4/10 U.S. LONG WAR Long in the Making: Political Smoking Guns, part 3

"this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' [GWOT]. Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation
25 Mar 2009 Obama admin.
GWOT/ Long War / Overseas Contingency Operation

"When we refer to the long war, that is the war against terrorist extremists and the ideology that feeds it, and that is something that we see going on for decades."
America's Long War
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/15/politics.usa1/print
Last week US defence chiefs unveiled their plan for battling global Islamist extremism. They envisage a conflict fought in dozens of countries and for decades to come.
The message from General Peter Pace, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, was apocalyptic. "We are at a critical time in the history of this great country and find ourselves challenged in ways we did not expect. We face a ruthless enemy intent on destroying our way of life and an uncertain future."
Gen Pace was endorsing the Pentagon's four-yearly strategy review, presented to Congress last week. The report sets out a plan for prosecuting what the the Pentagon describes in the preface as "The Long War", which replaces the "war on terror". The long war represents more than just a linguistic shift: it reflects the ongoing development of US strategic thinking since the September 11 attacks.
Looking beyond Iraq and Afghan battlefields, US commanders envisage a war unlimited in time and space against global Islamist extremism. "The struggle ... may well be fought in dozens of other countries simultaneously and for many years to come," the report says. The emphasis switches from large-scale, conventional military operations, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, towards a rapid deployment of highly mobile, often covert, counter-terrorist forces.
Among specific measures proposed are: an increase in special operations forces by 15%; an extra 3,700 personnel in psychological operations and civil affairs units - an increase of 33%; nearly double the number of unmanned aerial drones; the conversion of submarine-launched Trident nuclear missiles for use in conventional strikes; new close-to-shore, high-speed naval capabilities; special teams trained to detect and render safe nuclear weapons quickly anywhere in the world; and a new long-range bomber force.

The Pentagon does not pinpoint the countries it sees as future areas of operations but they will stretch beyond the Middle East to the Horn of Africa, north Africa, central and south-east Asia and the northern Caucasus.

The cold war dominated the world from 1946 to 1991: the long war could determine the shape of the world for decades to come. The plan rests heavily on a much higher level of cooperation and integration with Britain and other Nato allies, and the increased recruitment of regional governments through the use of economic, political, military and security means. It calls on allies to build their capacity "to share the risks and responsibilities of today's complex challenges".

The Pentagon must become adept at working with interior ministries as well as defence ministries, the report says. It describes this as "a substantial shift in emphasis that demands broader and more flexible legal authorities and cooperative mechanisms ... Bringing all the elements of US power to bear to win the long war requires overhauling traditional foreign assistance and export control activities and laws."...As well as big expenditure projects, the report calls for: investments in signals and human intelligence gathering - spies on the ground; funding for the Nato intelligence fusion centre; increased space radar capability; the expansion of the global information grid (a protected information network); and an information-sharing strategy "to guide operations with federal, state, local and coalition partners". A push will also be made to improve forces' linguistic skills, with an emphasis on Arabic, Chinese and Farsi.

The US plan, developed by military and civilian staff at the Pentagon in concert with other branches of the US government, will raise concerns about exacerbating the "clash of civilisations" and about the respect accorded to international law and human rights. To wage the long war, the report urges Congress to grant the Pentagon and its agencies expanded permanent legal authority of the kind used in Iraq, which may give US commanders greatly extended powers.

"Long duration, complex operations involving the US military, other government agencies and international partners will be waged simultaneously in multiple countries round the world, relying on a combination of direct (visible) and indirect (clandestine) approaches," the report says. "Above all they will require persistent surveillance and vastly better intelligence to locate enemy capabilities and personnel. They will also require global mobility, rapid strike, sustained unconventional warfare, foreign internal defence, counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency capabilities. Maintaining a long-term, low-visibility presence in many areas of the world where US forces do not traditionally operate will be required."

"The US will work to ensure that all major and emerging powers are integrated as constructive actors and stakeholders into the international system. It will also seek to ensure that no foreign power can dictate the terms of regional or global security.

"It will attempt to dissuade any military competitor from developing disruptive capabilities that could enable regional hegemony or hostile action against the US and friendly countries."

Briefing reporters in Washington, Ryan Henry, a Pentagon policy official, said: "When we refer to the long war, that is the war against terrorist extremists and the ideology that feeds it, and that is something that we see going on for decades." He added that the strategy was aimed at responding to the "uncertainty and unpredictability" of this conflict. "We in the defence department feel fairly confident that our forces will be called on to be engaged somewhere in the world in the next decade where they're currently not engaged, but we have no idea whatsoever where that might be, when that might be or in what circumstances that they might be engaged.
"We realise that almost in all circumstances others will be able to do the job less expensively than we can because we tend to have a very cost-intensive force. But many times they'll be able to do it more effectively too because they'll understand the local language, the local customs, they'll be culturally adept and be able to get things accomplished that we can't do. So building a partnership capability is a critical lesson learned.

