National Security Strategy of the United States of America
So it's all been right under our noses the whole time.
The strategy recently developed and currently in execution is one of global US dominance and systematic elimination of regimes seen as a treat to the spread of American ideals, namely economic ones.
Let start with the official and public declaration of this strategy.<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html"; target="_blank">The National Security Strategy of the United States of America</a>
There is a key point made by this document, but I'll let Hendrik Hertzberg of the <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?021014ta_talk_hertzberg"; target="_blank">New Yorker</a> explain it:
[quote]The key phrase in the Bush document, judging by the number of times it is repeated (five), is "a balance of power that favors freedom." The authors do not define it, except by implication. The usual definition of a balance of power ("a state of peace that results when rival nations are equally powerful and therefore have no good reason to wage war," according to E. D. Hirsch, Jr.,'s "New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy," an impeccably conservative source) is certainly not what they have in mind, since they also write, "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States." An overwhelming preponderance of power, not a static balance, is more like it.
The vision laid out in the Bush document is a vision of what used to be called, when we believed it to be the Soviet ambition, world domination. It's a vision of a world in which it is American policy to prevent the emergence of any rival power, whatever it stands for—a world policed and controlled by American military might. This goes much further than the notion of America as the policeman of the world. It's the notion of America as both the policeman and the legislator of the world, and it's where the Bush vision goes seriously, even chillingly, wrong. A police force had better be embedded in and guided by a structure of law and consent. There's a name for the kind of regime in which the cops rule, answering only to themselves. It's called a police state.
<hr></blockquote>
This is not the only place we see this. As has been pointed out, <a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf"; target="_blank">Rebuilding America's Defences</a> lays out the Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, Rumsfeld blueprint, one which calls for a global dominating US military presence that acts in the interests of the Unites States. It specifically declares that peacekeeping missions should also not be neutral. It also clearly states that Iraq is a means not an end.
[quote]...the need for a substantial American force trancends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.<hr></blockquote>
This is echoed everywhere. Perle and Feith (Current Under-Secretary of Defence for Policy)demonstrate why we need to do it for Israel's sake in <a href="http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm"; target="_blank">A Clean Break.</a> This study also show the advocacy of overwhelming power when dealing with Middle East Conflicts. <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030217fa_fact"; target="_blank">After Iraq</a>, a fluffy interview with Feith by the New Yorker demonstrates this same view in the packaging of American Idealism.
When you are done with the official reports, you can watch the Frontline documentary <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/"; target="_blank">The War Behind Closed Doors</a> detailing the process that lead us to the current policy. This show is particularly interesting because it is stuffed with interviews of lead hawks. You can see more clearly how the current decision-making process has been played out.
And, as if that isn't clear enough, here is just a snippet of what Garrett found out at the WEF:
[quote]I learned from American security and military speakers that, "We need
to attack Iraq not to punish it for what it might have, but
preemptively, as part of a global war. Iraq is just one piece of a
campaign that will last years, taking out states, cleansing the planet."<hr></blockquote>
There is no secret about what the current National Security Strategy of the United States of America is. You need not look anywhere but in the actually documents put out by our officials, and they spell it out clearly.
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
The strategy recently developed and currently in execution is one of global US dominance and systematic elimination of regimes seen as a treat to the spread of American ideals, namely economic ones.
Let start with the official and public declaration of this strategy.<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html"; target="_blank">The National Security Strategy of the United States of America</a>
There is a key point made by this document, but I'll let Hendrik Hertzberg of the <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?021014ta_talk_hertzberg"; target="_blank">New Yorker</a> explain it:
[quote]The key phrase in the Bush document, judging by the number of times it is repeated (five), is "a balance of power that favors freedom." The authors do not define it, except by implication. The usual definition of a balance of power ("a state of peace that results when rival nations are equally powerful and therefore have no good reason to wage war," according to E. D. Hirsch, Jr.,'s "New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy," an impeccably conservative source) is certainly not what they have in mind, since they also write, "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States." An overwhelming preponderance of power, not a static balance, is more like it.
