If any of you haven't looked into this, it's a great debate.

Thomas P Barnett

Since the end of the cold war, the United States has been trying to come up with an operating theory of the world?and a military strategy to accompany it. Now there's a leading contender. It involves identifying the problem parts of the world and aggressively shrinking them. Since September 11, 2001, the author, a professor of warfare analysis, has been advising the Office of the Secretary of Defense and giving this briefing continually at the Pentagon and in the intelligence community. Now he gives it to you.

LET ME TELL YOU why military engagement with Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad is not only necessary and inevitable, but good. When the United States finally goes to war again in the Persian Gulf, it will not constitute a settling of old scores, or just an enforced disarmament of illegal weapons, or a distraction in the war on terror. Our next war in the Gulf will mark a historical tipping point?the moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.

That is why the public debate about this war has been so important: It forces Americans to come to terms with what I believe is the new security paradigm that shapes this age, namely, Disconnectedness defines danger. Saddam Hussein's outlaw regime is dangerously disconnected from the globalizing world, from its rule sets, its norms, and all the ties that bind countries together in mutually assured dependence.

The problem with most discussion of globalization is that too many experts treat it as a binary outcome: Either it is great and sweeping the planet, or it is horrid and failing humanity everywhere. Neither view really works, because globalization as a historical process is simply too big and too complex for such summary judgments. Instead, this new world must be defined by where globalization has truly taken root and where it has not.

Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show you regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder. These parts of the world I call the Functioning Core, or Core. But show me where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, and I will show you regions plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and?most important?the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists. These parts of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap, or Gap.

Globalization's "ozone hole" may have been out of sight and out of mind prior to September 11, 2001, but it has been hard to miss ever since. And measuring the reach of globalization is not an academic exercise to an eighteen-year-old marine sinking tent poles on its far side. So where do we schedule the U. S. military's next round of away games? The pattern that has emerged since the end of the cold war suggests a simple answer: in the Gap.

The reason I support going to war in Iraq is not simply that Saddam is a cutthroat Stalinist willing to kill anyone to stay in power, nor because that regime has clearly supported terrorist networks over the years. The real reason I support a war like this is that the resulting long-term military commitment will finally force America to deal with the entire Gap as a strategic threat environment.

FOR MOST COUNTRIES, accommodating the emerging global rule set of democracy, transparency, and free trade is no mean feat, which is something most Americans find hard to understand. We tend to forget just how hard it has been to keep the United States together all these years, harmonizing our own, competing internal rule sets along the way?through a Civil War, a Great Depression, and the long struggles for racial and sexual equality that continue to this day. As far as most states are concerned, we are quite unrealistic in our expectation that they should adapt themselves quickly to globalization's very American-looking rule set.

But you have to be careful with that Darwinian pessimism, because it is a short jump from apologizing for globalization-as-forced-Americanization to insinuating?along racial or civilization lines?that "those people will simply never be like us." Just ten years ago, most experts were willing to write off poor Russia, declaring Slavs, in effect, genetically unfit for democracy and capitalism. Similar arguments resonated in most China-bashing during the 1990s, and you hear them today in the debates about the feasibility of imposing democracy on a post-Saddam Iraq?a sort of Muslims-are-from-Mars argument.

So how do we distinguish between who is really making it in globalization's Core and who remains trapped in the Gap? And how permanent is this dividing line?

Understanding that the line between the Core and Gap is constantly shifting, let me suggest that the direction of change is more critical than the degree. So, yes, Beijing is still ruled by a "Communist party" whose ideological formula is 30 percent Marxist-Leninist and 70 percent Sopranos, but China just signed on to the World Trade Organization, and over the long run, that is far more important in securing the country's permanent Core status. Why? Because it forces China to harmonize its internal rule set with that of globalization?banking, tariffs, copyright protection, environmental standards. Of course, working to adjust your internal rule sets to globalization's evolving rule set offers no guarantee of success. As Argentina and Brazil have recently found out, following the rules (in Argentina's case, sort of following) does not mean you are panicproof, or bubbleproof, or even recessionproof. Trying to adapt to globalization does not mean bad things will never happen to you. Nor does it mean all your poor will immediately morph into a stable middle class. It just means your standard of living gets better over time.In sum, it is always possible to fall off this bandwagon called globalization. And when you do, bloodshed will follow. If you are lucky, so will American troops.

SO WHAT PARTS OF THE WORLD can be considered functioning right now? North America, much of South America, the European Union, Putin's Russia, Japan and Asia's emerging economies (most notably China and India), Australia and New Zealand, and South Africa, which accounts for roughly four billion out of a global population of six billion.

Whom does that leave in the Gap? It would be easy to say "everyone else," but I want to offer you more proof than that and, by doing so, argue why I think the Gap is a long-term threat to more than just your pocketbook or conscience.

If we map out U. S. military responses since the end of the cold war (see the following pages), we find an overwhelming concentration of activity in the regions of the world that are excluded from globalization's growing Core?namely the Caribbean Rim, virtually all of Africa, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East and Southwest Asia, and much of Southeast Asia. That is roughly the remaining two billion of the world's population. Most have demographics skewed very young, and most are labeled "low income" or "low middle income" by the World Bank (i.e., less than $3,000 annual per capita).

If we draw a line around the majority of those military interventions, we have basically mapped the Non-Integrating Gap. Obviously, there are outliers excluded geographically by this simple approach, such as an Israel isolated in the Gap, a North Korea adrift within the Core, or a Philippines straddling the line. But looking at the data, it is hard to deny the essential logic of the picture: If a country is either losing out to globalization or rejecting much of the content flows associated with its advance, there is a far greater chance that the U. S. will end up sending forces at some point. Conversely, if a country is largely functioning within globalization, we tend not to have to send our forces there to restore order or eradicate threats.

Now, that may seem like a tautology?in effect defining any place that has not attracted U. S. military intervention in the last decade or so as "functioning within globalization" (and vice versa). But think about this larger point: Ever since the end of World War II, this country has assumed that the real threats to its security resided in countries of roughly similar size, development, and wealth?in other words, other great powers like ourselves. During the cold war, that other great power was the Soviet Union. When the big Red machine evaporated in the early 1990s, we flirted with concerns about a united Europe, a powerhouse Japan, and?most recently?a rising China.