"The operational realm for that will not necessarily be Afghanistan and Iraq; rather, that there are large swaths of the world that that's involved in and we are engaged today. We are engaged in things in the Philippines, in the Horn of Africa. There are issues in the pan-Sahel region of north Africa. "There's a number of different places where there are activities where terrorist elements are out there and that we need to counter them, we need to be able to attack and disrupt their networks."...

War declared on resistance
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/06/1068013331454.html
The Los Angeles Times has ordered its journalists to stop describing anti-American forces in Iraq as resistance fighters, saying the term romanticises them and evokes World War II-era heroism. An email circulated this week asked staff to instead use the terms insurgents or guerillas.

CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN CIA Red Cell A Red Cell Special
This memo was prepared by the CIA Red Cell, which has been charged by the Director of Intelligence with taking a pronounced "out-of-the-box" approach that will provoke thought and offer an alternative viewpoint on the full range of analytic issues. Comments and queries are welcome and may be directed to the CIA Red Cell at (703) 482-6918 / 482-0169 or 44462/50127, secure. (C)
Memorandum 11 March 2010
CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN//20350303
Afghanistan: Sustaining West European Support for the NATO-led Mission—Why Counting on Apathy Might Not Be Enough (C//NF)
The fall of the Dutch Government over its troop commitment to Afghanistan demonstrates the fragility of European support for the NATO-led ISAF mission. Some NATO states, notably France and Germany, have counted on public apathy about Afghanistan to increase their contributions to the mission, but indifference might turn into active hostility if spring and summer fighting results in an upsurge in military or Afghan civilian casualties and if a Dutch- style debate spills over into other states contributing troops. The Red Cell invited a CIA expert on strategic communication and analysts following public opinion at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) to consider information approaches that might better link the Afghan mission to the priorities of French, German, and other Western European publics. (C//NF) Public Apathy Enables Leaders To Ignore Voters. . . (C//NF) ...

Tailoring Messaging Could Forestall or At Least Contain Backlash (C//NF)
Western European publics might be better prepared to tolerate a spring and summer of greater military and civilian casualties if they perceive clear connections between outcomes
in Afghanistan and their own priorities. A consistent and iterative strategic communication program across NATO troop contributors that taps into the key concerns of specific Western
European audiences could provide a buffer if today’s apathy becomes tomorrow’s opposition to ISAF, giving politicians greater scope to support deployments to Afghanistan. (C//NF)

Appeals by President Obama and Afghan Women Might Gain Traction (C//NF)
The confidence of the French and German publics in President Obama’s ability to handle foreign affairs in general and Afghanistan in particular suggest that they would be receptive
to his direct affirmation of their importance to the ISAF mission—and sensitive to direct expressions of disappointment in allies who do not help.1

French Focused On Civilians and Refugees.
The media controversy generated by Paris’s decision to expel 12 Afghan refugees in late 2009 suggests that stories about the plight of Afghan refugees are likely to resonate with French audiences. The French government has already made combating Afghan human trafficking networks a priority and would probably support an information campaign that a NATO defeat in Afghanistan could precipitate a refugee crisis. (C//NF)

Germans Worried About Price And Principle Of ISAF Mission.
Messages that dramatize the consequences of a NATO defeat for specific German interests could counter the widely held perception that Afghanistan is not Germany’s problem.
For example, messages that illustrate how a defeat in Afghanistan could heighten Germany’s exposure to terrorism, opium, and refugees might help to make the war more salient to skeptics.

"Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization."
Z. Brzezinski. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997

Obama Puts Out a Contract Hit: Murder is the New Torture
By David Swanson
...murder seems to be advancing in the U.S. toolkit as a replacement for torture. Both tools, murder and torture, produce exactly the same amount of useful intelligence. Both tools scare the hell out of people abroad and at home. Both tools serve to teach a domestic audience that certain types of people are not fully people and cannot be dealt with humanely. Both tools help to advance the further stripping away of civil liberties through fear and terror. The goals of torture that the CIA has advanced for decades of eliminating a person's entire consciousness and identity, the mission of placing barbarians completely under control of the empire, what accomplishes this better than murder?...http://www.uruknet.de/?p=64915

"If war aims are stated which seem to be solely concerned with Anglo-American imperialism, they will offer little to people in the rest of the world. The interests of other peoples should be stressed. This would have a better propaganda effect."
- Private memo from The Council of Foreign Relations to the US State Department, 1941
http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/contemporary/0013.htm

