Well it’s December of 2002, and as the United Nation’s inspection team trudges through Iraq in search of “weapons of mass destruction”, the U.S. continues to amass soldiers and military equipment in the Persian Gulf region, apparently in preparation for a military attack that was planned long ago and will likely be pursued regardless of the findings of the inspection team. This sentiment of war under any circumstance has been expressed repeatedly by the Bush administration, most recently by one of President “Select” Bush’s top security advisers, Richard Perle, as he told British members of Parliament at a November 15 meeting that a “clean bill of health” from Hans Blix, who heads the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNSCOM), would not prevent the US from declaring war on Baghdad. “All [Blix] can know is the results of his own investigations. And that does not prove Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction,” Perle insisted. He went on to state that if evidence from even one “witness” came to light of Hussein’s weapons program, this would be enough to trigger a military onslaught. Telling the British MPs: “Suppose we are able to find someone who has been involved in the development of weapons and he says there are stores of nerve agents. But you cannot find them because they are so well hidden. Do you actually have to take possession of the nerve agents to convince? We are not dealing with a situation where you can expect cooperation.”

If you have been receiving the Playahata newsletter or have read other articles I have written for this website, you may recall that on a number of occasions I have alluded to what I believe are the true reasons for the U.S./British war drive against Iraq, namely oil and imperialism. In my estimation, if the Iraq campaign is “successful” then it will likely be just another step in a long succession of imperialist attacks and interventions throughout the world, as America’s ruling class attempts to extend and solidify their hegemony, globally. Even if one is not willing to argue that this attack is part of something larger at this point, most of the country is probably at least skeptical about the stated goals of all the war talk concerning Iraq, even if all you watch is the nightly news. So for all you non-believers, as usual I will not ask you to believe me. I simply ask that you pay attention to the writings of the rulers and leading think tanks of this nation, particularly the current presidential administration. The minds behind this ethic of permanent war are so gangsta' that they don’t even hide their intentions anymore. Three of the best documented examples of these imperial designs are “The Defense Strategy for the 1990s [DS90s] (related to the Defense Planning Guidance for 1994-1999)”, “The National Security Strategy of the United States”[NSSUS], and “The United States Space Command, Vision for 20/20” (For brevity I will often refer to the documents by the abbreviations noted above from now on).

Published in its unclassified form most recently, under the title “Defense Strategy for the 1990s”, the document appears to be a rewrite of the “Defense Planning Guidance for Fiscal Years 1994-1999”, although the ideas presented in this document existed well before the 1990s. Much of the content of the document apparently was adapted from earlier documents and ideas that existed during the “Cold War”. After the collapse of the Soviet Union (and consequently the end of the Cold War), according to National Security News Service investigative reporter, David Armstrong, (see his wonderful editorial on the “DS90s” in the October 2002 Harper’s Magazine) the framework of the plan was laid out to justify and maintain the obscene military budget more than to actually try and dominate the world. Whether maintenance of the military budget actually took precedent over the desire for global hegemony is debatable, but what the document states and who the minds behind it are, is not. Although the document bares Dick Cheney’s (current Vice President) name all indications point to much of it being the work of Jay-Z like ghostwriters, including notable names like Paul Wolfowitz (currently 2^nd in command at Pentagon, behind Donald Rumsfeld), Lewis “Scooter” Libby (currently vice president’s chief of staff and National Security Adviser), and everybody’s favorite “House Negro”, Colin Powell (currently Secretary of State).

In the period when the framework for this document was being fleshed out it was primarily the cool-headed, calculating, and ruthless designs of Colin Powell that helped the ideas gain broader public (in the government) support. Powell argued that the U.S. should move from attempting to counter Soviet attempts at dominance, to instead insuring it’s own dominance. Armed with these concepts as well as Powell and Wolfowitz’s ideas on reorganizing, but not really shrinking the size of the military, Cheney presented their plan to President George Bush Sr. (NOT the Current president, the father of the current president). At the time this plan was being floated around it was still under the title (or some variation) of the “Defense Planning Guidance”. In March 1992 some version of this “Defense Planning Guidance” was leaked to the New York Times, and an embarrassed Pentagon and Dick Cheney attempted to distance itself from and/or feign ignorance about the document although the prelude proclaimed it was a “definitive guidance from the Secretary of Defense” (which Cheney was at the time). Weeks later another version of this document that contained all the same themes but used softer language, was leaked to the press. Finally in January 1993 the final version of this document, allegedly penned solely by Dick Cheney, was release under the title of “Defense Strategy for the 1990s”.