What was interesting about all those scenarios is the assumption that only an advanced state can truly threaten us. The rest of the world? Those less-developed parts of the world have long been referred to in military plans as the "Lesser Includeds," meaning that if we built a military capable of handling a great power's military threat, it would always be sufficient for any minor scenarios we might have to engage in the less-advanced world.

That assumption was shattered by September 11. After all, we were not attacked by a nation or even an army but by a group of?in Thomas Friedman's vernacular?Super-Empowered Individuals willing to die for their cause. September 11 triggered a system perturbation that continues to reshape our government (the new Department of Homeland Security), our economy (the de facto security tax we all pay), and even our society (Wave to the camera!). Moreover, it launched the global war on terrorism, the prism through which our government now views every bilateral security relationship we have across the world.

In many ways, the September 11 attacks did the U. S. national-security establishment a huge favor by pulling us back from the abstract planning of future high-tech wars against "near peers" into the here-and-now threats to global order. By doing so, the dividing lines between Core and Gap were highlighted, and, more important, the nature of the threat environment was thrown into stark relief.

Think about it: Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are pure products of the Gap?in effect, its most violent feedback to the Core. They tell us how we are doing in exporting security to these lawless areas (not very well) and which states they would like to take "off line" from globalization and return to some seventh-century definition of the good life (any Gap state with a sizable Muslim population, especially Saudi Arabia).

If you take this message from Osama and combine it with our military-intervention record of the last decade, a simple security rule set emerges: A country's potential to warrant a U. S. military response is inversely related to its globalization connectivity. There is a good reason why Al Qaeda was based first in Sudan and then later in Afghanistan: These are two of the most disconnected countries in the world. Look at the other places U. S. Special Operations Forces have recently zeroed in on: northwestern Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen. We are talking about the ends of the earth as far as globalization is concerned.

But just as important as "getting them where they live" is stopping the ability of these terrorist networks to access the Core via the "seam states" that lie along the Gap's bloody boundaries. It is along this seam that the Core will seek to suppress bad things coming out of the Gap. Which are some of these classic seam states? Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Morocco, Algeria, Greece, Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia come readily to mind. But the U. S. will not be the only Core state working this issue. For example, Russia has its own war on terrorism in the Caucasus, China is working its western border with more vigor, and Australia was recently energized (or was it cowed?) by the Bali bombing.

IF WE STEP BACK FOR A MINUTE and consider the broader implications of this new global map, then U. S. national-security strategy would seem to be: 1) Increase the Core's immune-system capabilities for responding to September 11?like system perturbations; 2) Work the seam states to firewall the Core from the Gap's worst exports, such as terror, drugs, and pandemics; and, most important, 3) Shrink the Gap. Notice I did not just say Mind the Gap. The knee-jerk reaction of many Americans to September 11 is to say, "Let's get off our dependency on foreign oil, and then we won't have to deal with those people." The most na?ve assumption underlying that dream is that reducing what little connectivity the Gap has with the Core will render it less dangerous to us over the long haul. Turning the Middle East into Central Africa will not build a better world for my kids. We cannot simply will those people away.

The Middle East is the perfect place to start. Diplomacy cannot work in a region where the biggest sources of insecurity lie not between states but within them. What is most wrong about the Middle East is the lack of personal freedom and how that translates into dead- end lives for most of the population?especially for the young. Some states like Qatar and Jordan are ripe for perestroika-like leaps into better political futures, thanks to younger leaders who see the inevitability of such change. Iran is likewise waiting for the right Gorbachev to come along?if he has not already.

What stands in the path of this change? Fear. Fear of tradition unraveling. Fear of the mullahs' disapproval. Fear of being labeled a "bad" or "traitorous" Muslim state. Fear of becoming a target of radical groups and terrorist networks. But most of all, fear of being attacked from all sides for being different?the fear of becoming Israel.

The Middle East has long been a neighborhood of bullies eager to pick on the weak. Israel is still around because it has become?sadly?one of the toughest bullies on the block. The only thing that will change that nasty environment and open the floodgates for change is if some external power steps in and plays Leviathan full-time. Taking down Saddam, the region's bully-in-chief, will force the U. S. into playing that role far more fully than it has over the past several decades, primarily because Iraq is the Yugoslavia of the Middle East?a crossroads of civilizations that has historically required a dictatorship to keep the peace. As baby-sitting jobs go, this one will be a doozy, making our lengthy efforts in postwar Germany and Japan look simple in retrospect.

But it is the right thing to do, and now is the right time to do it, and we are the only country that can. Freedom cannot blossom in the Middle East without security, and security is this country's most influential public-sector export. By that I do not mean arms exports, but basically the attention paid by our military forces to any region's potential for mass violence. We are the only nation on earth capable of exporting security in a sustained fashion, and we have a very good track record of doing it.

Show me a part of the world that is secure in its peace and I will show you strong or growing ties between local militaries and the U. S. military. Show me regions where major war is inconceivable and I will show you permanent U. S. military bases and long- term security alliances. Show me the two strongest investment relationships in the global economy and I will show you two postwar military occupations that remade Europe and Japan following World War II.

This country has successfully exported security to globalization's Old Core (Western Europe, Northeast Asia) for half a century and to its emerging New Core (Developing Asia) for a solid quarter century following our mishandling of Vietnam. But our efforts in the Middle East have been inconsistent?in Africa, almost nonexistent. Until we begin the systematic, long-term export of security to the Gap, it will increasingly export its pain to the Core in the form of terrorism and other instabilities.

Naturally, it will take a whole lot more than the U. S. exporting security to shrink the Gap. Africa, for example, will need far more aid than the Core has offered in the past, and the integration of the Gap will ultimately depend more on private investment than anything the Core's public sector can offer. But it all has to begin with security, because free markets and democracy cannot flourish amid chronic conflict.

Making this effort means reshaping our military establishment to mirror-image the challenge we face. Think about it. Global war is not in the offing, primarily because our huge nuclear stockpile renders such war unthinkable?for anyone. Meanwhile, classic state-on-state wars are becoming fairly rare. So if the United States is in the process of "transforming" its military to meet the threats of tomorrow, what should it end up looking like? In my mind, we fight fire with fire. If we live in a world increasingly populated by Super-Empowered Individuals, we field a military of Super-Empowered Individuals.