U.S. Human Rights and Democracy Strategy
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/shrd/2006/80584.htm
Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs > Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
Guiding Principles on Non-Governmental Organizations/NGOs
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/77771.htm

"We have about 60 per cent of the world's wealth but only 6.3 percent of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."
George Kennan, ex-US State Department Policy Planning Staff Chief, Document PPS23, 24 February 1948

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
David Rockefeller, 1994 Statement to United Nations Business Council

Over 1,300,000Iraqis Slaughtered in U.S. Invaded and Occupation of Iraq
www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html
April 11 Iraqis rally on 7th anniversary of US occupation: trample American, British and Israeli flags, call for an end to occupation by foreign troops and military contractors
http://presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=122858&sectionid=351020201

“In brief, the U.S policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change...”
-Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997

"The financial crisis drives home to other nations that 'without an America that is successful financially, economically and therefore also politically, they're not going to be successful"
Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, now Obama team 'consultant'

Constant Conflict
US Army War College Quarterly, Parameters
There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/97summer/peters.htm

Blood borders: How a better Middle East would look
By Ralph Peters, Armed Forces Journal - Military
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899

2000 Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century
"At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible."
http://www.manifestor.org/imperium/archive/PNAC.html

2005 U.S. Command Declares Global Strike Capability
By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire, 12-02-05
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_12_2.html#FB378486
WASHINGTON — STRATCOM, The U.S. Strategic Command announced yesterday it had achieved an operational capability, including the so-called CONPLAN 8022 mission for a global strike, for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons, after last month testing its capacity for nuclear war against a fictional country believed to represent North Korea (see GSN, Oct. 21). CONPLAN 8022 is “a new strike plan that includes [a] pre-emptive nuclear strike against weapons of mass destruction facilities anywhere in the world,” said Hans Kristensen, a consultant for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Kristensen first published the STRATCOM press release on his Web site, nukestrat.com.The new command was created Aug. 9 in an attempt to integrate broad elements of U.S. military power into global strike plans and operations... That, according to William Arkin in the Washington Post in May, could include anything from electronic jamming to penetrating computer networks, to commando operations, to the use of a nuclear earth penetrator. CONPLAN 8022, he wrote, is intended to address two scenarios using such capabilities: preventing a suspected imminent nuclear attack from a small state, and attacking an adversary’s suspected WMD infrastructure. According to Arkin’s article CONPLAN 8022 was completed in 2003, “putting in place for the first time a pre-emptive and offensive strike capability

CONPLAN 8022 Preemption Strike Plan - conventional and nuclear weapons) now merged with the main U.S. strategic war plan
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/07/globalstrike.php

"Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership"
...What the Western allies face is a long, sustained and proactive defence of their societies and way of life. To that end, they must keep risks at a distance, while at the same time protecting their homelands. International terrorism today aims to disrupt and destroy our societies, our economies and our way of life. ...
The NATO sponsored report entitled “Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership". calls for a first strike use of nuclear weapons. The preemptive use of nukes would also be used to undermine an "increasingly brutal World" as well as a means to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction:
"They [the authors of the report] consider that nuclear war might soon become possible in an increasingly brutal world. They propose the first use of nuclear weapons must remain "in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction". (Paul Dibb, Sidney Morning Herald, 11 February 2008)
Group report by former chiefs of staff General John Shalikashvili, (US), General Klaus Naumann (Germany), Field Marshal Lord Inge (UK), Admiral Jacques Lanxade (France) and Henk van den Breemen (The Netherlands), published by the Netherlands based Noaber Foundation, December 2007
The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine: Trigger a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust to Defend "The Western Way of Life"by Michel Chossudovsky
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8048
February 11, 2008

"U.S. Army document describes Israel as 'a nuclear power'"
Joint Operational Environment 2008 (JOE 2008) departed from the norm in U.S. Government documents by identifying Israel as a nuclear weapons state.
Ha'aretz, March 8.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1069303.html

2009 Department of Defense Minerva Research Initiative
http://www.arl.army.mil/www/DownloadedInternetPages/CurrentPages/DoingBu...
The Minerva Research Initiative is a DoD-sponsored, university-based social science research program initiated by the Secretary of Defense. It focuses on areas of strategic importance to U.S. national security policy to increase the Department’s intellectual capital in the social sciences and improve its ability to address future challenges and build bridges between the Department and the social science community. Minerva will bring together universities, research institutions, and individual scholars and support multidisciplinary and cross-institutional projects addressing specific topic areas determined by the Department of Defense

FBI Department of Precrime
An Electronic Frontier Foundation report reveals the breadth and scope of domestic surveillance …
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/the-fbis-department-of-precrime/

US needs 'digital warfare force'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8033440.stm
May 5, 2009
Lt Gen Keith Alexander, who also heads the Pentagon's new Cyber Command, outlined his views in a report for the House Armed Services subcommittee....he stated that the US needed to reorganise its offensive and defensive cyber operations.... Peter Wood, operations chief with First Base Technologies and an expert in cyber-warfare, said "The Chinese are viewed as the source of a great many attacks on western infrastructure and, just recently, the US national grid. If that is determined to be an organised attack, I would want to go and take down the source of those attacks...The only problem is that the internet - by its very nature - has no borders and if the US takes on the mantle of the world's police; that might not go down so well."