The vision laid out in the Bush document is a vision of what used to be called, when we believed it to be the Soviet ambition, world domination. It's a vision of a world in which it is American policy to prevent the emergence of any rival power, whatever it stands for—a world policed and controlled by American military might. This goes much further than the notion of America as the policeman of the world. It's the notion of America as both the policeman and the legislator of the world, and it's where the Bush vision goes seriously, even chillingly, wrong. A police force had better be embedded in and guided by a structure of law and consent. There's a name for the kind of regime in which the cops rule, answering only to themselves. It's called a police state.
<hr></blockquote>
This is not the only place we see this. As has been pointed out, <a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf"; target="_blank">Rebuilding America's Defences</a> lays out the Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, Rumsfeld blueprint, one which calls for a global dominating US military presence that acts in the interests of the Unites States. It specifically declares that peacekeeping missions should also not be neutral. It also clearly states that Iraq is a means not an end.
[quote]...the need for a substantial American force trancends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.<hr></blockquote>
This is echoed everywhere. Perle and Feith (Current Under-Secretary of Defence for Policy)demonstrate why we need to do it for Israel's sake in <a href="http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm"; target="_blank">A Clean Break.</a> This study also show the advocacy of overwhelming power when dealing with Middle East Conflicts. <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030217fa_fact"; target="_blank">After Iraq</a>, a fluffy interview with Feith by the New Yorker demonstrates this same view in the packaging of American Idealism.
When you are done with the official reports, you can watch the Frontline documentary <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/"; target="_blank">The War Behind Closed Doors</a> detailing the process that lead us to the current policy. This show is particularly interesting because it is stuffed with interviews of lead hawks. You can see more clearly how the current decision-making process has been played out.
And, as if that isn't clear enough, here is just a snippet of what Garrett found out at the WEF:
[quote]I learned from American security and military speakers that, "We need
to attack Iraq not to punish it for what it might have, but
preemptively, as part of a global war. Iraq is just one piece of a
campaign that will last years, taking out states, cleansing the planet."<hr></blockquote>
There is no secret about what the current National Security Strategy of the United States of America is. You need not look anywhere but in the actually documents put out by our officials, and they spell it out clearly.
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
Comments
but what exactly is the doc "RebuildingAmericasDefenses"? who are these people?
Are they actually linked to this admin? are they consultants?
This is kind of scarry, in that what you see here is the possible hidden agenda . . . and it seems, in the long run, to be one where the vision of the US is one where the US is not the same America that I grew up loving : democracy and freedom being its reason d'etre,
this vision has power as America's reason for being....which I could understand if it really were power in the service of real and risky freedom, but it seems to be power in the service of power
Iraq ISN'T an end. And it never has been. It has always been part of the "things that need to get fixed" list.
Fact: the US already dominates the globe militarily. No other nation can project power on the same scale.
Fact: the US is expected to clean up the world's messes and be the UN's global police force. We're already there, and it (usually) coincides with our self-interest.
Fact: the US has had the same policy with respect to other countries and military force since the end of WWII. We have always reserved the right to use pre-emptive force, and we have always reserved the right to act unilaterally with respect to NATO and the UN. We have provided economic and military assistance to dozens of nations without building an empire.
Fact: Japan
Fact: Germany
Fact: South Korea
Fact: Belgium
Fact: France
Fact: Israel
All of those countries exist because the US chose, at some point, to take a proactive role. The US experience pre-WWII shows that we can't wait, and the US experience post-WWII shows that our country isn't interested in building empires.
If we're expected to clean up the messes, it's always in our best interests to be proactive. There have been no major changes in US policy in recent years -- it only looks as though there is a change because there was a military/foreign policy vacuum for about 8 years there.
I think the paranoia from this mainly arises from projection of one's motives and methods upon others. The type of strategy advocated by the Bush Administration sounds like imperialism to those for whom imperialism lurks deep in their brains as a legitimate device. It isn't. This war has nothing to do with imperialism; it's about establishing the stability of a region in order to protect our interests at home.