This may sound like additional responsibility for an already overburdened military, but that is the wrong way of looking at it, for what we are dealing with here are problems of success?not failure. It is America's continued success in deterring global war and obsolescing state-on-state war that allows us to stick our noses into the far more difficult subnational conflicts and the dangerous transnational actors they spawn. I know most Americans do not want to hear this, but the real battlegrounds in the global war on terrorism are still over there. If gated communities and rent-a-cops were enough, September 11 never would have happened.

History is full of turning points like that terrible day, but no turning-back points. We ignore the Gap's existence at our own peril, because it will not go away until we as a nation respond to the challenge of making globalization truly global.

---

Handicapping the Gap

My list of real trouble for the world in the 1990s, today, and tomorrow, starting in our own backyard:

1. Haiti Efforts to build a nation in 1990s were disappointing. * We have been going into Haiti for about a century, and we will go back when boat people start flowing in during the next crisis?without fail.

2. Colombia Country is broken into several lawless chunks, with private armies, rebels, narcos, and legit government all working the place over. * Drugs still flow. * Ties between drug cartels and rebels grew over decade, and now we know of links to international terror, too. * We get involved, keep promising more, and keep getting nowhere. Piecemeal, incremental approach is clearly not working.

3. Brazil and Argentina Both on the bubble between the Gap and the Functioning Core. Both played the globalization game to hilt in the nineties and both feel abused now. The danger of falling off the wagon and going self-destructively leftist or rightist is very real. * No military threats to speak of, except against their own democracies (the return of the generals). * South American alliance MERCOSUR tries to carve out its own reality while Washington pushes Free Trade of Americas, but we may have to settle for agreements with Chile or for pulling only Chile into bigger NAFTA. Will Brazil and Argentina force themselves to be left out and then resent it? * Amazon a large ungovernable area for Brazil, plus all that environmental damage continues to pile up. Will the world eventually care enough to step in?

4. Former Yugoslavia For most of the past decade, served as shorthand for Europe's inability to get its act together even in its own backyard. * Will be long-term baby-sitting job for the West.

5. Congo and Rwanda/Burundi Two to three million dead in central Africa from all the fighting across the decade. How much worse can it get before we try to do something, anything? Three million more dead? * Congo is a carrion state?not quite dead or alive, and everyone is feeding off it. * And then there's AIDS.

6. Angola Never really has solved its ongoing civil war (1.5 million dead in past quarter century). * Basically at conflict with self since mid-seventies, when Portuguese "empire" fell. * Life expectancy right now is under forty!

7. South Africa The only functioning Core country in Africa, but it's on the bubble. Lots of concerns that South Africa is a gateway country for terror networks trying to access Core through back door. * Endemic crime is biggest security threat. * And then there's AIDS.

8. Israel-Palestine Terror will not abate?there is no next generation in the West Bank that wants anything but more violence. * Wall going up right now will be the Berlin Wall of twenty-first century. Eventually, outside powers will end up providing security to keep the two sides apart (this divorce is going to be very painful). * There is always the chance of somebody (Saddam in desperation?) trying to light up Israel with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and triggering the counterpunch we all fear Israel is capable of.

9. Saudi Arabia The let-them-eat-cake mentality of royal mafia will eventually trigger violent instability from within. * Paying terrorists protection money to stay away will likewise eventually fail, so danger will come from outside, too. * Huge young population with little prospects for future, and a ruling elite whose main source of income is a declining long-term asset. And yet the oil will matter to enough of the world far enough into the future that the United States will never let this place really tank, no matter what it takes.

10. Iraq Question of when and how, not if. * Then there's the huge rehab job. We will have to build a security regime for the whole region.

11. Somalia Chronic lack of governance. * Chronic food problems. * Chronic problem of terrorist-network infiltration. * We went in with Marines and Special Forces and left disillusioned?a poor man's Vietnam for the 1990s. Will be hard-pressed not to return.

12. Iran Counterrevolution has already begun: This time the students want to throw the mullahs out. * Iran wants to be friends with U. S., but resurgence of fundamentalists may be the price we pay to invade Iraq. * The mullahs support terror, and their push for WMD is real: Does this make them inevitable target once Iraq and North Korea are settled?

13. Afghanistan Lawless, violent place even before the Taliban stepped onstage and started pulling it back toward seventh century (short trip). * Government sold to Al Qaeda for pennies on the dollar. * Big source of narcotics (heroin). * Now U. S. stuck there for long haul, rooting out hardcore terrorists/rebels who've chosen to stay.

14. Pakistan There is always the real danger of their having the bomb and using it out of weakness in conflict with India (very close call with December 13, 2001, New Delhi bombing). * Out of fear that Pakistan may fall to radical Muslims, we end up backing hard-line military types we don't really trust. * Clearly infested with Al Qaeda. * Was on its way to being declared a rogue state by U. S. until September 11 forced us to cooperate again. Simply put, Pakistan doesn't seem to control much of its own territory.

15. North Korea Marching toward WMD. * Bizarre recent behavior of Pyongyang (admitting kidnappings, breaking promises on nukes, shipping weapons to places we disapprove of and getting caught, signing agreements with Japan that seem to signal new era, talking up new economic zone next to China) suggests it is intent (like some mental patient) on provoking crises. * We live in fear of Kim's G?tterd?mmerung scenario (he is nuts). * Population deteriorating?how much more can they stand? * After Iraq, may be next.

16. Indonesia Usual fears about breakup and "world's largest Muslim population." * Casualty of Asian economic crisis (really got wiped out). * Hot spot for terror networks, as we have discovered.

New/integrating members of Core I worry may be lost in coming years:

17. China Running lots of races against itself in terms of reducing the unprofitable state-run enterprises while not triggering too much unemployment, plus dealing with all that growth in energy demand and accompanying pollution, plus coming pension crisis as population ages. * New generation of leaders looks suspiciously like unimaginative technocrats?big question if they are up to task. * If none of those macro pressures trigger internal instability, there is always the fear that the Communist party won't go quietly into the night in terms of allowing more political freedoms and that at some point, economic freedom won't be enough for the masses. Right now the CCP is very corrupt and mostly a parasite on the country, but it still calls the big shots in Beijing. * Army seems to be getting more disassociated from society and reality, focusing ever more myopically on countering U. S. threat to their ability to threaten Taiwan, which remains the one flash point that could matter. * And then there's AIDS.

