Classified Pentagon Document

New Undeclared Arms Race:
America's Agenda for Global Military Domination
by Michel Chossudovsky

www.globalresearch.ca 17 March 2005

The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO503A.html

    The Pentagon has released the summary of a top secret Pentagon
document, which sketches America's agenda for global military
domination.

    This redirection of America's military strategy seems to have
passed virtually unnoticed. With the exception of The Wall Street
Journal (see below in annex), not a word has been mentioned in the US
media.

    There has been no press coverage concerning this mysterious
military blueprint. The latter outlines, according to the Wall Street
Journal,  America's global military design which consists in
"enhancing U.S. influence around the world", through increased troop
deployments and a massive buildup of America's advanced weapons
systems.  

    While the document follows in the footsteps of the
administration's "preemptive" war doctrine as detailed by the Neocons'
Project of the New American Century (PNAC), it goes much further in
setting the contours of Washington's global military agenda.

    It calls for a more "proactive" approach to warfare, beyond the
weaker notion of "preemptive" and defensive actions, where military
operations are launched against a "declared enemy" with a view to
"preserving the peace" and "defending America".

    The document explicitly acknowledges America's global military
mandate, beyond regional war theaters. This mandate also includes
military operations directed against countries, which are not hostile
to America, but which are considered strategic from the point of view
of US interests.

    From a broad military and foreign policy perspective, the March
2005 Pentagon document constitutes an imperial design, which supports
US corporate interests Worldwide.

        "At its heart, the document is driven by the belief that the
U.S. is engaged in a continuous global struggle that extends far
beyond specific battlegrounds, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The
vision is for a military that is far more proactive, focused on
changing the world instead of just responding to conflicts such as a
North Korean attack on South Korea, and assuming greater prominence in
countries in which the U.S. isn't at war. (WSJ, 11 March 2005)

    The document suggests that its objective also consists in
"offensive" rather than run of the mill "preemptive"
operations. There
is, in this regard, a subtle nuance in relation to earlier post-911
national security statements: 

        "[The document presents] 'four core' problems, none of them
involving traditional military confrontations. The services are told
to develop forces that can: build partnerships with failing states to
defeat internal terrorist threats; defend the homeland, including
offensive strikes against terrorist groups planning attacks; influence
the choices of countries at a strategic crossroads, such as China and
Russia; and prevent the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by
hostile states and terrorist groups." (Ibid)

    The emphasis is no longer solely on waging major theater wars as
outlined in the PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses, Strategy, Forces
and Resources for a New Century" , the March 2005 military blueprint
points to shifts in weapons systems as well as the need for a global
deployment of US forces in acts of Worldwide military policing and
intervention. The PNAC in its September 2000 Report had described
these non-theater military operations as "constabulary functions":

        The Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the current peace
in ways that fall short of conduction major theater campaigns. ...
These duties are todayAEs most frequent missions, requiring forces
configured for combat but capable of long-term, independent
constabulary operations." (PNAC,
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf , p.18)

    Recruitment of Troops to Police the Empire

    The underlying emphasis is on the development and recruitment of
specialized military manpower required to control and pacify
indigenous forces and factions in different regions of the World:

        "the classified guidance urges the military to come up with
less doctrinaire solutions that include sending in smaller teams of
culturally savvy soldiers to train and mentor indigenous forces."
(Ibid)

    The classified document points to the need for a massive
recruitment and training of troops. These troops, including new
contingents of special forces, green berets and other specialized
military personnel, would be involved, around the World, in acts of
military policing:

        "Mr. Rumsfeld's approach likely will trigger major shifts in
the weapons systems that the Pentagon buys, and even more fundamental
changes in the training and deployment of U.S. troops throughout the
world, said defense officials who have played a role in crafting the
document or are involved in the review.

        The U.S. would seek to deploy these troops far earlier in a
looming conflict than they traditionally have been to help a tottering
government's armed forces confront guerrillas before an insurgency is
able to take root and build popular support. Officials said the plan
envisions many such teams operating around the world.

    US military involvement is not limited to the Middle East. The
sending in of special forces in military policing operations, under
the disguise of peace-keeping and training, is contemplated in all
major regions of the World. A large part of these activities, however,
will most probably be carried out by private mercenary companies on
contract to the Pentagon, NATO or the United Nations. The military
manpower requirements as well as the equipment are specialized. The
policing will not be conducted by regular army units as in a theater
war:

        "the new plan envisions more active U.S. involvement,
resembling recent military aid missions to places like Niger and Chad,
where the U.S. is dispatching teams of ground troops to train local
militaries in basic counterinsurgency tactics. Future training
missions, however, would likely be conducted on a much broader scale,
one defense official said.