The key themes behind this “Defense Strategy” were best expressed by Colin Powell in the early 90s, when he told members of the House Armed Services Committee that the U.S. must use force to “deter any challenger from ever dreaming of challenging us [the U.S.] on the world stage. Adding that he [the U.S.] “wanted to be the bully on the block” and to implant in the mind of the rest of the world that “there is no future in trying to challenge the armed forces of the United States”. Key positions and objectives put forth in this document included: the use of “preemptive strikes” (sneak attacks, initiating conflict) possibly using nuclear weapons referred to as “Strategic Deterrence and Defense” and “Forward Presence”; to “safeguard our [U.S. businesses] access to international air and seaways and to the region’s important sources of OIL” and to “remain prepared to act decisively in the Middle East/Persian Gulf region as we[U.S. military] did in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm if our vital interest are threatened”; the use of overwhelming force, referred to as an “effects based” approach to defeat enemies; maintaining an incredible nuclear arsenal while discouraging the development of nuclear weapons in other nations; the prevention of the re-emergence of a new rival by force and/or intimidation; and unilateralism as expressed in the document where it says - “should international support prove sluggish or inadequate, to act independently, as necessary, to protect our critical interest” (oil and other natural resources).

This “Defense Strategy for the 1990s” was not just the result of the ranting of a group of madmen, unique and isolated to a brief moment in history. On September 17, 2002 the Bush administration published its “National Security Strategy of the United States of America” (which you can read at the www.whitehouse.gov website). Much of the content of this document was identical to the DS90s document. If you read between the lines the document states clearly that the U.S. government maintains the right to bomb, invade, and overthrow any nation or their respective government if the United States deems that this country is or may AT SOME POINT become hostile to what the U.S. considers to be, it’s “vital interest”. It contains all the treats of unilateralism and “preemptive strikes” against ANY perceived threats to U.S. (U.S. ruling class that is) interest; it contains warnings to ANY other nations to refrain from building up there military while maintaining the right for the U.S. to continue to expand and further arm theirs. But the NSSUS goes even further proclaiming arrogantly that essentially whatever is good for the U.S. is good for the rest of the world, and that the U.S. will not be bound by international law or the International Criminal Court. Stating in section IX. “We[the U.S.] will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept.”

As NSSUS states in its’ introduction, “The United States possesses unprecedented—and unequaled—strength and influence in the world.” and “The US national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests.” If a brief glance at recent historical events doesn’t explain what these “values” and “national interest” are, the document sheds some light on these terms later such as in section VI (6), subtitled – “Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade”. A large portion of these “values” and “national interest” are “respect for private property" (monopoly capitalism, control of vast amounts of wealth by small groups of people), “pro-growth legal and regulatory policies to encourage business investment, innovation, and entrepreneurial activity” (monopoly capitalism, destruction of unions and regulatory laws on corporations, rolling back environmental restrictions), “tax policies—particularly lower marginal tax rates—that improve incentives for work and investment” (little or no taxes on corporations and the wealthy), “free trade that provides new avenues for growth and fosters the diffusion of technologies and ideas that increase productivity and opportunity” (monopoly capitalism and promotion of all of the aforementioned using vehicles such as the WTO, IMF, etc). The document then goes on to state “The lessons of history are clear: market economies, not command-and-control economies with the heavy hand of government, are the best way to promote prosperity and reduce poverty” and “International flows of investment capital ... allow emerging markets and developing countries to make the investments that raise living standards and reduce poverty”. All these free-market platitudes are stated in the midst of a worldwide financial crisis and despite all the mountains of economic and social data indicating an increase in world poverty and social disintegration, and an enlarging gulf between the “haves” and the “have-nots”, brought on by the Capitalist economic model (especially with so little regulation). As is evidenced by the NSSUS reality is irrelevant, ideology and rhetoric are all that matters and plans for world conquest written plainly on paper are “National Security and Defense Strategies” if the government says so.