18. Russia Putin has long way to go in his dictatorship of the law; the mafia and robber barons still have too much power. * Chechnya and the near-abroad in general will drag Moscow into violence, but it will be kept within the federation by and large. * U. S. moving into Central Asia is a testy thing?a relationship that can sour if not handled just right. * Russia has so many internal problems (financial weakness, environmental damage, et cetera) and depends too much on energy exports to feel safe (does bringing Iraq back online after invasion kill their golden goose?). * And then there's AIDS.

19. India First, there's always the danger of nuking it out with Pakistan. * Short of that, Kashmir pulls them into conflict with Pak, and that involves U. S. now in way it never did before due to war on terror. * India is microcosm of globalization: the high tech, the massive poverty, the islands of development, the tensions between cultures/civilizations/religions/et cetera. It is too big to succeed, and too big to let fail. * Wants to be big responsible military player in region, wants to be strong friend of U. S., and also wants desperately to catch up with China in development (the self-imposed pressure to succeed is enormous). * And then there's AIDS.

Not reading this much..sorry.. :lol:

[quote=runningman]Not reading this much..sorry.. :lol:[/quote]

It's worth it, indeed. Great dialogue.

I'll wait for the movie.

[quote=skahound]I'll wait for the movie.[/quote]

Fair enough.

it is worth the read. nice.

[quote=Jenks]it is worth the read. nice.[/quote]

Can't wait to read the book. He has a book based on this idea.

Hope it's under the Christmas tree!!

Or, for the politically correct, holiday tree..

whoever wrote that is the ying to scaredawe's yang.

i see them having an epic war or words on a mountain top in mongolia, bouncing from tree to tree, sparring ~ism"s at each other, draining the life force until one lays poisoned in a cave with thier lost love and young apprentice running for a thesaurus and a philosphy textbook. oh wait that was........................ :roll:

[quote]i see them having an epic war or words on a mountain top in mongolia, bouncing from tree to tree, sparring ~ism"s at each other, draining the life force until one lays poisoned in a cave with thier lost love and young apprentice running for a thesaurus and a philosphy textbook. oh wait that was........................ [/quote]

Okay, that I didn't get... :?:

crouching tiger, hidden dragon. good flick.

[quote=thesightless]crouching tiger, hidden dragon. good flick.[/quote]

Ah - I see.

So you agree w/ the piece, or not? What did you think?

i agree with a lot of it. he obviously looks at reality and uses common sense. he realizes that whatever happened in the past is in the past. he realizes that someone places like Iraq were going to eventually need help, and we did it, he also says we cant go until we stabilize it. he makes a lot valid points.

however he seems to unfairly pigeon holes the muslim population. he seems to treat them liek savages in a sense, especially when he compares them to a 17th century population. we all know that they are behind in development because they are oppressed by their own leaders becasue thier own leaders only worry about and take care of thier military backers to stay in power. its not thier fault they cant open a business and operate it freely. if anything, i blame the major powers for not doing anyhting sooner. it aint right.

one thing i have to sadly admit though, is that i completely understand why africa doesnt get the attention it should. it really lacks in what it can bring to the world stage in terms of economics and millitary. that s why it is being ignored. but on the other hand, i really cant bring myself to worry about things that dont affect North America. the region fell into decline b/c of clinton's complete disregard for domestic material, things like education, the ever increasing tax burden, the liberal views on criminal punishment that do nothing to discourage crime. the economy here got so over inflated because the ridiculously lax regulations that the democartic party allowed during his tenure. they were pulling off shit with financial reporting and stock market manipulation that fooled everyone. sadly, someone had to do something when the ENRON case hit fan, and the SEC had the entire trading and accounting industries re-regulated. this all led to the decline in stock prices in most major companies. if the market declines, too many grow scared and jobs get cut.

i mean, think about this little fact. there were over 1350 cases where parents sued school districts to allow thier children to move ahead to the next grade, even though the child failed miserably. maybe the suit should be reversed and the district should go after the parents for not riding thier children hard enough to study and get the grades. in NY , this hits home a lot with the "no children left behind " bill.. people were freaking out when the found out thier children werent moving up a grade, and in one lawsuit a parent found out their child had over 30 absences in 4 months. she still appealed the case and won. her son is now in 11th grade with a 7th grade education. its little things like this we need to focus on here in america.

[quote=thesightless] however he seems to unfairly pigeon holes the muslim population. he seems to treat them liek savages in a sense, especially when he compares them to a 17th century population. we all know that they are behind in development because they are oppressed by their own leaders becasue thier own leaders only worry about and take care of thier military backers to stay in power. its not thier fault they cant open a business and operate it freely.[/quote]

I'm sure that he doesn't mean anything by it. To confront these issues you have to bring the truth out into the open I guess. He's not making fun of them or picking on them.

[quote=cosmo][quote=Jenks]it is worth the read. nice.[/quote]

Can't wait to read the book. He has a book based on this idea.

Hope it's under the Christmas tree!!

Or, for the politically correct, holiday tree..[/quote]

political correctness can kiss my unwashed butt!

ITS A CHRISTMAS TREE, AND IT ALWAYS WAS

Yep. Thanks to some good posts and discussions here I've noticed myself shifting a little to right lately, but I think it's for the better. Though I'll probably be a no-good lefty to some people here... :wink:

And it's a damn Christmas tree allright.

I'm still in the center. This sounds nice, but i'm afraid it's a bit too fluffy for me to believe. How about this one:

The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required.

William Rivers Pitt: 02/25/03

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.

The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:

• Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
• Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
• Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
• Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
• Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions." Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.

Why is this important? After all, wacky think tanks are a cottage industry in Washington, DC. They are a dime a dozen. In what way does PNAC stand above the other groups that would set American foreign policy if they could? Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."

PNAC has recently given birth to a new group, The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court in 1992 to 22 years in prison for bank fraud after the collapse of Petra Bank, which he founded in 1977. Chalabi has not set foot in Iraq since 1956, but his Enron-like business credentials apparently make him a good match for the Bush administration's plans.

PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report is the institutionalization of plans and ideologies that have been formulated for decades by the men currently running American government. The PNAC Statement of Principles is signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News.