Establishment of a Subordinate Unified U.S. Cyber Command Under U.S. Strategic Command for Military Cyberspace Operations
http://www.govexec.com/nextgov/0609/gates_cybercommand_memo.pdf
June 23, 2009

The new P2P initiative
Government and industry need to pool cyber threat intelligence
http://defensesystems.com/Articles/2010/03/11/Digital-Conflict-New-P2P-I...
The recent events and media attention centered on cyberattacks on Google and 33 other organizations, which include defense contractors, are clear indicators that cyber defense, security and intelligence must be increased and based on a foundation of cooperation and collaboration between the public and private sectors. It is clear that cyber intelligence must become an integrated, proactive component of cyber defense not only in the government and military sectors but also in the private sector.The government, law enforcement, military and intelligence community must combine and work collaboratively with business, industry and technology leaders to share threat intelligence and other critical information needed to become proactive...A common shared cyber intelligence repository that allows both sides to contribute must be constructed to facilitate this tightly coupled pairing of the private and public sectors. In addition to becoming proactive and increasing cyber defenses, we also need to create an international cyber deterrence treaty with teeth. Although the State Department lodged a formal complaint against China regarding the cyberattacks that struck Google... this is clearly not enough....

Google-China spat elevates cybersecurity to foreign policy priority
By Ben Bai Feb 04, 2010
fcw.com/Articles/2010/02/08/HOMEPAGE-Cybersecurity-State-China-Google-Internet.aspx

Google and NSA partner to ward off cyberattacks
The world's largest Internet search company and the world's most powerful electronic surveillance organization are teaming up in the name of cybersecurity...
"The critical question is: At what level will the American public be comfortable with Google sharing information with NSA?" said Ellen McCarthy, president of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, an organization of current and former intelligence and national security officials that seeks ways to foster greater sharing of information between government and industry.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020304057...

Microsoft to issue IE patch for Google attack flaw
January 19, 2010
Microsoft will take the unusual step of issuing an out-of-cycle patch for the Internet Explorer flaw thought to have been central to the cyberattacks against Google and other companies. The vulnerability at issue in the cyberattacks that have prompted a showdown between Google and China affects versions 6, 7, and 8 of Internet Explorer, although Microsoft said that attacks have only been successful on systems running IE 6. The company advised IE users to upgrade to Internet Explorer 8 to protect themselves against attacks. The news comes after researchers from Vupen Security reported that technology designed to mitigate attacks in newer versions of IE can be bypassed.

U.S. government taps Facebook, Google, MTV to "Fight Terrorism
Global Research, November 28, 2008
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11198

New IDF unit to fight enemies on Facebook, Twitter
http://www.uruknet.de/?s1=1&p=60661&s2=02
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1131918.html
December 1, 2009

U.S. CERT: NATO unites to thwart cyber threats
Alliance strives to balance open communications and network protection
http://defensesystems.com/articles/2010/04/06/cyber-defense-nato.aspx
...“There is tension in the world of cyber between the desire for openness and the very legitimate policy concerns to protect our networks...All of us in the uniformed services today are wrestling with this. In other words, we want to be on Facebook, we want to be on Twitter, but on the other hand, we want to protect our networks. So finding that balance, dialing it in, is critically important.” The balance of open, strategic social connections and network protection must exist at three levels: between national governments and militaries, among agencies within countries, and between private-sector companies and governments. On the international side, NATO has taken a first step by setting up the Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence, based in Estonia. On the interagency side... Homeland Security Department at the top of the list.... an interagency architecture [model] is the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team. As part of DHS, U.S. CERT defends against cyberattacks that target federal government networks. It interacts directly with federal agencies, bringing them together with state and local organizations, research institutions and industry.