Keep spinning, though. Sounds like something you'd hear on Art Bell.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: finboy ]</p>
~Bush, on Saddam.
What a load of ****ing bullshit. We would be better off if Saddam had succeded...then we might have Ralph Nader instead.
<strong>Yeah, it IS scary. Especially the part about The Left creating a plot that isn't there.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm not sure i would call it a plot, so mych as a perspective, revealed in their own words, which can be seen to be steering actions.
long term ideas that are not being acknoweledged as they are not being brought up in the public discourse
I wouldn't say a 'plot' merely an overidinf agenda
...but you probably didn't even look a any of it... which wouldn't surprise me one bit
<strong>
...but you probably didn't even look a any of it... which wouldn't surprise me one bit</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've read it all. There's nothing new to look at. Except the spin by outsiders, maybe.
All of these conspiracy theories and "revelations" of grand plots that keep turning up lead me to believe that the Left is trading on peoples' ignorance.
None of this stuff is new, nor is it shocking, nor is it hidden from people. Sure there's an agenda -- THAT'S WHAT POLICYMAKERS DO. When they hide it or act in their own behalf, it's a problem. That's not happening here.
Did you actually READ the White House documents, pfflam? They are coherent and quite straightforward about creating a WORLD in which the US doesn't have to carry the burden. Maybe you should break down and actually read the material, sans New Yorker spin.
I hope someone will find and post the National Security Strategy of the Clinton Administration or Bush 41.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: finboy ]</p>
The agenda is not hidden, in fact, look how many people here defend it. The problem is that the reality of what is being supported has yet to seep in. Maybe it's a lack of education, but Americans seem to be ignorant of the fact that American military domination of the world is a BAD idea. Most importantly to us, it is a bad idea for the future of the United States.
Advocating world-wide oppression is going to bite this entire country in the ass.
And it is not a left/right issue. Only a moron with identity problem would label it as that. You have many, many high-profile republicans speaking out about this. Most of the old-guard, in fact. You have a split in the republican party between the realists and the neo-conservatives.
It's apparent that Americans are wholly ignorant to why this is a major problem, perhaps because of the sheltered elitism or a 'convert the world' political and religious crusader mentality. (If you think the religious side is not a factor, take some time to read Under God by Gary Wills. And, no, it is not a 'liberal' account)
I find it particularly interesting that the entire world right now is opposed to this act, yethawkish Americans think they know better than everyone else. Amazing.
You guys have completely missed the point.
The agenda is not hidden, in fact, look how many people here defend it. The problem is that the reality of what is being supported has yet to seep in. Maybe it's a lack of education, but Americans seem to be ignorant of the fact that military domination of the world is a BAD idea.
And it is not a left/right issue. Only a moron with identity problem would label it as that. You have many, many high-profile republicans speaking out about this. Most of the old-guard, in fact.
It's apparent that Americans are wholly ignorant to why this is a major problem, perhaps because of the sheltered elitism or a 'convert the world' political and religious crusader mentality. (If you think the religious side is not a factor, take some time to read Under God by Gary Wills. And, no, it is not a 'liberal' book)
I find it particularly interesting that the entire world right now is opposed to this act, yethawkish Americans think they know better than everyone else. Amazing.
BTW, finboy, Are you a teenager or just completely and utterly under-educated? 'Reserve the right?' 'Clean up messes?' Do they not teach history any more?
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: giant ]
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>"After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad."
~Bush, on Saddam.
What a load of ****ing bullshit. We would be better off if Saddam had succeded...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, nice. I often wonder why I'm siding with so-called conservatives on this matter more and more.
<strong>
Oh, nice. I often wonder why I'm siding with so-called conservatives on this matter more and more.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You realize that os10geek is like, 10, don't you? (At least I hope he is...)
The US already dominates the world militarily.
The US has always tried to use their power to influence the tide of world affairs...all powerful nations do.
The fact that they lay it out in an open and honest text scares you? You would prefer it was hidden from you as a secret agenda? There is another thread here dealing with a frontline documentary that covers just this policy and how it came about...give it a look-see and maybe you won't see it as some evil agenda, but a result of 9/11 and America's will to defend herself.