The desire for these freshly empowered PNAC men to extend American hegemony by force of arms across the globe has been there since day one of the Bush administration, and is in no small part a central reason for the Florida electoral battle in 2000. Note that while many have said that Gore and Bush are ideologically identical, Mr. Gore had no ties whatsoever to the fellows at PNAC. George W. Bush had to win that election by any means necessary, and PNAC signatory Jeb Bush was in the perfect position to ensure the rise to prominence of his fellow imperialists. Desire for such action, however, is by no means translatable into workable policy. Americans enjoy their comforts, but don't cotton to the idea of being some sort of Neo-Rome.

On September 11th, the fellows from PNAC saw a door of opportunity open wide before them, and stormed right through it.

Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier. In many places, it uses exactly the same language to describe America's new place in the world.

Recall that PNAC demanded an increase in defense spending to at least 3.8% of GDP. Bush's proposed budget for next year asks for $379 billion in defense spending, almost exactly 3.8% of GDP.

In August of 2002, Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard Perle heard a policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize" in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's weapons. Bush has deployed massive forces into the Mideast region, while simultaneously engaging American forces in the Philippines and playing nuclear chicken with North Korea. Somewhere in all this lurks at least one of the "major theater wars" desired by the September 2000 PNAC report.

Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict. Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to. The American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned.

All of the horses are traveling together at speed here. The defense contractors who sup on American tax revenue will be handsomely paid for arming this new American empire. The corporations that own the news media will sell this eternal war at a profit, as viewership goes through the stratosphere when there is combat to be shown. Those within the administration who believe that the defense of Israel is contingent upon laying waste to every possible aggressor in the region will have their dreams fulfilled. The PNAC men who wish for a global Pax Americana at gunpoint will see their plans unfold. Through it all, the bankrollers from the WTO and the IMF will be able to dictate financial terms to the entire planet. This last aspect of the plan is pivotal, and is best described in the newly revised version of Greg Palast's masterpiece, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."

There will be adverse side effects. The siege mentality average Americans are suffering as they smother behind yards of plastic sheeting and duct tape will increase by orders of magnitude as our aggressions bring forth new terrorist attacks against the homeland. These attacks will require the implementation of the newly drafted Patriot Act II, an augmentation of the previous Act that has profoundly sharper teeth. The sun will set on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The American economy will be ravaged by the need for increased defense spending, and by the aforementioned "constabulary" duties in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Former allies will turn on us. Germany, France and the other nations resisting this Iraq war are fully aware of this game plan. They are not acting out of cowardice or because they love Saddam Hussein, but because they mean to resist this rising American empire, lest they face economic and military serfdom at the hands of George W. Bush. Richard Perle has already stated that France is no longer an American ally.

As the eagle spreads its wings, our rhetoric and their resistance will become more agitated and dangerous.

Many people, of course, will die. They will die from war and from want, from famine and disease. At home, the social fabric will be torn in ways that make the Reagan nightmares of crack addiction, homelessness and AIDS seem tame by comparison.

This is the price to be paid for empire, and the men of PNAC who now control the fate and future of America are more than willing to pay it. For them, the benefits far outweigh the liabilities.

The plan was running smoothly until those two icebergs collided. Millions and millions of ordinary people are making it very difficult for Bush's international allies to keep to the script. PNAC may have designs for the control of the "International Commons" of the Internet, but for now it is the staging ground for a movement that would see empire take a back seat to a wise peace, human rights, equal protection under the law, and the preponderance of a justice that will, if properly applied, do away forever with the anger and hatred that gives birth to terrorism in the first place. Tommaso Palladini of Milan perhaps said it best as he marched with his countrymen in Rome. "You fight terrorism," he said, "by creating more justice in the world."

The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required. The tide can be stopped, and the men who desire empire by the sword can be thwarted. It has already begun, but it must not cease. These are men of will, and they do not intend to fail.

William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times bestselling author of two books - "War On Iraq" (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available in May 2003 from Pluto Press. He teaches high school in Boston, MA. Scott Lowery contributed research to this report.

Re: The Pentagon's New Map

Damn neo-cons... :roll:

[quote=Yao]Yep. Thanks to some good posts and discussions here I've noticed myself shifting a little to right lately, but I think it's for the better. Though I'll probably be a no-good lefty to some people here... :wink:

And it's a damn Christmas tree allright.[/quote]

If you're intrested in a certain author, if you haven't checked him out already, his name is Thomas Sowell. He has published many books, and is one of the great thinkers of our time.

[url]www.tsowell.com[/url]

Go to his 'speeches' area and read his articles. I have bought and read the following books, and all are great:

A Conflict of Visons The Vision of the Anointed Affirmative Action Around The World The Quest for Cosmic Justice Basic Economics Applied Economics

The top one looks interesting, might try and find it over here...

Thanx the links!! :Naughty: :mrgreen: :RockOn: :shock: :Anal:

No need to say who I'm imitating here uh? First to guess gets a bottle of Akpeteshie bought by me in Ghana. It'll kill you quicker than any known nerve-agent and is only 50 cents per half litre. :CrackUp:

But seriously, thanks for the links, will look into it.

I once heard someone say, we are all brought up (school, etc.) to be liberal (personally I was), but we learn to be conservative thru reason and logic, good thought processes. Emotion breeds liberalism, Logic and Reason breed conservatism.

Think about it. In school, your taught to think liberal. And emotional content is the fuel. But in so many areas, logic and reason, lead the thinker toward the right, where morals and good ethics prevail.

[quote=robprunzit]I once heard someone say, we are all brought up (school, etc.) to be liberal (personally I was), but we learn to be conservative thru reason and logic, good thought processes. Emotion breeds liberalism, Logic and Reason breed conservatism.

Think about it. In school, your taught to think liberal. And emotional content is the fuel. But in so many areas, logic and reason, lead the thinker toward the right, where morals and good ethics prevail.[/quote]

:BSPost:

Sorry Rob, been dying to use that emoticon... :D

[quote]Emotion breeds liberalism, Logic and Reason breed conservatism. [/quote]

This is not BS. It's spot on. All of the liberal policies are based on good intentions, but in the end spawn negative results.

Emotion is the core to these good intentions. It's all based on emotion.

