

[nightbird]

not really anything new here.......I mean, a lot of people already know that America wants to rule the world.

The president's real goal in Iraq

Bookman is

the deputy

editorial

page editor

of The Atlanta

Journal-

Constitution

By JAY BOOKMAN

29 September 2002.

Follow links for greater depth.

The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.

The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.

In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?

Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.

In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.

And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.

Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.

Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11.

To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.

It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."

In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.

"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."

The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.

"At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. stated two years ago. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.' "

Familiar themes

Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The administration has taken that course.

It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.

It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.

It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.

That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.

Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.

'Constabulary duties'

Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power."

To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."

To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the United States,the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.

More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia.

The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.

Effect on allies

The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.

The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.

One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.

Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that likelihood.

"If [our allies] want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't stop that," he says. But he also argues that the United States, given its unique position, has no choice but to act anyway.

"You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."

Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that he or others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people. To the contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to appeal to voters leery of military intervention.

For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it would be naive and dangerous to reject the role that history has thrust upon us. Kagan, for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.

"I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."

Costly global commitment

Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position, puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that having them . . . is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not helpful," he says.

Kagan is more blunt.

"People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up."

The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.

The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.

Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come.

Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?

If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.

That's what this is about.

[Talon]

not really anything new here.......I mean, a lot of people already know that America wants to rule the world.

yeah

If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy.

Don't the words empire and democracy kinda conflict with each other, since an empire is the territory of a single country and the lands it has conquered

[nightbird]

I think they have a different definition of democracy. you know....its the american way or the high way. going with the whole "if you are not with us you are our enemy" way of thinking which seems rampant in the Bush Administration.

Basically what they ssay is that democracy is living under american rule, with america as the sole world dominating force (no wonder they hate EU so much!).

I see if I can dig up the pnac website again. you wont believe the crap that is spouted on that

[wunarmdscissor]

"People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up."

I especially liked this wee gem

[nightbird]

here's the site

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

and for those who cant be bothered to look, here is the site with the statement of principles ....scarey sh**.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statemen...fprinciples.htm

[Fluffybunny]

This reminds me of a cartoon that was on years ago...Pinky and the Brain...

Gee Brain, what are we going to do tonight?

The same thing we do every night: Try to take over the world!

I'm just trying to figure out whether Bush should be cast as Pinky or the Brain...

[bathory]

just curious, but whats wrong with American Global Leadership?

[PsychicPenguin]

Yeah.. finaly.. it's about time for the New World Order.. and all my plan becomes reality

[Fluffybunny]

just curious, but whats wrong with American Global Leadership?

Well, I think that we should be a bit better at leading our own country before we consider moving on to global leadership...I think we have a few too many problems to consider ourselves any kind of beacon of hope for the rest of the world...

Just my opinion...

[aquatus1]

Was it Benjamin Franklin who said:

Our government is the worst one in the world...except for all the other ones.

[Talon]

just curious, but whats wrong with American Global Leadership?

Cause we're not American surely thats kinda obvious

Europe used to rule America, you guys got annoyed and revolted. The North against Britain, the South against Spain etc

Are you saying that they were wrong to say 'We're not Europeans, we don't want to run by Europeans'? You saying things such as the American war of Independence was wrong?

Or is it your saying Europe should have no say in America, but America should have its say in Europe.... and Africa, Asia, Australasia and South America?

[nightbird]

just curious, but whats wrong with American Global Leadership?

only an american would say this.

anyway, as Talon said, we are not american. I have no wish to be, neither does most of my country.

no country should be forced to comply with a set of rules dictated by ONE nation. a nation which itself can not abide by any laws, other than the ones they change to suit their current political and empircal ambitions. (ie breaking Geneva convention, changing laws for this "war on terror", trying to get out of a war crimes tribunal etc etc)

I am quite certain that if another country was looking to global dominate the world that americans would be up in arms. but when it is their own country seeking to be the sole ruler of the entire world its ok??

um...sorry to break it to you, but no.

