"Disconnectedness defines danger"
Indeed!
Here is a tasty sample of strategery and quite
revealing in that it shows the astonishing... apparently inbred arrogance and
assumed entitlement displayed by Neopcons, Straussians and Popper heads, not to
mention sheer ignorance.
Thomas Barnett divides the world into "The Core" of which, naturally, we are the finest example, and "The Gap" ie. them, the ones who are not yet beaten senseless by the IMF, World Bank, Zionism, and our own brand of Corporate Fascism. Nothing about Oil, Peak Oil, or the Core's setting up of people like Saddam, the injustices in Palestine, the raping of Russia and Eastern Europe by Sorosian sounding outfits like The National Endowment for Democracy, the Open Society and so forth.
Not once in this professorial plan to dominate the world has he addressed the underlying issues and the reasons why, just why "the Gap" is in such turmoil. Ignoring the major role the United States and pervious colonial powers have played in creating this mess he instead gives us his real reason for support of the war "The real reason I support a war like this is that the resulting long-term military commitment will finally force America to deal with the entire Gap as a strategic threat environment."
"In sum, it is always possible to fall off this bandwagon called globalization. And when you do, bloodshed will follow. If you are lucky, so will American troops."
How enlightening!
There is more. 9-11 has exposed the "Ozone Hole" in this sunny scenario, maps, global maps of course, are provided with the continents spanned by a rubbery goo of righteousness. Let's not forget about the "Seam States" who are in desperate need of being worked into a firewall for the Core so we can increase our "immunity". What stands in the way of turning this around? Why it's fear of "... being different- fear of becoming Israel"
Somehow we find our armies always in just those places where globalization has not worked yet, and conversely in places which are already subdued we do not send our forces. Aha! Proof according to Barnett that we still have much to do. The problem, just now proven, is that we don't yet own the world! But fear not we are really dealing with problems of success.
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm
===========================================================
As the following will show not all War College professors see the globe as their sandbox toy.
This was written by a friend of mine while teaching at West Point. Sometime in Winter of 2002
>>> We are using the attached article in class. It articulates that the bushies have been closet 19th century realists all along and that with the outcome of this week's election, will now come out of the closet and abandon any lip-service to the liberal world order that previously both republicans and democrats embraced (including g.w.'s father), and that the united states worked so hard to establish after winning WWII. If this article is correct, the bush administration could cause the united states to abandon its cherished principles and return to a 19th century world. In such a world the united states would no longer feel that it had to justify the use of military power by citing higher moral ends - the exercise of power for national greatness would be sufficient. It would abandon the pretense of furthering democratization and would openly ally itself with any autocratic regime that supported u.s. interests. It would no longer respect international law or the sovereignty of other nations, but would openly propound a doctrine of "naked imperialism", in which military power could be applied to provide resources for the state, and assure the status quo. In such a world the united states could attack any nation it wanted without reference to the united nations. If this article and its assertions are correct, the bush administration could be a turning point in world history. In the post bush world, the united states would no longer cast itself as the "liberal hegemon" bent on establishing and maintaining the liberal economic order, meant to benefit all countries of the world (as clinton asserted), but rather would be a 19th century "great power" bent solely on pursuing american national interests, regardless of the impact on the rest of the world.
Such a radical backward shift in international relations would fundamentally change the world and leave it unrecognizable. The implications for members of the armed forces would be enormous. American military personnel would no longer be able to justify military action in terms of higher moral principles or defending the united states against aggression, rather military personnel would be expected to fight in pursuit of power only. The liberal economic order would be vastly undermined, the world would revert back to a merchantalist system that we have not seen since before world war II, and the United States and its professional armed forces could be involved in a series of wars that could be open-ended. In such a world the united states army's role would then more closely resemble that of the british army's during the height of the british empire, when it routinely fought wars around the world to subjugate peoples in what we now call the "developing world" and bring them under british control. In the extreme instance, the resulting "pax americana" would come to resemble the "pax romana," when the roman legions became killing machines that could defeat any opponent and were no longer defending the roman republic but rather extending the roman empire.