Sorry, but it is :BSPost:

Every side uses AND logic AND emotion to convince people. Simple as that. There's no such thing as one side only resorting to emotion or logic, if that were the case liberals wouldn't even be a party with any power in politics, just like the KKK. Those are he ones using emotion and rhetorics.

You can go on fighting about this for ages because of the simple fact that neither of you wishes to give in the least bit on this. In the last US elections, I've seen this argument become one of the primary ones to just discard what the opposing party said or proposed, which IMO has devaluated them gravely.

Both parties want what they think is best for the country, not destroy it.

Re: The Pentagon's New Map

[quote]Every side uses AND logic AND emotion to convince people. Simple as that. There's no such thing as one side only resorting to emotion or logic, if that were the case liberals wouldn't even be a party with any power in politics, just like the KKK. Those are he ones using emotion and rhetorics. [/quote]

Liberal positions are far more emotion-based than reason-based. Take the widely held liberal chant "War is not the answer." It is purely irrational. War has ended more evil than anything the left has ever thought of. In the last 60 years alone, it ended Nazism and the Holocaust. It saved half of Korea from genocide. It kept Israel from national extinction and a second Holocaust. It saved Finland from becoming a Stalinist totalitarian state. It's all based on emotion. Fairness. Not wanting to offend anyone. Using the marxist theory to help the poor, rather than letting the free market raise the standard of living. Always wanting to equalize wages and other disparities in order to lift people out of the lower class, without realizing the implications of these policies. The 'war on poverty' program that was supposed to lift people out of poverty. It felt good to help the so called 'poor'. But all it did was make more people dependent on the government as the number of individuals added to the plan skyrocketed.

The list goes on.

[quote] You can go on fighting about this for ages because of the simple fact that neither of you wishes to give in the least bit on this. In the last US elections, I've seen this argument become one of the primary ones to just discard what the opposing party said or proposed, which IMO has devaluated them gravely.[/quote]

Can you list a number of policies or goals that are emotion based that come from the right?

[quote=cosmo]Liberal positions are far more emotion-based than reason-based. Take the widely held liberal chant "War is not the answer." It is purely irrational. War has ended more evil than anything the left has ever thought of. In the last 60 years alone, it ended Nazism and the Holocaust. It saved half of Korea from genocide. It kept Israel from national extinction and a second Holocaust. It saved Finland from becoming a Stalinist totalitarian state. It's all based on emotion. Fairness. Not wanting to offend anyone. Using the marxist theory to help the poor, rather than letting the free market raise the standard of living. Always wanting to equalize wages and other disparities in order to lift people out of the lower class, without realizing the implications of these policies. The 'war on poverty' program that was supposed to lift people out of poverty. It felt good to help the so called 'poor'. But all it did was make more people dependent on the government as the number of individuals added to the plan skyrocketed.

The list goes on.[/quote]

If what you are saying is true, than I am not a liberal. :WinkNSmi:

1: It seems to me you?re not really talking about liberals here, but those tree-hugging hippies (let?s call them the emotional part of liberal thinking people). Liberalism is not based on emotion as some might like to believe, merely a different way of looking for solutions. If you say liberalism is more emotion-based, then I think: wait?.who cried war first after 9/11? You can?t tell me that was a decision based on logic and reason, and it involved reps as weel as dems.

2: I am for free market, and well aware that not everything can be made equal. There?s no such thing as equality in the world, although I do believe in the theory that everyone is at birth a Tabula Rasa, a blank tablet. It?s the circumstances that create the inequality, and circumstances can be changed.

A free market will usually raise the standard of living, and supports a merit-based economy as far as I know, which is favourable in my opinion. But for practical reasons it might sometimes be good have a little influence from the government, for example: when the health care system doesn?t work as supposed: how can health care be monopolized by a few large companies, making it too expensive for a large art of the population? Is it because they don?t work hard enough? Is it because they are too lazy to undergo some education? Don?t think so?some jobs are underpayed, and nobody knows why. But I do know that a lot of people working at least as hard as people with lots of money cannot pay for health care?now, if it was truly a merit-based economy, those people should not have any trouble paying for that, should they?

If you had an honest system, people working with their hands, and ending their carreers with screwed up backs (just a example) should be able to pay for those basic needs. I?m not saying they should make the same amount of money, an exec. At a large company has way more responsibility and therefore should be payed more, but I think that everybody should be ale to make use of the facilities tu fulfull his/her basic needs.

This will keep your working population well fed, educated and healthy, which in the long term is favourable to the economy. Or am I wrong? Not much emotion in here yet.

As for the emotion: There?s nothing wrong with emotion, as long as it does not undermine the effectivity of the decisions made. It keeps more people satisfied, a government working without any emotion will have only little legitimacy in the end. Right now a little over half of the US is still in favour of the policies from the Bush administration, but outside the US the ideological support is almost non-existent. Supporters are in the coalition to suck up or because they hope to gain politically or economically, not because they are so convinced about the ideals from B. It is also a form of self-protection: being with the good guys diminishes the chances of being put in the corner with the bad guys.

Oh, but what you said about ?war not being the answer ? being irrational: totally true! Sometimes you need to kick somebody?s ass to make him stop what he?s doing, some people/governments/religious fanatics won?t listen to talk. But that doesn?t mean it is the solution to every problem, and that?s exactly how it is presented these days. THAT is my problem with the current american policy, but als with the European one. Both are too extreme in their approaches, and better results could be achieved by mixing the two policies IMHO.

[quote=cosmo]Can you list a number of policies or goals that are emotion based that come from the right?[/quote]

Expanding the influence of the US in the Middle East to secure it?s own interests there (politically and economically) is a result of egoistic features. An emotion too, I guess. No decision is made without emotion. They just differ.

Apart from that, I was actually talking about the elections, the mud-throwing. Both parties excelled in spewing rhetorics about the other one (the Waffles and the Hicks??!).

I hope you?ve noticed that I am not about condemning one side or the other, though I may still be biased in your opinion. More, I am wondering why people keep bashing each other instead of coming together and see what they can come up with when they combine their thoughts! I think that is that way people and in this case governments should try to work: contructive, not destructive.