<strong>
You realize that os10geek is like, 10, don't you? (At least I hope he is...)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Didn't occur to me. I've only seen a few posts from them, nothing quite like this that I can recall. :shrugs:
<strong>There is another thread here dealing with a frontline documentary that covers just this policy and how it came about...give it a look-see and maybe you won't see it as some evil agenda, but a result of 9/11 and America's will to defend herself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And just how does Iraq threaten the US?
<strong>
And just how does Iraq threaten the US?</strong><hr></blockquote>
By allowing terrorists to operate within its borders, possibly selling arms to these terrorists and threatening neighbors and allies like Jordan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc.
<strong>
By allowing terrorists to operate within its borders....</strong><hr></blockquote>
proofproofproof....
<strong>
By allowing terrorists to operate within its borders, possibly selling arms to these terrorists and threatening neighbors and allies like Jordan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do wonder whether Bush has made a mistake in trying to link the issue of terrorism with the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If the link had never been made, I believe more people may have been in favour of an invasion of Iraq, based on the weapons of mass destruction issue alone. However, because the link has been made, and is tenuous at best, people have become suspicious and are perhaps anti war for the wrong reasons.
As for terrorists operating within its borders, couldn't it be said that this was also true of the United States on 9/11? (I believe all the flights were internal). As for selling arms to terrorists, aren't guns widely available in the States anyway? (not that guns were even required on 9/11 to hijack the aircraft). Finally, as for threatening neighbours and allies, the only threats at the moment seem to be originating from the States, whether it's the threat of war, sanctions, or blocking imports from countries such as France.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>
<strong>Abu Nidal</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you know that's a shallow link.
<strong>I do wonder whether Bush has made a mistake in trying to link the issue of terrorism with the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If the link had never been made, I believe more people may have been in favour of an invasion of Iraq, based on the weapons of mass destruction issue alone. However, because the link has been made, and is tenuous at best, people have become suspicious and are perhaps anti war for the wrong reasons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem the Bush administration has made is that they are trying to tie Iraqi leadership to Al Qaeda, not just arms deals, stipends to Hamas "martyrs'" families, etc.. Creating links through the chain of command is nearly impossible.
[quote]<strong>As for terrorists operating within its borders, couldn't it be said that this was also true of the United States on 9/11? (I believe all the flights were internal).</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm talking about harboring terrorists, not simply having them within their borders. I knew this point would be missed.
[quote]<strong>As for selling arms to terrorists, aren't guns widely available in the States anyway?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You think I'm talking about gns? I'm talking about VX, Anthrax, depleted uranium, etc. I have a feeling (and yes bunge we do need to prove this) that one easy way for Iraq to get rid of its banned weapons is to sell them.
[quote]<strong>Finally, as for threatening neighbours and allies, the only threats at the moment seem to be originating from the States, whether it's the threat of war, sanctions, or blocking imports from countries such as France.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In a myopic sense, you might be right. History tells otherwise, but why take the long view when no one else does? though my take on sanctions is that they don't work. They are effectively not in place now anyway, thanks to countries like France and Germany which might have been "right" to ignore them with exception to selling arms to Iraq.
I must have forgotten that Iraq is a peaceful nation, and that our cease fire was unqualified.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
<strong>
I think you know that's a shallow link.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you know better than to think this isn't true.
What about the links between Baghdad and Hamas? Oh, the Israelis made that connection so it must be a lie.
What about Al Qaeda working in the north of the country? Oh, The Bush administration brought that one up, so it must be a lie.
Once again, this isn't about the active backing of the terrorists by Hussein, simply turning a blind eye is enough in my book.
<strong>
Once again, this isn't about the active backing of the terrorists by Hussein, simply turning a blind eye is enough in my book.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think we should go to war over any connections to Hammas unless Hammas attacks the US.
I've heard some reports of Al Queda in Iraq, but most of what I've heard is that they're just passing through. No camps, no government support, just moving. That's grounds for surveillance, not war.