Permanent Presence for the Persistent Conflict: An Alternative Look at the Future of Special Forces
Authors: Christopher D Pratt; NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY CA
http://www.stormingmedia.us/92/9251/A925105.html
Abstract: This thesis addresses two questions: (1) What is the future role for Special Forces in the Long War Strategy, and (2) How will the roles and missions of Special Forces have a strategic impact in the current fight and in future endeavors? ...
The roles and posture of Special Forces would change, but their seven primary missions would remain the same. If the United States needs to move forward with a smaller footprint, forward-deployed Special Forces groups would give it a permanent global posture of strategic significance -- and one that would certainly help it prosecute the Long War more effectively. Two Special Forces groups are placed under the microscope to examine how they would deploy into three target countries within their Area of Responsibility (AOR): 3rd Special Forces group into Nigeria, Botswana, and Ethiopia; and 7th Special Forces group into Brazil, Peru, and Paraguay.
Storming Media is a private reseller of Pentagon and other US federal government reports about science, technology, policy and military strategy. http://www.stormingmedia.us/aboutus.html

A Strategy of Tactics: Population-centric COIN and the Army
Authors: Gian P Gentile; ARMY WAR COLL CARLISLE BARRACKS PA
http://www.stormingmedia.us/72/7240/A724015.html
Abstract: Population-centric counterinsurgency (COIN) has become the American Army's new way of war. The principles and ideas that emerged out of the Army's counterinsurgency field manual (FM), FM 3-24, published in late 2006, have become transcendent. The field manual has moved beyond simple Army doctrine for countering insurgencies to become the defining characteristic of the Army's new way of war. In the American Army today, everyone is a counterinsurgent. It is easy to find examples of FM 3-24's permeating effect in other Army doctrinal manuals such as FM 3-0, Operations, and FM 3-07, Stability Operations.

The Threats of the Long War.
Lieutenant General David H. Petraeus Commander, Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
Military Review, Volume LXXXVI January-February 2006, No. 1
Our thinking enemies have studied our strengths and weaknesses and adapted their tactics to inflict maximum harm on our society. Those who have faced the US in conventional, interstate combat (Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan under the Taliban and Iraq under Saddam Hussein) have suffered defeat in days or weeks. However, those who fight the US using insurgent
tactics (Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia and the insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq) have fared far better.

The stark contrast between the 1991 Gulf War and the current war in Iraq clearly demonstrates this dichotomy. In 1991, we destroyed the world's fourth largest Army in 100 hours of ground combat. In 2006, we have spent three years, thousands of lives and billions of dollars to stabilize Iraq, yet our insurgent enemies remain a dangerous and capable force.

A thinking enemy has a better chance of exhausting our political will through a protracted insurgency than to defeat our military through conventional combat. Insurgent tactics negate our asymmetric advantages in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and precision fires by using innocent civilians as cover and concealment and the media as strategic "fires." By hiding "in plain sight" among innocent civilians, insurgents maintain their freedom to maneuver. Insurgents rarely mass or defend terrain. Instead, they seek to discredit and demoralize
free societies and societies who aspire to freedom by terrorizing innocent civilians. (1)

For the foreseeable future, the least likely form of combat our forces will face is conventional interstate combat with a major military power. China, Russia, India and Pakistan all have nuclear weapons, and North Korea and Iran are determined to acquire them at any cost. A small but secure nuclear arsenal is capable of deterring an attack by even the most capable conventional force. Simply put, nuclear weapons make their possessors virtually invulnerable to invasion and regime change. (2) [...]
The FA in the long war: a new mission in COIN.

Kissinger Calls For New International System Out Of World Crisis
Global Research, December 21, 2008
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11467
Speaking with Charlie Rose January 18, 2005, Kissinger cited the chaos being wrought across the globe by the financial crisis and the spread of terrorism as an opportunity to bolster a new global order. “I think that when the new administration assess the position in which it finds itself it will see a huge crisis and terrible problems, but I can see that it could see a glimmer in which it could construct an international system out of it... converting the whole world to our political philosophy. I don’t think that can be done in one or two terms of an administration. That is an historic process that has its own rhythm...The jihadist crisis is bringing it home to everybody, that international affairs cannot be conducted entirely by drawing borders and defining international politics by who crosses what borders with organized military force....This has now been reinforced by the financial crisis, which totally unexpectedly has spread around the world. It limits the resources that each country has for a foreign policy geared to an assertion of its own pure interests.” ...

Kissinger: Obama primed to create a 'New World Order'
Dec. 2008 Kissinger on Charlie Rose: "You have India, Pakistan; you have the jihadist movement. So he can't really say there is one problem, that it's the most important one. But he can give new impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It's a great opportunity, it isn't just a crisis.... his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period, when really a "New World Order" can be created. It's a great opportunity. It isn't such a crisis.... The jihadist crisis is bringing home to everybody, that international affairs cannot be conducted entirely by drawing borders and defining international politics by who crosses what borders with organized military force...This has now been reinforced by the financial crisis, which... has spread around the world. It limits the resources each country has for a foreign policy geared to an assertion of its own interests."
aired on CNBC on Jan. 5, 2009. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Henry_Kissinger_Obama_should_act_to_0106.h...

