Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Pentagon's Kinder, Gentler Strategy for Global Dominance
At first glance, the new national defense strategy released by Bush administration Secretary of Defense Robert Gates last week appears to be a fresh start. He seems to be trying to position it as "post-Bush," with much talk of working with allies and, heaven forbid, even other U.S. government agencies.
Elsewhere, as in his speech earlier this year at Kansas State University, he has called for substantial increases in spending for the State Department, pointing out that there are fewer professional diplomats in the U.S. foreign service than there are personnel on an average aircraft carrier task force (of which the U.S. has twelve). But he also stressed that he did not want these new funds to come at the expense of growing Pentagon budgets.
Gates seems to want to have it both ways -- prepare for conventional and irregular warfare; get civilian help on tasks like reconstruction, development and governance while institutionalizing the Pentagon's own capabilities in these areas; have a strategic dialogue with China while making sure to maintain U.S. dominance; seek allies while opposing anything that would limit U.S. "freedom of action" (even though real alliance building, forging of treaties and other less formal agreements all involve limiting one's "freedom of action.")
It all seems to boil down the keeping the iron fist clothed in a velvet glove. It's a more intelligent strategy for empire and global dominance, but one that ignores a central reality: that the U.S. is losing the economic, political, and cultural underpinnings that its post-World War II preeminence was based upon.
Even so, there are a few interesting strands in the Gates document -- talking about the military not being the primary tool for keeping WMDs from terrorists, or for thwarting cyberattacks; but again, arguing for a military capability (like the idea of tagging, tracing, and destroying WMDs militarily) if civilian strategies don't pan out. Gates also talks about looking forward to the day when terrorism is just a "nuisance" that can be handled by law enforcement (dangerously close to the position that got John Kerry in trouble in the 2004 election campaign), and addressing the "root causes" of terrorism (apparently they're not doing it simply because they "hate us" and our freedoms, as Bush would have it).
What hasn't changed in the Gates' strategy is the expansive definition of U.S. interests, including "protecting" free trade and the flow of resources to the U.S. and its allies. Without a change in the definition of U.S. interests, major change in U.S. defense policy is unlikely.
The biggest obstacle to implementing the new Pentagon strategy is money -- with two wars already under way and serious economic problems domestically, the military budget could level off or even fall relative to inflation. If so, there would need to be cuts in longer-term programs like the F-22 combat aircraft, attack submarines, the Army's high tech "Future Combat System" and others. It's either that, or truly shut down one or both of the current wars (not likely, even under Obama, whose best case scenario is getting down to about 50,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq in his first term).
So, like it or not, the next administration will be forced to make choices -- between military spending and diplomacy; between expensive Cold War weapons and provisions for troops involved in current conflicts; and between a military strategy of "global reach" and finding the resources to address pressing domestic needs. It will be up to progressives to weigh in on these debates, pressing for a new vision of the U.S. role in the world that re-defines U.S. interests and dramatically cuts back on the roles and resources allocated to the military.
William D. Hartung is the Director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, and co-editor, with Miriam Pemberton, of Lessons from Iraq: Avoiding the Next War (Paradigm Press, 2008).
25 Comments so far
Show AllSecretary of War Robert Gates and the Neo-Cons are just trying to pull the Murdoch over our eyes. America's security needs a military sized like Costa Rica's military.
A kinder, gentler strategy for global dominance? That sounds like a real winner if only the rest of the world can be dumbed down to the level of perceptive intelligence that is prevalent amongst U.S. voters who appear ready to repeat their corporatocracy's red/blue facade switch once again.
Of course, it also assumes that the U.S. retains sufficient wherewithall to dominate anything in any manner whatever. Other than the nuclear "Samson option", that would seem open to some question.
The price of the F-22 is more then some agencies entire budget! The disease is the cure. Fall like Rome or dismantle the DOD.
Let's face it; diplomacy is ALMOST always more effective and certainly less costly than the military option. The Great Seal of the United States has the Eagle facing to its right where the laurel leaves of diplomacy are in its talons. On the left are the arrows of war just in case diplomacy fails. It is time to take the military option 'off the table' and participate on the world stage as an equal and one that will only use the military in defense of our own territory. Yes we can!
fuck gates - both robert and bill
let's just hope that when the chinese take over the world they will run it with more compassion and understanding
the defeated states of america are going to need both in large measure
Speaking of "the military not being the primary tool for keeping WMDs from terrorists"…
What if we weren't dependent on oil? Then greedy, fearful and rageful leaders couldn't justify (explicitly or otherwise) invasions and takeovers to the public with the need to safeguard oil supplies. We wouldn't need to make WMDs in the first place, wouldn't need to traffic in uranium, plutonium, cobalt, coltan, and weapons, wouldn't scare other people, so they wouldn't want and wouldn't be able to justify the expense and insecurity of their WMDs. Since empire abroad inevitably erodes rights at home, both they and we would have more democratic governments.
