The American Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, has reversed a tendency that the US had abided by since the American defeat in Vietnam: instead of reducing the number of American military bases located abroad, as was once the case, the Americans now find it necessary to increase their count. This novel doctrine, which is supposed to guarantee America’s security, will only result in a growing number of American targets (through terrorist attacks, the taking of hostages, etc.) and further provocative acts, not to mention the astronomical costs that go hand in hand with such a mass presence.
This absurd policy, first of all, completely contradicts any and every global ‘power projection’ strategy, since the presence of new military bases is synonymous with troop immobility, in addition to the fact that the American army is in dire need of high-quality manpower and recruits and that the ‘boys’ are becoming ever more homesick and live in dread of all those bullets flying overhead. On the other hand, the desire to reinforce global American interests and US influence through sheer militarism and strategic occupation will, of course, only have an opposite effect.
However, the NAI is thus emphasising the existence of new geopolitical ambitions that stem from the disintegration of the USSR: the purpose is now for America to establish military bases in the ‘New Europe’, meaning a previously sovietised Europe that now acts as America’s vassal, especially Poland, Bulgaria and Romania, using its contingents located in Germany. Under the guise of controlling the so-called ‘arc of instability’, the Pentagon is also contemplating the establishment of such bases in formerly soviet Central Asia; but its real aim lies in encircling Russia and supervising (unavailingly, in point of fact) the local oil and gas routes and deposits. It is also a matter of sustaining the military bases situated in Iraq, thus maintaining the American presence in this country ad infinitum, as is the case in Japan. Furthermore, these military bases are said to be ‘reception points’ that would allow American forces to be moved urgently from the American territory in the event of a crisis. For instance, five military bases are expected to remain in Iraq, a country that the Americans hope will become a new client state. Talk about daydreams!
Pfaff obviously believes that these intrusive projects are a dangerous folly. What neoconservative militarists are oblivious to is the fact that the 9/11 attacks, just like the birth of Al-Qaeda (an essentially Saudi network), was primarily due to the presence of American bases in Saudi Arabia, in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. The bases have since been evacuated, as part of a terrorism-evasion reflex. By hoping to move those bases to Iraq, the Americans are making a strategic withdrawal. What they have failed to grasp is that any permanent American presence in Middle-Eastern Arab countries can only be perceived as an act of provocation and aggression that Islamists secretly long for and that will justify the intensification of both Islamic jihad and terrorism. Indeed, how can anyone be stupid enough to pretend that they could vanquish terrorism on a military level by establishing GI bases in the Muslim world? Pfaff speaks of a globally ‘fanciful’ foreign policy. Ever since the 9/11 events, not only have the military interventions in Afghanistan and the Philippines (often aimed at impressing an American public opinion that is as infantile as its leaders) failed to eradicate Islamic terrorist networks, but have actually managed to reinforce the latter.
In Pfaff’s opinion, the American Protestant ideology regarding America’s ‘Manifest Destiny’ (which God Himself allegedly bestowed upon the US) has now turned into a desire for global hegemony which not only makes use of traditional strategies of influence, intimidation and twisted manoeuvres, but resorts to a straightforward militarism that is as rash as it is exalted.
The neoconservative enthusiasm for new American bases around the world, under the pretext of universal goodwill, indicates that they all agree with the idea that America must straddle the world — just in case…
This image says it all. The NAI is under the impression that it could control the planet by scattering military bases across its surface. ‘Are air bases in Central Asia or East Africa truly necessary for terrorist networks to be dismantled’? It is an undeniable fact that the USA, the unrivalled specialist in aerial bombardment, has always believed the latter to be an effective means of crushing those that resist it, when, in actual fact, it only serves to increase enemy recruitment. The Israelis, too, follow the same line of inconsequential reasoning in their struggle against Palestinian terrorism, using heavy, mediatised and visible military means.
In Pfaff’s eyes, this military expansionism
… is a remedy with no bearing upon terrorist evil and, generally speaking, one that is completely inefficient when it comes to resolving any political problem.
Incidentally, it must be said that the massive terrorist attacks conducted on 9/11 had actually been organised by networks composed of Westernised Islamic fanatics who had settled into the USA and Europe (and had been integrated into them), and not concocted in the sandy expanses and deserts of backward countries inhabited by uncultivated tribes whose culture is primitive. Another fact worth highlighting is that the most subversive and dangerous form of Islamic preaching takes in Western mosques and that the mujahideen are funded by Saudi banks. What Pfaff thus implies is that the war against Islamism and its terrorist aspects can only be won on American and European soil (where unchecked immigrants abound), and not by means of bombarding pseudo-training camps or civilian populations comprised of poor wretches dressed in rags.
The most efficient strategy against terrorism and Al-Qaeda networks is that of the secret police and not that of bombs and military bases… […] Not a single attempt has been made by the current administration and the Pentagon to prove to the American public that the military adventurism we all know of and the establishment of military bases on foreign soil are utterly inefficacious in a “war on terror” […]; which means that the large-scale attacks that the US has fallen prey to have every chance of reoccurring.