While I would have dismissed such ideas as wild rhetoric by leftist extremists just months ago, the bush administration's purported plan for an open-ended occupation of a post-saddam iraq by the american military caught me completely by surprise and caused me to engage in extensive rethinking. The american army has not been asked to play such a role since world war ii, and in that instance it did so to establish democracy in states which were previously totalitarian and integrate those states into the democratic mainstream. It is not clear whether the bush occupation plan has the same high ends. Left-wing critics of the bush administration routinely state that the proposed invasion of iraq is not meant to establish democracy in the middle east and the arab world, but rather to open the iraqi oilfields to american dominance and exploitation, a classic case of 19th century merchantalist policy. I previously would have dismissed such views as the rantings of left-wing lunatics, but sometimes I can't help thinking that the world is changing beneath our feet and what seemed lunacy just months ago may not be so anymore. Merely suggesting that the american army would occupy iraq for five years or more, opens the united states to criticism that it has ulterior motives.
I have grown quite close to my military colleagues in the 18 months that I have worked side by side with them here at west point. I have also grown close to my students, the cadets. I think that these policy shifts are a disservice to the military and to the cadets, who will have to lay their lives on the line in support of these aspirations. If things do not go according to plan in iraq, thousands of professional soldiers could be killed, while the civilians who propounded these policies remain comfortably out of the line of fire. Such a development could profoundly demoralize the american military and undermine hundreds of years of tradition and pride. Professional soldiers deserve better treatment. It often appears that this administration does not have the best interests of the military at heart, and is callously willing to risk their lives and honor in pursuit of policies that are not well thought-out.
I only regret that the democratic party did not wish to entertain these theoretical ideas and submit them to public debate before the election, but rather chose to remain passive in the face of what they perceived as a republican juggernaut. I can't believe that the american people have fundamentally changed and really wish for the united states to fundamentally change its international behavior in such a drastic fashion, especially if there is a potential for the united states to be drastically harmed in the process. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Thomas Barnett divides the world into "The Core" of which, naturally, we are the finest example, and "The Gap" ie. them, the ones who are not yet beaten senseless by the IMF, World Bank, Zionism, and our own brand of Corporate Fascism. Nothing about Oil, Peak Oil, or the Core's setting up of people like Saddam, the injustices in Palestine, the raping of Russia and Eastern Europe by Sorosian sounding outfits like The National Endowment for Democracy, the Open Society and so forth.
Not once in this professorial plan to dominate the world has he addressed the underlying issues and the reasons why, just why "the Gap" is in such turmoil. Ignoring the major role the United States and pervious colonial powers have played in creating this mess he instead gives us his real reason for support of the war "The real reason I support a war like this is that the resulting long-term military commitment will finally force America to deal with the entire Gap as a strategic threat environment."
"In sum, it is always possible to fall off this bandwagon called globalization. And when you do, bloodshed will follow. If you are lucky, so will American troops."
How enlightening!
There is more. 9-11 has exposed the "Ozone Hole" in this sunny scenario, maps, global maps of course, are provided with the continents spanned by a rubbery goo of righteousness. Let's not forget about the "Seam States" who are in desperate need of being worked into a firewall for the Core so we can increase our "immunity". What stands in the way of turning this around? Why it's fear of "... being different- fear of becoming Israel"
Somehow we find our armies always in just those places where globalization has not worked yet, and conversely in places which are already subdued we do not send our forces. Aha! Proof according to Barnett that we still have much to do. The problem, just now proven, is that we don't yet own the world! But fear not we are really dealing with problems of success.
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm
===========================================================
As the following will show not all War College professors see the globe as their sandbox toy.