:RockOn:

Re: The Pentagon's New Map

[quote]1: It seems to me you?re not really talking about liberals here, but those tree-hugging hippies (let?s call them the emotional part of liberal thinking people). Liberalism is not based on emotion as some might like to believe, merely a different way of looking for solutions. If you say liberalism is more emotion-based, then I think: wait?.who cried war first after 9/11? You can?t tell me that was a decision based on logic and reason, and it involved reps as weel as dems. [/quote]

It is indeed based on emotion. After 9/11, the rightists(conservatives) knew it was 7th century fascism. The left looked at it emotionally: Why do they hate us? The liberals looked inward in regards to emotion, you see?

[quote]2: I am for free market, and well aware that not everything can be made equal. There?s no such thing as equality in the world, although I do believe in the theory that everyone is at birth a Tabula Rasa, a blank tablet. It?s the circumstances that create the inequality, and circumstances can be changed. [/quote]

I'm glad you think like that. The leading liberals in Washington are steadily trying to equalize the desparities among the citizens of this country, and are failing. Always putting things in 'classes', trying to move people from the bottom bracket to the top, knowing well that the huge majority of individuals that are in the bottom bracket are there for only a few years as they work their way UP. It's all class warfare here with the liberals. The far left marxists have hijacked the democratic party.

[quote]A free market will usually raise the standard of living, and supports a merit-based economy as far as I know, which is favourable in my opinion. But for practical reasons it might sometimes be good have a little influence from the government, for example: when the health care system doesn?t work as supposed: how can health care be monopolized by a few large companies, making it too expensive for a large art of the population? Is it because they don?t work hard enough? Is it because they are too lazy to undergo some education? Don?t think so?some jobs are underpayed, and nobody knows why. But I do know that a lot of people working at least as hard as people with lots of money cannot pay for health care?now, if it was truly a merit-based economy, those people should not have any trouble paying for that, should they?[/quote]

Of course, the government has to intervene in the economy in some cases. As for health care. Health care here in America is affordable. You can purchase insurance for 30-40 dollars here per month. That's very affordable. I'm sure the huge majority of Americans aren't wise with their money, either, much less the decisions they make on a daily basis.

[quote]As for the emotion: There?s nothing wrong with emotion, as long as it does not undermine the effectivity of the decisions made. It keeps more people satisfied, a government working without any emotion will have only little legitimacy in the end. Right now a little over half of the US is still in favour of the policies from the Bush administration, but outside the US the ideological support is almost non-existent. Supporters are in the coalition to suck up or because they hope to gain politically or economically, not because they are so convinced about the ideals from B. It is also a form of self-protection: being with the good guys diminishes the chances of being put in the corner with the bad guys.[/quote]

The countries that do not support our agenda are mainly the ones that have not been attacked. We weren't even involved with the war on terror UNTIL it hit our shores. Do you really think the countries overseas really care that much about our intrests? They may care, but we are much more involved because we are trying to save our asses.

[quote]But that doesn?t mean it is the solution to every problem[/quote]

It's used alot these days because it is needed. We are in the middle of WWIII. It's the solution to the problem we face today no doubt.

[quote]Expanding the influence of the US in the Middle East to secure it?s own interests there (politically and economically) is a result of egoistic features. An emotion too, I guess. No decision is made without emotion. They just differ.

Apart from that, I was actually talking about the elections, the mud-throwing. Both parties excelled in spewing rhetorics about the other one (the Waffles and the Hicks??!).

I hope you?ve noticed that I am not about condemning one side or the other, though I may still be biased in your opinion. More, I am wondering why people keep bashing each other instead of coming together and see what they can come up with when they combine their thoughts! I think that is that way people and in this case governments should try to work: contructive, not destructive. [/quote]

Egoistic features? :lol: . There we go, repeating the imperialist mantra.

You reading Chomsky again?

Hahaha, to be honest, I've never read anything by Chomsky...yet. But all this fuss about him is making me really curious, and by now I have a considerable list of books to read already, thanks to you guys here...no problem though, always seeking to expand my knowledge.

Frankly, I didn't see the 'imperialist mantra' in my remark, until I thought a little further. So far I've not been supporting that, but I'm watching things closely because some of the points it's supporters make are viable IMO, for instance the military jump-off point theory in Iraq. I'll only be convinced when the elections have taken place, and the US withdraws it's troops and does not keep on a military basis in Iraq. Those are the primary conditions I think to prove to the world the good intentions every supporter is boasting about.

Do you really think this is WWIII? I Think it is a serious situation, which will last longer than the past WW's, but I would only use that term for a conventional war. This is not a war between countries, it's a boundary-ignoring war, an ideological war. Violence is needed in some cases here, yes, but not the way it is used now. Do you think it is too emotional if I disagree with levelling whole countries to get just a few people? I don't...I just want to use the most effective way to get the bad guys, with as little collateral damage possible.

BTW: the links between A-Q and Saddam didn't become apparent until recently. I'm pretty sure that they would've been used as a (better) argument instead of the WMD's if they'd known at the time.

Re: The Pentagon's New Map

[quote]Hahaha, to be honest, I've never read anything by Chomsky...yet. But all this fuss about him is making me really curious, and by now I have a considerable list of books to read already, thanks to you guys here...no problem though, always seeking to expand my knowledge. [/quote]

Well, I don't see any fuss, just rebuttals to his constant distortions. The european elites just love the guy, mainly because his literature is something that's used for them to fret their anger and hatred towards us. A stepping stone if you will.

[quote]Frankly, I didn't see the 'imperialist mantra' in my remark, until I thought a little further. So far I've not been supporting that, but I'm watching things closely because some of the points it's supporters make are viable IMO, for instance the military jump-off point theory in Iraq. I'll only be convinced when the elections have taken place, and the US withdraws it's troops and does not keep on a military basis in Iraq. Those are the primary conditions I think to prove to the world the good intentions every supporter is boasting about. [/quote]

The military bases will be there for a VERY LONG TIME. We still have bases in S Korea(which was Korea at the time), and Germany. And throughout the world as a matter of fact.

[quote]Do you really think this is WWIII? I Think it is a serious situation, which will last longer than the past WW's, but I would only use that term for a conventional war. This is not a war between countries, it's a boundary-ignoring war, an ideological war. Violence is needed in some cases here, yes, but not the way it is used now. Do you think it is too emotional if I disagree with levelling whole countries to get just a few people? I don't...I just want to use the most effective way to get the bad guys, with as little collateral damage possible.[/quote]

It's WWIII for the fact that the radical Islamicists are blazing through scores of countries(mostly their neighbors) in order to extend their jihads to the infidels. This is a worldwide problem. Not just 'al qaeda'. Of course there are states involved. Iraq. Lebanon. Syria. Afghanistan. Iran.