each country should be permitted to rule and govern themselves. and other nations shoudl ONLY step in when they have been called to do so. not to engage in an invasion based purely on their own selfish reasons both economical, political and empirical.

to want every nation in the world to conform to standards (or the lack of standards) set out by the american government is insane. not only is that taking away cultural identity, but it is also not allowing any country to prosper on their own merits without it all going to the US. the invasion of Iraq was the beginning of this. US wants oil....Us invades under fake reasoning and fallacies, feeds the public a bunch of lies, takes billions of dollars from the people they are supposedly "liberating" ( but only liberating them after the debacle of WMD not being there at all), all of which has likely gone on to further fund the US governments ideals of supreme global domination.

so given that you ask whats wrong with this.......I hope that if it was China doing this you would just bend over and take it with a smile on your face, open your ports to them and welcome them with open arms. forget your heritage, forget your culture, forget your countries independance and right to rule as they see fit..... that does seem to be what you are advocating.

[Blood Angel]

America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. - NEC statement

Since when are Europes concerns Americas concerns? This is typical American Arrogance trying to act as "policemen" of the world.

[bathory]

only an american would say this.

i'm not american

please don't assume to know anything about me

i was asking a hypothetical, you are opposed to some percieved threat, you must have actual reasons to support your opossition to it

Edited July 19, 2004 by bathory

[nightbird]

ahhh ok bathory. sorry about that. I thought you were from your posts on america and your views on america. you sounded much like an american!!

anyway...sorry for thinking you were from a country you were not.

so maybe now you can answer me........seeing as you are not american...why would you want a country you do not live in ruling you and enforcing their way of life onto you?

[Erikl]

American hamogany is only a continuation of Anglophonic hagomony....

For a non-English speaker, Britons, Americans, Australians, New Zealandians, English Canadians are all the same people (a person that doesn't speak English can't possibly see the difference between British English and American English), just like for most of us Austrians and Germans from Germany are all Germans.

The first Anglophonoc empire was centered around Westminster. The second Anglophonic empire is centered around Washington.

[bathory]

why would you want a country you do not live in ruling you and enforcing their way of life onto you?

WHAT IS THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE? you make it sound so horrible, yet you don't define it.

America is the most culturally diverse nation in the world, i quite like their lack of enforcing actually, i guess though i can sort of identify with those poor Iraqis, how dare those americans remove Saddam from power, the UN should reinstate Saddam straight away, return him to power, give him a blue helmet army until the Republican Guard is rebuilt, the French, Germans and Russians can even go about rearming Saddam, France in particular, we all know how close Saddam and Chirac were, perhaps the french can rebuild Iraqs nuclear program, damn israelis wrecked his last open attempt at that. While we are at it, lets ignore Saddam actively seeking Yellow Cake Uranium (Butler report confirms this, it looks like the American who called it fake was lying ), lets ignore Saddam and his deals with North Korea to aquire longer range and more advanced delivery systems, lets ignore the YEARS of human rights abuse as well as constant breaking of UN resolutions, lets ignore the 300000 or so murdered by the regime, because damn ITS THEIR RIGHT, we shouldn't be enforcing the american way of life on them?

[wunarmdscissor]

OK bathory lets go round in circles an pick at all of your points.

America helped saddam an countless other regimes, killed millions of innocents in vietnam.

America supplied the muhjadeen against the russians,(they were freedom fighters then ya know), america trained one Mr Bin LAden (oops dont mention that one).

Sold chemical and bioligical weapons to said regimes (how many died at halabja???), supplied aid to argentinian junta an other fascist regimes in the continent.

Lets ignore america hanging the iraqi rebels out to dry the last time (how many died during that one?).

Theres countless more.

[bathory]

America helped saddam an countless other regimes, killed millions of innocents in vietnam.