        Of the military's services, the Marines Corps right now is
moving fastest to fill this gap and is looking at shifting some
resources away from traditional amphibious-assault missions to new
units designed specifically to work with foreign forces. To support
these troops, military officials are looking at everything from
acquiring cheap aerial surveillance systems to flying gunships that
can be used in messy urban fights to come to the aid of ground troops.
One "dream capability" might be an unmanned AC-130 gunship that could
circle an area at relatively low altitude until it is needed, then
swoop in to lay down a withering line of fire, said a defense
official." (Ibid)

    New Post Cold War Enemies

    While the "war on terrorism" and the containment of
"rogue states"
still constitute the official justification and driving force, China
and Russia are explicitly identified in the classified March document
as potential enemies.

        "... the U.S. military ... is seeking to dissuade rising
powers, such as China, from challenging U.S. military dominance.
Although weapons systems designed to fight guerrillas tend to be
fairly cheap and low-tech, the review makes clear that to dissuade
those countries from trying to compete, the U.S. military must retain
its dominance in key high-tech areas, such as stealth technology,
precision weaponry and manned and unmanned surveillance systems."
(Ibid)

    While the European Union is not mentioned, the stated objective is
to shunt the development of all potential military rivals.

    "Trying to Run with the Big Dog"

    How does Washington intend to reach its goal of global military
hegemony?

    Essentially through the continued development of the US weapons
industry, requiring a massive shift out of the production of civilian
goods and services. In other words, the ongoing increase in defense
spending feeds this new undeclared arms race, with vast amounts of
public money channeled to America's major weapons producers.

    The stated objective is to make the process of developing advanced
weapons systems "so expensive", that no other power on earth will able
to compete or challenge "the Big Dog", without jeopardizing its
civilian economy:

        "[A]t the core of this strategy is the belief that the US must
maintain such a large lead in crucial technologies that growing powers
will conclude that it is too expensive for these countries to even
think about trying to run with the big dog. They will realize that it
is not worth sacrificing their economic growth, said one defense
consultant who was hired to draft sections of the document. " (Ibid,
emphasis added)

    Undeclared Arms Race between Europe and America

    This new undeclared arms race is with the so-called "growing
powers".

    While China and Russia are mentioned as a potential threat,
America's (unofficial) rivals also include France, Germany and Japan.
The recognized partners of the US --in the context of the Anglo-
American axis-- are Britain, Australia and Canada, not to mention
Israel (unofficially). 

    In this context, there are at present two dominant Western
military axes: the Anglo-American axis and the competing Franco-German
alliance. The European military project, largely dominated by France
and Germany, will inevitably undermine NATO.  Britain (through British
Aerospace Systems Corporation) is firmly integrated into the US system
of defense procurement in partnership with America's big five weapons
producers.

    Needless to say, this new arms race is firmly embedded in the
European project, which envisages under EU auspices, a massive
redirection of State financial resources towards military expenditure.
Moreover, the EU monetary system establishing a global currency which
challenges the hegemony of the US dollar is intimately related to the
development of an integrated EU defense force outside of NATO.

    Under the European constitution, there will be a unified European
foreign policy position which will include a common defense component.
It is understood, although never seriously debated in public, that the
proposed European Defense Force is intended to challenge America's
supremacy in military affairs:

         "under such a regime, trans-Atlantic relations will be dealt
a fatal blow." (according to Martin Callanan, British Conservative
member of the European Parliament, Washington times, 5 March 2005).

    Ironically, this European military project, while encouraging an
undeclared US-EU arms race, is not incompatible with continued US-EU
cooperation in military affairs.  The underlying objective for Europe
is that EU corporate interests are protected and that European
contractors are able to effectively cash in and  "share the spoils" of
the US-led wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. In other words, by
challenging the Big Dog from a position of strength, the EU seeks to
retain its role as "a partner" of America in its various military
ventures.

    There is a presumption, particularly in France, that the only way
to build good relations with Washington, is to emulate the American
Military Project,-- i.e. by adopting a similar strategy of beefing up
Europe's advanced weapons systems. 

(snip / snip / snip)

Full article at CRG - http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO503A.html

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at
www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global
Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on
community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not
modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink
address of the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's
copyright note must be displayed.  For publication of Global Research
articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites,
contact: crgeditor{at}yahoo.com


Cheers, Steve...

---