If we didn't have WMDs, we wouldn't be terrorists. If we didn't have WMDs, we wouldn't need to project onto others the fear, rage, guilt and need for control that comes with ownership and use of WMDs. Thus, we would be able to see others as they really are, and we would be better able to find win-win solutions to global problems instead of thinking every situation was a zero-sum game.
A country whose energy is decentralized low-tech solar and wind energy can't be dominated by other countries the way oil-dependent countries can be, or threatened by terrorist attacks the way coal- and nuclear-plant-dependent countries can be. Since a renewable energy system merely collects global ecological interest (sunshine and wind) instead of mining and using up pre-deposited principle (oil, coal, gas and wood), it makes it harder to hoard it and concentrate it and thus harder to dominate other countries. Two more excellent reasons to take the soft energy paths. Every dollar we spend on military solutions to psychological and social and political problems, every dollar we spend on finding, buying, stealing, guarding, subsidizing, using, cleaning up after and healing from fossil fuels and capital-intensive nuclear energy is a dollar we don't have for rational solutions and healthy-in-every-way renewable energy systems.
Our security depends on their security. Our security depends on giving up biosphere dependence for ecosystem self-reliance. Our security depends on reducing military spending, taking care of our own physical and psychological health and being able to relate to others in a mature, fearless way. "Global reach" is incredibly expensive if the reaching hand holds the golden club of the industrial military. If global reach means an open hand to others, however, even the military would turn a profit for all of us. The next administration will have to make a choice—between ecological security and healing, and continued unecological destruction and insecurity. With Obama's announcement today that he would drill offshore "if necessary" (and saying that makes it politically inevitable) it becomes more clear than ever that neither big party has ever or will ever make the right choice. Only by packing up and moving en masse to the Greens will there be any chance of security or decent life.
"Give us this day the daily manna, without which, in this rough desert, he backward goes, who toils most to go on." Dante Alighieri, Divine Comedy, Purgatorio, canto XI, l. 13
So, like it or not, the next administration will be forced to make choices — between military spending and ... ??? .... domestic spending - in the form of public works. Only by redirecting expenditure from killing civilians and destroying infrastructure around the world to building and restoring infrastructure at home (and creating local jobs) will the US pull out of the current economic death-dive.
J4ZONIAN: Excellent post! I agree.
The Pentagon wouldn't be so bad if only the WIMPY "Democrats" would stand up to Bush but because they're used to acting like abused spouses allowing their abusive partner the "conservative" GOP to FUCK and RAPE them all the while attacking real progressives and liberals, the Pentagon is "free" to do what it wants. First get rid of both the Democrats and Republicans and the Pentagon will be forced to its knees !
Ain't no beast more vulnerable to petro-crisis than the Pentagon.
These people are unreal! If they would have used the much hated 'Law Enforcement' routine instead of going off half cocked and starting two completely unnecessary wars that are costing a mint. This country probably wouldn't be in the mess it's in today! We wouldn't have the crushing debt, the economic woes due to that crushing debt and two endless wars to our credit. No doubt they would have caught Osama years ago and be well on their way to solving some of the terrorism problem. We would be a whole lot richer today! But, heaven forbid Bush should do it the tried and proven way. After all he knows so much more than Clinton did when it comes to fighting terrorism. That's been the story of this losers life. Bush and his cronies are arrogant beyond belief! It's been one disaster right after another since these neo-con yokels took office! When are American's going to open their eyes and take a good look at these criminals?????????
"if you want Peace, Prepare for War"- Roman Proverb
re SnowWolf August 5th, 2008 10:51 am
off the top of my head, i'm unable to think of an instance when preparation for war did not lead to war.
perhaps you should try the History Section of the Library?