America helped Saddam, noone is denying that, Saddam or Iran, take your pick. Please don't bring vietnam into this because all we have to do is look at what the North Vietnamese did to the South Vietnamese after the US pullout to see which side was right:)

America supplied the muhjadeen against the russians,(they were freedom fighters then ya know), america trained one Mr Bin LAden (oops dont mention that one).

so the US should have let the Russians invade afghanistan? what happened after was a screw up, hindsight rocks doesn't it.

Sold chemical and bioligical weapons to said regimes (how many died at halabja???)

links please

and even then, i don't understand how this is really a problem? can't the US clean up its own mess?

supplied aid to argentinian junta an other fascist regimes in the continent.

a foreign policy Muckup from a previous administration

Lets ignore america hanging the iraqi rebels out to dry the last time (how many died during that one?).

Blame the UN for that one:)

Edited July 20, 2004 by Kismit

[Talon]

America helped Saddam, noone is denying that, Saddam or Iran, take your pick. Please don't bring vietnam into this because all we have to do is look at what the North Vietnamese did to the South Vietnamese after the US pullout to see which side was right:)

But lets remember the South asked the US to presure the French into leaving, it was after the US denied the request theKremlin started funding the North. The whole war could have been avoided if NATO had hammered out a deal to give the Vietnamese independence.

so the US should have let the Russians invade afghanistan? what happened after was a screw up, hindsight rocks doesn't it.

Considering thats the groups they were funding such as the Taliban were religious nutters who held anti-American beleifs even while the US were helping it should have been clear what was going to happen. Hindsight isn't an issue here, common sense when predicting future events are. Unfortunately at the time the US was only interesting in giving the Soviets (NOT RUSSIANS, who only made up a single, albeit largest, member state) a bloddy nose without thought to what happens a decade after, two decades, 50 years after etc.

links please

and even then, i don't understand how this is really a problem? can't the US clean up its own mess?

Please, he doesn't need to provide links, we all know its true

a foreign policy Muckup from a previous administration

True a single ****up they did with Argentinia... wait wait wait... then again in Cambodia, where the man they put in ower killed 2/3 of population.... and the Taliban.... Chilli.... Somalia, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Haiti, Greece and probably others if we searched google for them.

Blame the UN for that one:)

Why? Since when has the US listened to the UN?

Edited July 20, 2004 by Kismit

[Falco Rex]

Again though, we're getting lost in the details and missing the basic point of the thread. Which; as far as I can tell; is basically that Nightbird dislikes America and everyone in it. I don't care who you are or where you live; labeling an entire country by what you see from it's government is just wrong.

I don't care if you're from the US, Britain, or the Central African Republic, here. Blanket judgements of people and the countries they live in is just another form of prejudice. Only this kind is legal and PC; so people spout off on it all day long and are actually applauded for doing so. It's sad really..

[nightbird]

Falco Rex

I am only going to say this once so I do hope you will listen.

I do not hate america, or americans, what I dislike is your governments foreign policy, the lack of education regarding world events within america (largely supported and supressed by your government), and american people who refuse no matter if the evidence is staring them right in the face that their government has lied and manipulated, and this whole PNAC thing is disgusting.

the american government has done some horrible things, things which are just as bad as what Saddam did to his people. I could go through the history of this century and list them off for you, but basically I can not be bothered, for you probably wouldnt believe it anyway. the american government, with the support of much of the american population, (whether due to apathy or honest beliefs in the governments "soverign right" to do as they will regardless), is enforcing policies which are directly affecting the rest of the world, so forgive us if we dont lie down and take it like a sleeping dog!!!

I live in a country where my PM supports Bush through every move, he is commonly called bush's bumboy. He seems incapable of thinking for himself and I am sure that if he coudl have his way we would become the 53rd american state. this does not sit well with the majority of people in my country and certainly doesnt sit well with me. While americans are proud of their country (and rightly so in many cases becuase america IS a good country, with good people, and while not necessarily a good history it is certainly a colourful one), other people from other countries are just as proud of theirs. I like my country, I consider it one of the best in the world, I like my culture and my heritage, but becuase of PNAC and becuase america has obtained great wealth in the world (though through some rathar disgusting and underhanded means) I am placed in a position with the rest of the world where we have to fear for our own culture under these political and empirical ambitions of global domination. and that, I think, perfectly justifies some anger toward your government and the apathy of the people who support it.