The brazen exposure of the American ruling elite’s plans to conquer the world don’t stop there however, a brief visit to the website of the United States Strategic Command (a website I previously suggested visiting in the 1^st part of "Blind With 2020 Vision") continues with the overt and subtle themes of domination of enemy and ally alike. The United States Strategic Command, or USSTRATCOM is one of nine U.S. unified commands under the Department of Defense. USSTRATCOM is the command and control center for U.S. strategic forces and controls military space operations, computer network operations, information operations, strategic warning and intelligence assessments as well as global strategic planning. The "Vision" is stated very clearly, "U.S. Space Command - dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S. Interest and Investment”. Taken into account the definition of “interest” and investment as described in DS90s and NSSUS the picture should be becoming even more clear.

The “Vision for 2020” document then goes on describing their mission, declaring - “Integrating Space Forces into war fighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict". Increase[d] weapons lethality and precision will lead to new operational doctrine." It continues later in the document, “Global engagement is the application of precision force from, to, and through space. Global Engagement combines global surveillance with the potential for a space based global precision-strike capability”. “Missile Defense” be damned! Any weapon system placed in space, assuming it functions at all, will be nothing more than another piece in the puzzle of a world conquered by monopoly capitalist and America’s ruling elite. Then under "Future Trends" it states, "Although unlikely to be challenged by a global peer competitor, the United States will continue to be challenged regionally. The globalization of the world economy will also continue with a widening between 'haves' and 'have-nots.' Accelerating rates of technological development will be increasingly driven by the commercial sector - not the military”. Those of you who are really paying attention may be wondering how a military/governmental document could make such admissions when the government, via mainstream media constantly bombards us with threats of boogie-man leaders of nations across the globe who they plan to preemptively attack next, and the NSSUS argues specifically that these “globalization” and “free trade” measures are needed to reduce poverty and promote human welfare. A number of answers come to mind, namely, (1) none of these documents, but especially the “Vision for 2020”, was intended for the eyes of the common American, (2) the ruling class has complete faith that the mainstream media will not state the obvious, (3) the rulers of this nation have no respect for the average American’s ability and desire to get information or seek the truth if it may make these common people uncomfortable with or suspicious of, the basic morality of their leaders, (4) carelessness, and (5) cojones muchos grande (a lot of balls).

Understand whom you’re dealing with here. The men and women who draw up documents like these are very single-minded in purpose and unfortunately, as in ancient times, men still desire to rule the world. They proudly proclaim their goals not just in government/military documents but on the websites of “non-profit, educational organizations” dedicated to promoting these goals, such as The Project for The New American Century. They are not concerned with collateral damage whether it be a few hundred or a few thousand dead, 19-year American soldiers, or 250,000 dead Iraqi civilians, as it is estimated a war on Iraq would cost. In fact they understand fully what the human cost will be, and continue to operate with a complete lack of regard for human life, as well as written international laws and standards. Although they would likely be able to dominate and influence it, the U.S. has consistently rejected the ratification of an international criminal court, under the auspices of the United Nations and as stated in NSSUS they reject its jurisdiction. Recently the current administration pressured 15 nations of the European Union to exempt American soldiers and government officials from prosecution for war crimes at the court, because they fully understand their acts to be criminal. (The deal that the 15 governments agreed to prevents them from extraditing American government employees accused of war crimes to the court, on the condition that the United States government guarantee that such a suspect would be tried in an American court – yeah sure).

In conclusion, you don’t have to believe me. If it pleases you, you can call me names and hate me. But please do read the writing on the wall, and on the paper, and on the internet, especially when it’s staring you right in the face. The plans for world domination, mass murders, and unprovoked military aggression not seen since Nazi Germany are laid bare before you. The pending war in Iraq, and the ones that may subsequently be pursued in Iran, Syria, and throughout the world aren’t about threats to the safety of American citizens, “terrorism”, “weapons of mass destruction”, non-English speaking boogie men, or any of the like. It’s about good’ol fashioned imperialism – It was Written.

Released: December 2002

Suggested Websites:

http://www.naarpr.org/naarpr_Defense.pdf

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

http://www.stratcom.mil/

Vision for 2020

http://www.newamericancentury.org

Nuclear Posture Review

Suggested Reading:

Against Empire by Michael Parenti

Weapons in Space by Karl Grossman

Inventing Reality: The Politics of the News Media by Michael Parenti

David Armstrong, "Dick Cheney's Song of America: Drafting a plan for global dominance," pp. 76-83, Harper's Magazine, October 2002 (Vol. 305, No. 1829).

The views and opinions expressed herein by the author do not necessarily represent the opinions or position of Playahata.com.