(actually this is a subject that I have expertise in)
The state of the U.S. just prior to WWII is an excellent Example...we had demobilized after WWI, the Dpression cut military budgets even further...Japan and Hitler saw an opportunity (Hitler was building up German industry...and what better for his plans than Arms? and the Japanese saw an open road through all of Asia)
More recently the Army under George H. W. Bush was 18 Divisions...Clinton cut it to 10...(which is why we now have 15 month deployments and overuse of National Guard and reserve assets) The Islamists saw Clinton's weak ass responses to the first World Trade center bombings, the African Embassy attacks...running away in Somalia and doing nothing after the Bombing of the USS Cole and said..."Whoa..we can beat these clowns" and they gave it a go.
We spent a lousy 17% of GDP on the Military (prior to 911) when it realistically should have been about 20%...being prepared really does make for polite neighbors in our little world neighborhood
Hope that helped you out Hazmat
"Hope that helped you out Hazmat"
actually, no. your selective reading of history makes my case for me (the deliberate prevention of japan's importation of basic industrial resources, especially oil; the dalliances of henry ford, charles lindbergh, prescott bush and others with their ideological soulmates hitler and mussolini---it would be disingenuous not to call this "war by other means").
the institution of the draft lottery under nixon, now widely understood as a ploy to take away some of the impetus for anti-war protests, led to the "all-volunteer" army we now have (volunteer numbers are falling despite the recession, accounting for the need for "stop-loss" orders). clinton was an enthusiastic supporter, but it was cheney and rumsfeld who took that tactic and made it a strategy.
u.s. armed forces used to do their own cooking and washing, but now those basic services are contracted out; they used to build their own bases, but now private corporations do it on a no-bid, cost-plus basis; marines used to guard our embassies, but now we taxpayers overpay blackwater to do it.
all of that money taken from our pockets goes to halliburton, bechtel, CACI etc.; some of it is "reinvested" in the form of political contributions to right-wing candidates who will, no doubt, act to reinforce and extend these patterns.
so what, you ask? just that the u.s., as orwell wrote, "has always been at war..." (20 countries bombed since WWII, others under attack by surrogates such as jonas savimbi or the "contras," and still others crippled by trade embargoes, another form of war).
and the war will be coming home, probably someday soon. we've always prepared for war, and we've always gotten war. with more than 700 military bases outside the u.s., when have we been at peace?
you make some good points...I do not think you'll see a draft again in our lifetime though...
I feel the foreign policy of staying engaged rather than isolationist...even if it means putting out little "brushfire" wars a lot of the time avoids more catastrophic "World at War" type scenarios...Contractors are a help if you don't want to double the size of the Active duty force..(to do the washing cooking building etc)
and frankly some (NOT Canada England or Australia though) of our allies do not want to fight (IE; the Germans in Afghanistan who aren't allowed to engage the taliban...arian supermen my A$$)...so we'll have to be more self reliant on our own forces rather than a true alliance
SnowWolf and hazmat:
I think your argument is difficult to settle, as i'm unable to think of a historical situation of any kind in the last 10,000 years that didn't end in war. Of course, i am also unable to think of a war in the last 10,000 years that didn't end in at least nominal peace, so there's that. (ongoing wars, even the perpetual war against terrorism, seem unlikely to break the pattern, and probably won't even break the record, which i'd guess offhand is the 100 years war, ca. 1345-1450.)
I think it was Ambrose Bierce who defined peace as 'that brief period between wars during which each side prepares to fight the last one over'. I think the operative word there is 'brief'; until we change human psychology it will not be debriefed. I am an optimistically pessimistic realist on that--i think we can, and although I'm not counting on healing the species' PTSD anytime soon i have nothing better to do so i will continue to work for it as long as i'm here. Maybe the difference lies in the definition of 'prepare for peace'. I suggest a National Non-Violent Resistance Army, organized to peacefully resist invasions, coups, and crimes, with a draft, nice uniforms (optional), training in conflict resolution, and a free universal mental health care plan.