"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy"
Henry Kissinger http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Military

"I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger "
Obama Administration National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/jones_munich_conferenc...

United States military spending is greater that the military budgets of every other nation on the planet combined.
someone's gotta pay for the predators' wars to rule the world and humanity

FINANCIAL SECTOR BAILOUT COST TAXPAYERS: $4.6 TRILLION 2007-2008
http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/2/27/CMD_Bailout_Press_Release_April_2...
www.SourceWatch.org,

2010 QDR and FY 2011 Defense Budget Analysis
WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 1, 2010
The Obama Administration's 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 budget request sent to Congress today illustrate the challenge of matching vision to reality, according to a new CNAS policy brief released today titled
Vision Meets Reality: 2010 QDR and 2011 Defense Budget.

QDR: 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review
China, Iran Focus of U.S. Air-Sea Battle Plan
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-31/china-iran-prompt-u-s-air-se...
Bloomberg News February 1, 2010
This is truly a wartime QDR, Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote in a cover letter for the report....
Two-War Capability. The review deemphasizes but does not abandon the Pentagon doctrine that calls for the military to be able to fight two major wars nearly simultaneously. It acknowledges this mission but says planning should focus more closely on other scenarios, such as irregular warfare including conflicts involving insurgents or drug traffickers and even humanitarian disasters.In the mid- to long-term, U.S. military forces must plan and prepare to prevail in a broad range of operations that may occur in multiple theaters in overlapping time frames, the Defense Department says in the review. This includes maintaining the ability to prevail against two capable nation-state aggressors, it states.

Alluding to China in his cover letter, Gates cites longer- term threats such as the military modernization programs of other countries. U.S. officials have often called on their Chinese counterparts to provide explanations and assurances that their moves are purely defensive. The two countries resumed military talks last June, then China halted visits again over the Defense Department Jan. 29 announcement of a new arms sale to Taiwan.
China is developing and deploying large numbers of advanced missiles, new attack submarines, long-range air defense systems and capabilities to wage electronic warfare and target computer systems, according to the report, which echoes an assessment of China's military power issued almost a year ago. China's refusal to provide adequate assurances of its intentions raises “a number of legitimate questions regarding its long-term intentions the Pentagon says in the review. Citing more complex security conditions in the region, including North Korea and terrorist threats in Southeast Asia, the review calls for a more widely distributed and flexible U.S. presence in Asia that relies more on allies. Partners would include Australia, Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam. [...]

US starts war games in Pacific
01 Feb 2010
The US launches "Cobra Gold" its largest military exercise in the Pacific in cooperation with Thailand, Japan, Indonesia and Singapore with South Korea..to run until February 11... coincides with Washington's clandestine steps to increase the capability of land-based Patriot missiles on the territory of some of its Arab allies in the Persian Gulf region. Military officials speaking to media on condition of anonymity revealed the US Navy is also upgrading the presence of ships capable of intercepting missiles in the Persian Gulf.

UPDATE 1-US missile test mimicking Iran strike fails
Mon Feb 1, 2010
Radar system malfunctioned in test over Pacific

U.S. steps up arms sales to Persian Gulf allies
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/30/AR201001...
...In interviews in three Middle Eastern countries, political leaders and analysts said they fear that a nuclear-capable Iran will become the dominant regional power, able to intimidate its neighbors without fear of retaliation. Nearly all the Gulf countries have sizable Shiite Muslim populations with ties to Iran, and some analysts warned that Tehran may try to use these to stir up unrest and possibly even topple pro-Western governments. "Nuclear weapons are probably most useful to Iran as a deterrent against attack by others, but beyond that, it's all about the swagger and mystique rather than the weapons system," said Nabil Fahmy, a former Egyptian ambassador to the United States. "I can't see Iran using such weapons, but they could become much more provocative."... ICH http://snipurl.com/u8k04

U.S. accelerates missile defenses in Persian Gulf
By Haaretz Service and The Associated Press
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1146200.html
The United States is expediting the deployment of missile defenses against Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, the New York Times reported on Saturday.
U.S. President Barack Obama recently decided to speed up the deployment of defense systems, placing special ships off the Persian Gulf and missile defense systems in Arab states such as Qatar, the U.A.E., Bahrain, and Kuwait. (all emphases added by the digest) In light of destabilized relations with China, the Obama administration is taking practical steps to prepare for the increasingly pressing crisis with Iran...