America is a democracy no? then use your democratic rights and VOTE. (providing of course Bush doesnt cancel the elections due to "terrorist threats" and declare martial law in america). if you remain apathetic to what your government is doing in a worldwide sense then you are just as much to blame as the government who is doing it. I am quite certain that if the Bush Administration had policies which were going to affect the welfare, freedom, and rights of everyday americans within their own country you woudl all be up in arms about that. oh wait! He already did that. fancy people getting arrested for wearing tshirts which dont support Bush!!!.

maybe you dont realise how crazy this is. But I come from a country where it is acceptable to criticize the government, where eggs have been thrown and PM's, where Parliment house has been stormed by angry students, where when the Senate meets it is perfectly fine to call them a "bloody d*******". thats the way we are. and I am not going to apologize for feeling passionate about the destruction which is being wrought by the growing "american empire".

you want pride in your country? then tell me how you can be proud when your government is wanting to dominate the rest of the world. when your government censors you, not even allowing you to view photographs of the coffins of those who have lost their lives fighting in Bush's war. when your media can not even report the truth to you, and where people who try to stand up to this madman you call your President are arrested for exercising one of the most important things in the american constitution...freedom of speech.

it seems to me your government is doing a lot to undermine your freedoms, and instead of b****ing at people from other countries who have a much more unaffected view than yours, why dont you listen to what is actually going on and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT? or do you want to live in an age where it is illegal for you to speak against your president, and where it is perfectly acceptable to invade any country who's wealth your government covets and slaughter innocent women and children????? if thats what you want...then I feel sad for you. and I pray that you, and others who wish to see this only as american bashing, see the truth...for when america was on the otherside, you supported this...in fact, your civil war is one of the most lauded events in your country's history...becuase THEN you had the right to be your own country, and be free.......freedom which you now are losing, and would have the rest of the world lose as well.

[Erikl]

I think U.S hatred has gone too far in this forum - so far as to people starting to distort history for their own agendas. Sure, the U.S, just like any other country, have done it's share of mistakes, and as a superpower, those mistakes were pretty big.

But remember that Britian, as a world power untill 60 years ago, also did alot of mistakes in the middle-east (actually, most of today's problems in this region is a result of wrong British and French actions). And as an ex-British colony, I can tell you that the British weren't really moral in their actions over seas.

France as well did many mistakes, and was even worst than Britain in their treatment to other people over seas. They also sold Iraq the Osiraq nuclear reactor, which if my country haven't destroyed, the allies would have got nuked in 1991.

The French were also the ones to put into power the current fundementalist regime of Iran.

The Germans were the ones who sold chemical weapons to Saddam during the 80s, which were used to kill thousands of Kurds and tens of thusands of Iranians.

As I said earlier, evey country has done mistakes.

The question is, who would you support as a superpower?

would you preffer the USSR to have won in the Cold War?

Or maybe you preffer some Arab country with lots of oil to be a superpower?

Or how about communist China?

Or fascist Japan?

Or Nazi Germany?

I think that the U.S, just like democracy, is the worst superpower except for all those others that have been tried.

Maybe, in the future, another superpower, who is better, will be dominent.

Today, whinning about "America is evil, America is bad" just doesn't help anyone - do you have an alternative, better super-power candidate you preffer to see taking the dominance out of American hands today?

[danielson]

Unfortunately the citizens of a country can get tarred with the same brush as the rulers of their country. I have no respect for the United States Government, and no real respect for my own British one.

This is a pitty as I have yet to meet a yank I did not get on with, and I myself am proud to be British, as every Britain should.

Edited July 20, 2004 by danielson

[alis]

i agree danialson. ive met some really friendly and polite americans who certainly dont want to be involved any war.