Not only is the NAI unable to protect itself against such acts of aggression, but it actually provokes and exacerbates them.
In his writings, William Pfaff leaves open the question whether this militarism is truly dedicated to the ‘war on terror’ (in which case it would be a sign of sheer stupidity) or whether it conceals some other, cynically hidden objectives, such as an imperialistic policy of global domination. Even if the latter option were true, this would be an equal sign of stupidity, since the militarism and warmongering described above are both far more damaging than effective for any dominating world power.
I have a theory in this regard. Overall, the American warmongering that lasted from World War I to the Vietnam conflict was motivated either by a struggle against objective threats (which originated mainly from states that enjoyed genuine military power) or by a desire for geostrategic domination in the name of the United States itself. It would seem that all of this changed after the collapse of the USSR and the gradual advent of neoconservatism.
The following suggestion has already been included elsewhere in this book, but it is always wise to highlight important theories. Washington’s ‘neo-militarism’ (or ‘neo-warmongering’, perhaps) is no longer motivated by pressing, statal and targetable issues, but by vague and hazardous ones. Even the Pentagon itself no longer believes that the ‘war on terror’ could be conducted by invading Iraq, bombarding Central Asia and establishing military air bases on a global scale. It seems to be the case that, in the absence of genuine enemies and real military threats (following the fall of soviet Communism), the Americans — or their leaders, at least — are seeking to invent foes to struggle against.
Why? To fuel the military-industrial machinery, which is in constant need of new orders and funds politicians who often act as its agents or shareholders. The ruling American elite thus ignores American interests, regardless of all its ‘patriotic’ or ‘biblical’ professions of faith. Unlike Napoleonian or Bismarckian militarism, not to mention that of Louis the 14th, current American militarism ma
y well be founded upon patriotic and nationalistic sentiments (i.e. ‘Stars and Stripes’), but does not actually experience any such feelings.
Furthermore, it is often the case (Perle, Cheney, Wolfowitz and co.) that American militarism is not meant to guarantee America’s economic hegemony by attacking its rivals (including Japan, Germany and many others), but merely serves as a means of increasing the personal wealth of warmongering leaders whose interests lie, for instance, in ensuring that all military orders received by Boeing, a company in which they themselves are shareholders, rise by 10 % a year, as can be seen today.
The only genuine and efficient ‘war on terror’ (considering that this is the pretext used by neo-imperialists) lies in waging a shadow war through obscure, ungrateful yet merciless police work that takes place at the very bottom, as part of efforts that cannot, of course, have any immediate electoral or financial impact. Let us also mention, at this stage, the fight against Muslim immigration in Western countries…
It is, therefore, not always a question of stupidity or blindness, nor one of ideological delirium (as witnessed in the case of our naïve European leaders), but a matter of short-term, calculating behaviour on the part of American leaders, who are focused on their own personal gain and on using their own country’s foreign policy to their own advantage by establishing an unbridled sort of warmongering.
In no way are these leaders against Islam, nor even against China, a country which shall, in the very near future, become the primary contender for the position of the world’s main superpower. They will, furthermore, never manage to maintain the already fragile American hegemony. By using the above-mentioned expression (‘All find agreement in the idea that America should straddle the world’), William Pfaff may well have hinted at the typical ending of every rodeo, with the cowboy finding himself in the dirt, his arse above his head.
***
Hollywood has been doing the army’s bidding for ages. Just like in national socialist Germany and the USSR, American cinema has long been at the service of statal imperialism and ideology. Lately, however, the phenomenon has been increasing pace. This is what Jean-Michel Valentin has demonstrated in his book entitled Hollywood, the Pentagon and Washington — The Main Protagonists in a Strategy (Autrement editions, 2003). He writes: ‘The modalities of the cooperation between the security apparatus and the major studios are numerous, intricate and ever-increasing’. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s candidature for the post of governor in California confirms this tendency, as does Reagan’s election (Reagan himself is a former actor). The army provides many films with the necessary logistics, script-writers and advisors, with the Pentagon using its ‘black budget’ to finance these cinematic releases. Countless super-productions thus relay the official US ideology in a most straightforward fashion and, influenced by the Pentagon, act as plain and simple instruments of American national and global propaganda. Hollywood has been ‘enlisted’ and constantly uses its highly spectacular humanitarian-military or disaster-themed films to develop the idea that America is under threat so as to maintain a certain level of patriotic mobilisation among the American population.
There is yet another highly interesting phenomenon related to all of this, namely the Pentagon’s domestic power in comparison with the US civil administration and the elected American government. The White House and the DoD (Department of Defence) constitute two separate and distinct entities. The former is temporary and subject to elections, whereas the latter is a long-lasting power with the ability to dictate its will. Such a situation is unthinkable on our continent. In the USA, the ‘military-industrial’ and ‘military-cultural’ complexes have the capacity to impose themselves (as part of an alliance between the mercantile and military functions) against the will of the government located in Washington, using Hollywood as a means to achieve this.