Regarding emotion, I do not see emotion controlling the thought of what you call levellling whole countries. It's a matter of judgement, planning and logical reasoning.

[quote]BTW: the links between A-Q and Saddam didn't become apparent until recently. I'm pretty sure that they would've been used as a (better) argument instead of the WMD's if they'd known at the time. [/quote]

For you they havent become apparent. To the intelligence agencies, they have been there since the early 90's.

I agree. The war was sold in a horrible manner to the world. Horrible.

Re: The Pentagon's New Map

[quote=cosmo]Well, I don't see any fuss, just rebuttals to his constant distortions. The european elites just love the guy, mainly because his literature is something that's used for them to fret their anger and hatred towards us. A stepping stone if you will.[/quote]

I'll see if I can find some influence from Chomsky here, although I can already tell you that he is quite popular at universities here. I should read something by him, just to know what we're talking about here.

[quote=cosmo]The military bases will be there for a VERY LONG TIME. We still have bases in S Korea(which was Korea at the time), and Germany. And throughout the world as a matter of fact.[/quote]

I know, and I'm not totally opposed tot that, but most of them lack reason right now, especially in the one in Germany: that one is a remainder of the cold war, and I still don't understand why Germany puts up with that.

I'm also opposed to permanent bases in the Middle East, for reasons I've given you before I think: primarily as long as there is US or Western military presence in the M-E, religious violence will continue to be provoked form extremists. They love having a reason to fight.

[quote=cosmo]It's WWIII for the fact that the radical Islamicists are blazing through scores of countries(mostly their neighbors) in order to extend their jihads to the infidels. This is a worldwide problem. Not just 'al qaeda'. Of course there are states involved. Iraq. Lebanon. Syria. Afghanistan. Iran.

Regarding emotion, I do not see emotion controlling the thought of what you call levellling whole countries. It's a matter of judgement, planning and logical reasoning.[/quote]

I won't bitch about the use of a term here, It's of no real imortance here I think. The conflict is in any case global right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if that article you posted about the involvement from Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi-Arabia is at least for a large part true, though of course I will give it a critical look later on.

If terrorism was fought with sound judgement, planning and logical reasoning, there would've been used methods with a better cost-effectivity IMO. EG: Special Ops, good intelligence. In that case, I think with backdoor politics, you would've gotten all the support you needed.

[quote=cosmo]For you they havent become apparent. To the intelligence agencies, they have been there since the early 90's.

I agree. The war was sold in a horrible manner to the world. Horrible.[/quote]

I didn't say they weren't apparent to me now :wink:

And at least we agree on one thing, finally!! shake hands

Re: The Pentagon's New Map

[quote]I'll see if I can find some influence from Chomsky here, although I can already tell you that he is quite popular at universities here. I should read something by him, just to know what we're talking about here.[/quote]

I have a couple 'favorites' websites documented that detail Chomsky's inconsistent pattern, and his apparent anti-american dialogue. It's as if he doesn't want to accept the facts, and how history blatantly contradicts his claims. He lives in his own bubble.

[quote] I know, and I'm not totally opposed tot that, but most of them lack reason right now, especially in the one in Germany: that one is a remainder of the cold war, and I still don't understand why Germany puts up with that.[/quote]

$$$$$$ cha-ching

[quote]I'm also opposed to permanent bases in the Middle East, for reasons I've given you before I think: primarily as long as there is US or Western military presence in the M-E, religious violence will continue to be provoked form extremists. They love having a reason to fight.[/quote]

Well, that's who they are, literally. They need secular rule. As opposed to these hardline tyrants with a 6th-9th century greivances.

It seems that the tribes, or the individuals themselves have been brought up to think that they need to lash out at anyone who doesn't think like they do. And it's not just that. Someone down the line did something to their family, so they have to seek some type of revenge.

Surely, in time, they will sort all of this out.

Something over there has got to change.

The article basically says these 'trouble spots' like Iraq, North Korea, parts of Africa to name a few are not playing well in the global society. But it goes beyond this really, the US has a strategic plan that it must play in the mid-east. Not only is our security important but we have one huge global player in the world for resources and that is China. We have staked a great investment in the Mid-east and we have for a long time that won't change in the forseeable future.

:wink:

Re: The Pentagon's New Map

[quote=cosmo]I have a couple 'favorites' websites documented that detail Chomsky's inconsistent pattern, and his apparent anti-american dialogue. It's as if he doesn't want to accept the facts, and how history blatantly contradicts his claims. He lives in his own bubble.[/quote]

Gimme gimme gimme...!

Re: The Pentagon's New Map

[quote=Yao][quote=cosmo]I have a couple 'favorites' websites documented that detail Chomsky's inconsistent pattern, and his apparent anti-american dialogue. It's as if he doesn't want to accept the facts, and how history blatantly contradicts his claims. He lives in his own bubble.[/quote]

Gimme gimme gimme...![/quote]

[url]http://plaza.ufl.edu/slasher/antichomsky.htm[/url]

Thanx again man...I found this book I'm reading right now in English, it's: What went wrong with Africa.

Quite a piece of work, but this will be a standard work for me in the future. Other than the title suggests, the author does not really judje, but tries to simply describe all the events that have led to the current situation in Africa. It is one of the most complete works I've ever read, maybe a bit Europe-based in information, but very unbiased.

[url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/9068325485/qid%3D1104189360/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/002-2604062-3751263]At Amazon.com[/url]

The author has been a diplomat for years in Africa, and has decided to fill the information gap on africa with this book.

Re: The Pentagon's New Map

i also feel like someone needs to mention that focusing or redirecting foreign policy doesnt have to mean ignoring domestic matters. there are many minds at work in washington...

The article was an interesting read, but it did make me wonder about one point.

Do all these academic people, and authors and scholars etc actually live in the real world.They go on about integration, and globalisation and how it should occur or else the US will be forced to intervene to help them,but do they actually think about the people that live in these non-conforing countries.Maybe if they stopped to appreciate that these people dont necessarily want everything shoved down its throat by the developed world then their arguments and observations might have some relevance.