2-7-10 Extreme War Measures Guarantee Further Defeat: part 1
Hillary Clinton’s Speech 1/29/10 on Future of European Security
http://www.voltairenet.org/article163782.html
...The United States, too, has also been studying ways to strengthen European security and, therefore our own security, and to extend it to foster security on a global scale. Today, I’d like to discuss the core principles that guide the United States today as we consider the future of European security and our role in shaping, strengthening, and sustaining it. But first, let me address some questions raised in recent months about the depth of the United States commitment to European security. Some wonder whether we understand the urgent need to improve security in Europe. Others have voiced concern that the Obama Administration is so focused on foreign policy challenges elsewhere in the world that Europe has receded in our list of priorities. Well, in fact, European security remains an anchor of U.S. foreign and security policy. A strong Europe is critical to our security and our prosperity...
Human rights and universal values, shared as part of our common history between Europe and the United States, must always be a cornerstone of our security efforts, because if Europe is not secure, Europe cannot lead. And we need European leadership in the 21st century.

But European security is far more than a strategic interest of my country. It is also an expression of our values. We stand with Europe today, as we have stood with Europe for decades, because enduring bonds connect our nations and our peoples. We are united by an understanding of the importance of liberty and freedom. We have fought and died for each other’s liberty and freedom. These are ties that cannot and never should be broken. And we seek both to venerate and reinforce them by helping to maintain peace and security in Europe, today and all the tomorrows to come.

But as we move forward, a set of core principles will guide us in our approach and in our joint effort. First, the cornerstone of security is the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states. Much of the suffering that occurred in Europe during the 20th century emanated from a failure to respect borders or to honor the right of all nations to pursue their own foreign policies, choose their own allies, and provide for their own self-defense. These are fundamental rights of free nations and must and will remain vigilant in our efforts to oppose any attempt to undermine them....

So that brings us to our second principle: Security in Europe must be indivisible. For too long, the public discourse around Europe’s security has been fixed on geographical and political divides. Some have looked at the continent even now and seen Western and Eastern Europe, old and new Europe, NATO and non-NATO Europe, EU and non-EU Europe. The reality is that there are not many Europes; there is only one Europe. And it is a Europe that includes the United States as its partner.

Third, we will maintain an unwavering commitment to the pledge enshrined in Article 5 of the NATO treaty that an attack on one is an attack on all... As proof of that commitment, we will continue to station American troops in Europe, both to deter attacks and respond quickly if any occur. We are working with our allies to ensure that NATO has the plans it needs for responding to new and evolving contingencies. We are engaged in productive discussions with our European allies about building a new missile defense architecture that will defend all of NATO territory against ballistic missile attack. And we are serious about exploring ways to cooperate with Russia to develop missile defenses that enhance the security of all of Europe, including Russia. Missile defense, we believe, will make this continent a safer place. That safety could extend to Russia, if Russia decides to cooperate with us. It is an extraordinary opportunity for us to work together to build our mutual security...

Our work extends beyond Europe as well. With the EU, we are fighting poverty and strengthening institutions in Yemen, Haiti, and Pakistan, among others. With NATO and other European partners, we’re working side by side to encourage accountable, effective governments
in Afghanistan. European and American voices speak as one to denounce the gross violations of human rights in Iran. European and American governments and non-governmental actors operate together and in parallel to promote economic and democratic development in Africa...

This partnership is about so much more than strengthening our security. At its core, it is about defending and advancing our values in the world. I think it is particularly critical today that we not only defend those values in the world. I think it is particularly critical today that we not only defend those values, but promote them; that we are not only on defense, but on offense. There is so much that the West has to be proud of and to lay a claim to. We believe and we have the evidence to prove it that democracy works and can deliver for citizens if leaders are committed to the enterprise, and if democracies are about more than just elections; if we build institutions of independent judiciaries and free media and protection of minority rights and so much else, that we have worked and labored to create. We are closer than ever to achieving the goal that has inspired European and American leaders and citizens – not only a Europe transformed, secure, democratic, unified and prosperous, but a Euro-Atlantic alliance that is greater than the sum of its parts, that stands for these values that have stood the test of time, and worked strategically to move toward a vision that may need to be updated and modernized, but is timely. The United States is honored to stand by your side as we take the next steps towards fulfilling that vision.