This was written by a friend of mine while teaching at West Point. Sometime in Winter of 2002
>>> We are using the attached article in class. It articulates that the bushies have been closet 19th century realists all along and that with the outcome of this week's election, will now come out of the closet and abandon any lip-service to the liberal world order that previously both republicans and democrats embraced (including g.w.'s father), and that the united states worked so hard to establish after winning WWII. If this article is correct, the bush administration could cause the united states to abandon its cherished principles and return to a 19th century world. In such a world the united states would no longer feel that it had to justify the use of military power by citing higher moral ends - the exercise of power for national greatness would be sufficient. It would abandon the pretense of furthering democratization and would openly ally itself with any autocratic regime that supported u.s. interests. It would no longer respect international law or the sovereignty of other nations, but would openly propound a doctrine of "naked imperialism", in which military power could be applied to provide resources for the state, and assure the status quo. In such a world the united states could attack any nation it wanted without reference to the united nations. If this article and its assertions are correct, the bush administration could be a turning point in world history. In the post bush world, the united states would no longer cast itself as the "liberal hegemon" bent on establishing and maintaining the liberal economic order, meant to benefit all countries of the world (as clinton asserted), but rather would be a 19th century "great power" bent solely on pursuing american national interests, regardless of the impact on the rest of the world.
Such a radical backward shift in international relations would fundamentally change the world and leave it unrecognizable. The implications for members of the armed forces would be enormous. American military personnel would no longer be able to justify military action in terms of higher moral principles or defending the united states against aggression, rather military personnel would be expected to fight in pursuit of power only. The liberal economic order would be vastly undermined, the world would revert back to a merchantalist system that we have not seen since before world war II, and the United States and its professional armed forces could be involved in a series of wars that could be open-ended. In such a world the united states army's role would then more closely resemble that of the british army's during the height of the british empire, when it routinely fought wars around the world to subjugate peoples in what we now call the "developing world" and bring them under british control. In the extreme instance, the resulting "pax americana" would come to resemble the "pax romana," when the roman legions became killing machines that could defeat any opponent and were no longer defending the roman republic but rather extending the roman empire.
While I would have dismissed such ideas as wild rhetoric by leftist extremists just months ago, the bush administration's purported plan for an open-ended occupation of a post-saddam iraq by the american military caught me completely by surprise and caused me to engage in extensive rethinking. The american army has not been asked to play such a role since world war ii, and in that instance it did so to establish democracy in states which were previously totalitarian and integrate those states into the democratic mainstream. It is not clear whether the bush occupation plan has the same high ends. Left-wing critics of the bush administration routinely state that the proposed invasion of iraq is not meant to establish democracy in the middle east and the arab world, but rather to open the iraqi oilfields to american dominance and exploitation, a classic case of 19th century merchantalist policy. I previously would have dismissed such views as the rantings of left-wing lunatics, but sometimes I can't help thinking that the world is changing beneath our feet and what seemed lunacy just months ago may not be so anymore. Merely suggesting that the american army would occupy iraq for five years or more, opens the united states to criticism that it has ulterior motives.
I have grown quite close to my military colleagues in the 18 months that I have worked side by side with them here at west point. I have also grown close to my students, the cadets. I think that these policy shifts are a disservice to the military and to the cadets, who will have to lay their lives on the line in support of these aspirations. If things do not go according to plan in iraq, thousands of professional soldiers could be killed, while the civilians who propounded these policies remain comfortably out of the line of fire. Such a development could profoundly demoralize the american military and undermine hundreds of years of tradition and pride. Professional soldiers deserve better treatment. It often appears that this administration does not have the best interests of the military at heart, and is callously willing to risk their lives and honor in pursuit of policies that are not well thought-out.
I only regret that the democratic party did not wish to entertain these theoretical ideas and submit them to public debate before the election, but rather chose to remain passive in the face of what they perceived as a republican juggernaut. I can't believe that the american people have fundamentally changed and really wish for the united states to fundamentally change its international behavior in such a drastic fashion, especially if there is a potential for the united states to be drastically harmed in the process. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Posted: Fri - June 4, 2004 at 12:02
Quick Links
Categories
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Media
LINKAGE
My Artwork
XML/RSS Feed
Archives
Search
Entry Content
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 08, 2010 12:12
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 08, 2010 12:12