Strangely enough, the American army (which, in the USA, is connected to the world of business) dictates its every wish upon the government, just like in Third World countries. To be more specific, if one adds together the influence and independence enjoyed by numerous intelligence agencies and the police (the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, and so on), it quickly becomes apparent that the federal state is both heterogeneous and divided, always falling prey to internal conflict. This is what accounts for the foreign policy’s instability, even if it does not impact American ‘patriotic’ cohesion in any way.
***
The gravest danger lies in the new nuclear doctrine embraced by the Pentagon. In May 2003, following the ‘brilliant American victory’ in Iraq, the Bush administration launched a novel idea. This idea had, for decades on end, been expressed in various private circles by Donald Rumsfeld, the overzealous and predatory politician who acts both as America’s Secretary of Defence and as a theoretician of absolute militarism. In several serious milieus, the above-mentioned idea was deemed to be utterly insane, in addition to being decidedly typical of neoconservative hubris.
The concept revolves around the manufacturing of small-scale nuclear bombs known as ‘mini-nukes’, whose destructive power is (relatively) limited and totals 5 kilotons, meaning one third of the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. These ‘mini-nukes’ are meant to destroy underground bunkers that resist traditional explosives. According to The Independent (22/05/2003), secret research has been conducted into such weapons over the past ten years. Washington is said to be attempting to convince the American Congress to vote in favour of funding this development. According to some people, if the project were granted a level of independence becoming of a ‘state within a state’ (which the Pentagon has already attained, not to mention the opacity that characterises military budgets), any and all parliamentary authorisation would become entirely superfluous.
What is totally new (and extremely serious) about this programme is that it breaks the sanctification deadlock on nuclear weapons (even those of average intensity), which have hitherto been used solely as a deterrent against other nuclear arms or as part of second-strike reprisals. Nuclear arms are thus trivialised, becoming the ‘battlefield’s theatrical weaponry’. A certain group of Democratic senators has warned against the fact that such a decision ‘would lower the utilisation threshold of nuclear weapons’. Another warning was issued by senator Edward Kennedy in early May 2003: ‘If we produce it, we will use it, and it will be a one-way street to nuclear war’. Using words in the same vein, Illinois senator Richard Durbin made a cautionary declaration: In the eyes of all countries, this project will signify that America is prepared to relaunch the nuclear arms race on a global scale’.
One is obviously left in total disbelief at the sight of the neoconservative and neo-imperialistic aptitude (the ‘Bush doctrine’) to always bring about the very opposite international effect to the one intended, while resorting to incredibly clumsy provocations and initiatives: this approach has enhanced the Islamist terrorist breeding ground and fostered the emergence of an Islamic republic in Iraq, and is now inciting dozens of countries to arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction (particularly nuclear ones) by setting an example for others to follow and driving them to protect themselves against a possible American ‘folly’. Not only is Bush unrivalled in his services to Islamism, but he is also the best sales representative in the field of nuclear proliferation.
In a display of typical simplism, Donald Rumsfeld gave the following response: ‘It is only a matter of studying such weapons, no more, no less’. Why would anyone choose to ‘study’ something that is not being considered for manufacture and use? Rumsfeld solemnly swore that the production of such weapons would require ‘the Congress’ special authorisation’. Based on the Iraqi campaign, of course, we all know what neoconservative promises are worth. In addition, the use of these medium-potency nuclear bombs would soon become entirely commonplace and would definitely not be restricted to ultra-special circumstances. Such bombs would practically be equated with traditional ballistic weapons. Indeed, according to the Pentagon’s masterminds, their purpose is not
solely restricted to the destruction of underground bunkers (as ‘earth penetrators’), but encompasses further usage on the battlefield, as is the case with conventional artillery and bombs (the so-called ‘weapons for battlefield use’), with all the resulting radioactive repercussions upon our planet’s atmosphere!
During the Cold War, France did develop some tactical anti-force nuclear arms (the Pluton and Hades Theatre Missile Defence systems), but unlike the current situation, in which the US army plays its battlefield games with small powers, these were only meant to stop a potential Soviet mass offensive that would have crushed Europe. According to the National Resource Defense Council, the Pentagon’s suppliers have already completed the development of a deep penetration bomb, the B 61 Mod 11. All that is left is for them to equip it with a nuclear warhead. And it gets even better: it is rumoured that they no longer intend to limit themselves to 5 kilotons, venturing all the way to 300 kilotons instead. In a most placid fashion, the NRDC acknowledges the fact that these weapons would result in fatal above-surface radiation even when exploding underneath the ground. And hold on to your hats, now: the NRDC is even considering the use of one-megaton bombs, which would explode at a 300-meter altitude above a given battlefield, wreaking 70 times more damage than the Hiroshima bomb!
The very fact that such options are not only being considered, but even being leaked to the public highlights just how irresponsible American leaders have become, intoxicated by their own militarism. Considering how inept American ground troops are at waging battle, this militarism is all the more callous and immoderate. The Democratic opposition has objected to the project, which, they say, robs the USA of yet another portion of its international credibility. These Democrats also feel that the Pentagon holds sway over the US foreign affairs ministry.12
A Global Coup Page 27