|
Edited on Sat May-28-05 01:49 AM by Dover
sense, and all their actions can be placed within a broader context now that I've read that Military Industrial Complex article. They are dedicated to a unilateral power, and will not accept any "outside" interference. Here's an excerpt that spells out the two conflicting groups among elites, the Hegemonists (neocons/realists) and the Globalists (most Dems), while the military complex contains both groups and has a big internal struggle going on:
Think the globalist view has proven to be the most accurate:
This globalist approach is also evident at the Army's War College
where they defined a strategic community of “stakeholders” that not only
includes the E.U. and many third world partners but also potential rivals
such as China, Russia and India. For military globalists security goes
beyond the war machine to a broader application of power. As one paper
argues, “The political and socio-cultural elements would help create
conditions for long-term peace and stability by strengthening democratic
institutions worldwide, by advancing human rights, and by responding to
humanitarian crisis.” (Wass de Czege, 2001, 14)
Under this policy unilateralism is a dangerous self-isolating strategy.
Writing for the NDU Kugler states that “any attempt by the United States
to act unilaterally would both overstretch its resources and brand it an
unwelcome hegemonic superpower.” (Kugler, 2000a, 23) Another study at
the Army’s War College warns that “Third World perceptions that the
United States wants to retain its hegemony by enforcing the status quo at
all costs (will encourage) much cynicism about American ideals at home
and abroad.” (Crane, 2002, 24) Military strategists at both these institutes
argued the strongest guarantee for world stability is multilateral civic and
military engagement. As Kugler explains, “the best hope for the future is a
global partnership between (the E.U. and U.S.) acting as leaders of the
democratic community.” (Kugler, 2000c, 19)
This globalist strategy was strongly promoted during the Clinton
years but never fully supported within the military. Nevertheless
hegemonists lacked a strategic rival enemy to focus their thinking and
goals. While globalists put forward a dynamic and proactive engagement
policy set inside a new grand strategy for global capitalist penetration and
stability, hegemonists opposed nation building as going beyond the
traditional military role and involved with non-essential global interests. As
one military strategist argued, the “armed forces (should) focus
exclusively on indisputable military duties” and “not diffuse our energies
away from our fundamental responsibilities for war fighting.” (Dunlap,
1996, 6) In more blunt terms Samuel Huntington wrote, “A military force
is fundamentally antihumanitarian: its purpose is to kill people in the most
efficient way possible.” (Huntington, 1993a, 43)
12
Maintaining this correct use of the military was central to the
arguement put forward by geopolitical realists like Secretary of State Colin
Powell and National Security Advisor Dr. Condolezza Rice. As Rice
explained before 9-11; “The president must remember that the military is a
special instrument. It is lethal and it is meant to be.
It is not a civilian
police force. It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not
designed to build a civilian society.” (Harding, 2003)
Well, that explains why Powell chose to position himself in Bush's corner...
This opposition to globalism backed the hegemonists into a
cautious defensive position that called for less foreign intervention limited
only to regions of vital interests. This dilemma was evident in the
presidential debates between George W. Bush and Al Gore. As Bush
stated: “I think we've got to be careful when we commit our troops. The
vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He
believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our
troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and
win wars.” (Desch, 2001, 5)
The hegemonist aversion to nation building can still be seen in their
failure to sufficiently support the new government in Afghanistan and the
many problems of occupation in Iraq. The Bush administration was
obviously unprepared and illequiped for the post war situiations. Just how
unprepared the military was for nation building is explained by Adam
Siegel, senior analyst at Northrop Grumman, “The war fighting mission
does not require analysis of governmental corruption, police brutality,
organized crime...international development funding (and) what is
happening in the local economy.” But under globalist leadership such
questions were affecting military operations. As Siegel continues, “What
will be the population's voting patterns? Where will refugees try to rebuild
houses? Will the local schools open on time...These are real examples that
this author has seen Bridgade commanders ask their intelligence officers in
Haiti and Bosnia.” (Siegel, 2001, 8)
Avoiding such situations and limiting
armed interventions to warfare was a key principal for the hegemoinsts.
These policy positions dominated MIC debates until the terrorist
attacks on 9/11 provided a new worldwide threat that let hegemonists out
of their anti-globalist box and created the long sought post Cold War
enemy. This made hegemonist’s strategy operational, with the best13
articulated position provided by the neoconservatives and their vision of
an aggressive U.S. empire. They quickly moved to assert their leadership
and a new unilaterialist direction. Richard Perle clearly articulates their
approach, “An alliance today is really not essential…the price you end-up
paying for an alliance is collective decision making…We’re not going to
let the discussions…the manner in which we do it (and) the targets we
select to be decided by a show of hands from countries whose interests
cannot be identical to our own.” (Perle, 2001)
For hegemonists such policy is a principle of independent political
action and a foundation for nation/centric state power. Former U.N.
representative Jeanne Kirkpatrick expresses a common neoconservative
complaint that, “foreign governments and their leaders, and more than a
few activists here at home, seek to constrain and control American power
by means of elaborate multilateral processes, global arrangements and
U.N. treaties that limit both our capacity to govern ourselves and act
abroad.” (Kirkpatrick, 2000) Thus freeing the U.S. from U.N. obligations
and multilaterial agreements was the path to preeminent power.
Donald Rumsfeld extends this doctrine in Foreign Affairs. Using
terrorism as a political wedge Rumsfeld stated, “Our challenge in this century
is…to defend our nation against the unknown, the uncertain, the unseen, and
the unexpected…so we can defeat adversaries that have not yet emerged.”
(Rumsfeld, 2002, 23) This preemptive aggression for an endless war against
non-existent enemies opens the door to unending military intervention. In his
scenario the role of global allies is to serve policy determined by the U.S.
--------
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