Enduring Alliances Empower America's Long-War Strategy
Published on June 15, 2007 by James Carafano, Ph.D. and Sally McNamara
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/06/Enduring-Alliances-Empo...
That traditional alliances have re-emerged as an important element of statecraft should come as no surprise. "Alliances always presume a specific adversary," wrote Kissinger, unlike collective security, which "defends international law in the abstract." Unlike coalitions of the willing, an alliance produces an "obligation more predictable and precise than an analysis of national interest."[14] In other words, when facing real dangers, nations turn to other nations with which they share trust, confidence, and a common view of what needs to done. The dangers of transnational terrorism, nuclear and ballistic missile proliferation, and the emergence of potential regional hegemons that demonstrate a propensity to take power by force have served as catalysts for renewed interest in establishing enduring alliances as a hedge against the emerging threats of the 21st century.
Since most national security threats today are international in character, U.S. alliance-building skills are more important than ever. Yet the talents and instruments used to build enduring alliances during the Cold War have become rusty at best. In part, this has happened because of efforts to thwart U.S. policies by attempting to undermine America's legitimate efforts to exercise sovereignty and act in its own interests as it sees fit. Some analysts call this "lawfare," misusing or reinterpreting laws to make American actions appear illegitimate in the eyes of the world.[15] In some cases, America's difficulty in sustaining traditional allies and nurturing new alliances reflects failures of public diplomacy that poorly articulate and defend U.S. goals and actions.[16] In large part, however, America has been without a serious, deliberate strategy that employs all the elements of national power to build enduring alliances.

Learning from the Special Relationship with Great Britain
As Douglas Johnson explains, "The two nations are very closely related by blood and philosophy."[18] Shared Values. Ultimately, the Special Relationship is special because the shared values and common interests that bind the two countries reach far beyond the philosophical utopia prefacing speeches by European Union (EU) elites dreaming of a European superstate. The common political, diplomatic, historical, and cultural values shared between Americans and Britons actually mean something. Further still, Britain and America are prepared to defend these values--with military force if necessary. Common values really mean something only if both parties are ready to defend them....

NATO Allies in Europe Must Do More in Afghanistan
President Barack Obama recently announced a new strategy to lead the 43-nation NATO International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan to victory...
http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Alliances

digest commentary:
BY ANY NAME U.S. IMPERIALIST WORLD WAR FOR GLOBAL DOMINATION AGAINST MAJOR RIVALS AND ALL RESISTANCE

REALITY REVEALS U.S. PROPAGANDA
U.S. IMPERIALIST SURVIVAL: 24 TRILLION WRUNG BY WAR ON WORKING PEOPLE WORLDWIDE TO FINANCE FURTHER EXPANSION CAPITALISM'S 'LONG WAR'
THE REALITY OF CAPITALIST STATE POWER, BEING GLOBALLY RESTRUCTURED AND CONCENTRATED IN FEWER HANDS, AT UNBEARABLY CRUEL COSTS TO THE MAJORITY OF HUMAN BEINGS - OFTEN IN THE NAME OF 'HUMANITARIAN AID'. INCREASING MASS DESPERATION AND ANGER THREATENING MASS REBELLION EVEN IN THIS PACIFIED 'HOMELAND', DEMANDS AN EVER-EXPANDING POLICE STATE SOLD AS 'NATIONAL SECURITY' AS THOUGH THERE'S A THREAT TO ANYTHING BUT THE U.S. CAPITALIST STATE ITSELF. . THIS SHIFT FROM BOURGEOIS DEMOCRATIC MODE TO 'FRIENDLY FASCIST FACE' CAPITALIST MODE REVEALING SYSTEMIC, STRATEGIC WEAKNESS BECAUSE AS LENIN ANALYZED IN STATE AND REVOLUTION, LIBERAL DEMOCRACY IS THE BEST SHELL FOR THE DICTATORSHIP OF CAPITAL.

STATE TERROR, DRIVEN BY AND DEPENDENT UPON RACIST IDEOLOGY, THE PILLAR OF AMERIKA'S MANIFEST DESTINY, IS NECESSARY FOR GLOBAL SUPREMACY BASED ON GENOCIDA OPPRESSION OF PEOPLES & NATIONS ON WHOSE LABOR, LAND AND LIVES AMERIKA, AND NOW ITS GLOBAL EMPIRE, IS BASED.

SPECULATIVE, NON-PRODUCTIVE, FINANCE CAPITAL CANNOT MAXIMIZE GLOBAL CAPITAL ACCUMULATION WITHOUT A NEW WORLD WAR TO CONQUER BOTH ITS CAPITALIST RIVALS AND MASS RESISTANCE CALLED 'TERRORISM' THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR / THE LONG WAR / OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS, IS AN IMPERIALIST WORLD WAR AGAINST ANY/ALL OBSTACLES. THWARTED BY ANTI-IMPERIALIST 'TERRORISTS', IT SURVIVES ONLY BY EXPANDING ITS KILLER POLITICAL-ECONOMIC-MILITARY DOMINATION, INCREASINGLY WRAPPED IN 'SOFT POWER', DELIVERING DEADLY DEGRADATION AND DESTRUCTION ... AND FINALLY, AS MARX SAID, PRODUCING NOTHING BUT ITS OWN GRAVEDIGGERS WHO WILL FORGE A REVOLUTIONARY NEW SYSTEM AND FUTURE... THE REAL OPPORTUNITY AND NECESSITY FACING US.