PS. I'm curious about that magical 3%, ie the difference between 'a lousy' 17% of GDP and a presumably fine 20% that would mean we were ready for anything. On the contrary, I think that anytime you take 3% more away from domestic spending, infrastructure investment (like solar and wind R&D) and debt paydown you're making yourself more vulnerable and less ready. And the lack of enthusiasm in volunteering for this war is exactly that, and is well-deserved and well-considered and ought to be a hint to future governments not to waste human life for the profits of oil companies. Neither WTC bombings were a military act. They were crimes, and should have been treated that way--with investigation, diplomacy, arrests, trials, and imprisonment for those found guilty. We don't need a 60,000 person army for that, just some lawyers, a couple of cops and a good prison psychotherapist.
j4zonian...good post..
and I think you hit the nail on the philosophical head...there are two outlooks on terrorism...those of us that think terrorism is a law enforcement issue...and those of us that think its a military issue..(of which I count myself in)
I don't think law enforcement can defeat Al Queada...in the same way its pretty hapless against gang activity...look at how the Crips, Bloods and ms13 seem to be thriving instead of being eliminated...and the additional 3% is from my own observations working for DoD for the past 30 years both in uniform and out...but I suppose all Government entities have their 'wish lists'
you write very well by the way...and I know that sometimes "I don't talk it so good"...*s*
"So long as there are men, there will be wars" -Albert Einstein
Actually, the two 'conventional philosophies' of authoritarian behavior to alter the course of terrorism through 'law enforcement' or 'military'intercession is simply the exercise of corporate legal strategy, while any military influence or involvement is an extension of corporate legal strategy to a more overt form of the control of dissent.
Terrorism is dissent. Dissent boxed, jailed, silented, murdered when it was peaceful. The psychology of dissent isn't as important as the psychology of the conventional views expressed here through the police or the military.
Witness in this country the history of dissent and the brutal response of a democratic republic to the Constitutional rights of the governed to peaceably demand redress since the SOTUS changed the Constitutional meaning of person, with or without property, to corporatehood and property being more deserving of protection by force of public servants at taxpayer expense. Mercenary 'policing' in the event of inadequate public servants, forerunners of the current Blackwater scum, eager to show their lack of respect for the rights of fellow Americans. To the point of sanctioned murder that made Kent state to be a model of restraint. The flaw inherent being that
an entity comprised of lifeless machines, multiple owners who of themselves incapable of direct production using the assets, are the alleged guardians of the republic who have access to military or police defense, while legal dissenters are left with no equal defense.
Where is 'Equal protection under the laws?'
In the understanding that human beings will not reject their right to self determination even when laws are constructed with the intent to enslave when there is no input from the'governed.'
When corporate policy becomes the policy of a government intent on the domination of other cultures without invitation or a coerced invitation.
All the police and all the military cannot subdue the will of a people to resist. It's been proven over and over again.
To be impolite: Take your regressive behavioral constructs back to your leaders. And please, tell them we'll see them in hell before we allow this perversion of a Constitutional Republic to continue the blathering of minions to only two solutions. Each of which is nothing more than a fashionable cloak on fascism, rather than a constructive method to remove the causes and increase communication.
Democracy requires responsibility, not adherence to concepts that undermine it.
Correction: SCOTUS
A tidbit,
German males are required to serve two years. Mandatory. No exclusions.
As an American having served my citizenship honorably, I can understand such a requirement. And since the German people do not consider themselves an Aryan superior race in opposition to SnowWolf's obvious ignorant rantings and genetic stupidity.
Snow Wolf alone with his computer in his bedroom. No social contact but that of pasty white fat creatures that waddle in and out his front door, murmuring horrendous flatulence, that he bottles for the arrival of Armageddon.
Talk about the nothingness...
The last half dozen or so posts read like one of those tiresome conversation between a couple of "cowboys".
Yipee! Looks like we will never run out of "Red Indians" to kill. Those bastards just won't settle for the "Reservations" like they used to
Damn it!
We all know bloody well that "fork tonques" don't always work at a "pow wow" with them Red Skins, or Brown Skins, or Yellow Skins. How do we make them accept the "Reservation" as a Final Solution? Diplomacy or guns?
Dogleg
leave my fat pasty waddling creatures out of this...
(geez you make it sound so negative...*grinz*)
If you fucking Americans would stop stomping around the globe bullying everyone, you wouldn't have a terrorism problem. It's as simple as that. You've been global assholes for far too long and now everyone hates you. Go figure. SnowWolf's thought that you can defeat terrorism by murdering thousands, if not millions of people, is just plain old stupid. All you're going to get out of that is MORE terrorists. Kill someone, and his 10 brothers want revenge. Most of the problems the US has with so-called Terrorism is of their own making. I am SO fucking sick of listening to Americans try and justify the brutality their country inflicts overseas. What the fuck is wrong with you people?
of course the flip-side of that is once all the Assholes are dead the world can live in peace....*wink*