Tom Clonan in today's Irish Times has written about the new US army Modernization Strategy 2008 written by Lieut. Gen. Stephen Speakes, deputy chief of staff of the US army.

Quote :

The AMS supports the Army's imperatives to rebalance the force and grow and maintain the expeditionary capable, campaign quality Army needed for the full-spectrum dominance the Nation needs now and through the 21st Century.

http://www.army.mil/institution/leaders/modplan/index.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0922/1221998220381.html?via=mr

The Strategy acknowledges that the US army is overstretched in the "Global War against Terror" Tom Clonan says that the doctrine predicts a future of "perpetual warfare". The authors say "We have entered an era of persistent conflict...a security environment much more ambiguous and unpredictable that that faced during the cold war". Moving on from the GWOT, they talk about "emerging features"..in the document's rationale for future threats.."We face a potential turn to traditional security threats posed by emerging near-peers as we compete globally for depleting natural resources and overseas markets" Clonan sees this as a thinly veiled reference to Russia and China and to South Ossetia.

He goes on to talk about the US "survival of the fittest" approach and to say
"The explicit reference in this context to future resource wars, however will probably raise eyebrows among the international diplomatic community, who prefer to couch such conflicts as human rights-based or rooted in notions around freedom and democracy. The document, however contains no such lofty pretences. It goes on to list as a pre-eminent threat to the security of the US and its allies "population growth-especially in less developed countries - (which) will expose a resulting youth bulge." This youthful population would preset the US with further "resource competition" which "will consume ever increasing amounts of food, water and energy".

Clonan says "As a consequence of identifying growing populations in the developed world as a threat in itself, the strategy document highlights a number of paradigm shifts in the way future wars are to be conducted: '21st Century operations will require soldiers to engage among populations and diverse cultures instead of avoiding them"...air, naval and field commanders will no longer just secure traditional strategic targets ...but will of ecessity also deploy and fight amongst and against the target population itself to win wars". Clonan goes on to describe a high tech downsized US army conducting global offensive operations with robot arms and unmanned drones, occupying the "exo-atmospheric zone" with "space-based assets".

The AMS "states explicitly that the US military is preparing to fight continuous resource wars for the 'long haul'.

Clonan describes the Strategy as "Orwellian" and is clearly surprised by the openess of the plans to attack surplus populations in under-developed countries with high-tech weaponry. He also says that the perspectives "unwittingly contained in the document seem to be rapidly materialising as fact."

The dollar has plummetted and oil prices haven risen by 25 dollars today (the largest ever increase) because of the costs of the bail out of the banks. The dollar as reserve currency is in question. The incentive is there more than before for the US to rely on its military force now its economic dominance is crumbling away.

It is unacceptable for a nation to threaten populations across the globe in this way. The new President of the UN General Assembly Miguel D'Escoto is pushing for reining in the the US dominated Security Council. At the same time as the US is planning to spend vast amounts of borrowed money on weaponry, the US and EU are defaulting on UN commitments on poverty, disease and inequality. Its hard to know what to do, but perhaps support for d'Escoto would be a start.

You seem surprised by this attitude? I`d personally have a very pessimistic attitude towards the future. Whatever about wars about natural resources and markets It`s not hard to foresee extremely nasty wars in the future caused by shortages of water and food. They`ll make previous conflicts look like unruly GAA matches.

anmajornarthainig wrote:

You seem surprised by this attitude? I`d personally have a very pessimistic attitude towards the future. Whatever about wars about natural resources and markets It`s not hard to foresee extremely nasty wars in the future caused by shortages of water and food. They`ll make previous conflicts look like unruly GAA matches.

I see your point, but there do seem to be alternatives to wiping large populations out. We didn't use to have birth control and had very little control over the environment. Now we seem to have all the technology we need but we don't have the sense or social structures to allow us to use it. If military budgets were spent on renewables, we wouldn't have an oil issue.

Hear Hear

cactus flower wrote:

Clonan describes the Strategy as "Orwellian" and is clearly surprised by the openess of the plans to attack surplus populations in under-developed countries with high-tech weaponry. He also says that the perspectives "unwittingly contained in the document seem to be rapidly materialising as fact."

I'd be surprised too. Surplus populations are mentioned in the article as a source of competition which will likely result in conflict. But I can't see where he thinks the Americans are going to be attacking the suplus populations themselves. The closest we get is

Quote :

...but will of necessity also deploy and fight amongst and against the target population itself...

This is something they do on a regular basis already but reducing the population itself is not the goal. That would be genocide and no official document is going to endorse that.

yep, some american military strategist comes out with some pretty far fetched nonsense and its put forth as official US policy.

this is from the same military that tried to develop the love bomb, to be dropped on opposing forces and create a homosexual love fest in the trenches in order to cause chaos.

forgive me while i don't batten down the hatches to a "perpetual war" just yet.

zakalwe wrote:

yep, some american military strategist comes out with some pretty far fetched nonsense and its put forth as official US policy.

this is from the same military that tried to develop the love bomb, to be dropped on opposing forces and create a homosexual love fest in the trenches in order to cause chaos.

forgive me while i don't batten down the hatches to a "perpetual war" just yet.

It does appear to be official military policy, Zakalwe. Having said that, it looks, if you trawl through it, like a small boy's Christmas wish list, full of jolly little toys, whirly gigs and widgets. Each one costing many millions sans doute. The punch line at the back of the document is that the biggest threat to US military security is Congress, which might not vote them enough money to buy all the exciting items on their list.

Clonan reads this kind of material all the time: what he seems to find new is the frankness with with going to war for resources is mentioned. 905 is of course right, it would be genocide if the youthful "population bulge" was targeted for reasons of national interest, and that is not legal. This stuff is not much different in tone in my mind to EU blurb about "resource wars" and "energy security". Interestingly Sarkozy's proposal for the French military and for rejoining NATO is very similar in substance - a high tech force with relatively few soldiers.

cactus flower wrote:

zakalwe wrote:

yep, some american military strategist comes out with some pretty far fetched nonsense and its put forth as official US policy.

this is from the same military that tried to develop the love bomb, to be dropped on opposing forces and create a homosexual love fest in the trenches in order to cause chaos.

forgive me while i don't batten down the hatches to a "perpetual war" just yet.

It does appear to be official military policy, Zakalwe. Having said that, it looks, if you trawl through it, like a small boy's Christmas wish list, full of jolly little toys, whirly gigs and widgets. Each one costing many millions sans doute. The punch line at the back of the document is that the biggest threat to US military security is Congress, which might not vote them enough money to buy all the exciting items on their list.

Clonan reads this kind of material all the time: what he seems to find new is the frankness with with going to war for resources is mentioned. 905 is of course right, it would be genocide if the youthful "population bulge" was targeted for reasons of national interest, and that is not legal. This stuff is not much different in tone in my mind to EU blurb about "resource wars" and "energy security". Interestingly Sarkozy's proposal for the French military and for rejoining NATO is very similar in substance - a high tech force with relatively few soldiers.

it kinda reminds me of the 50's (not personal recollections!!) where the west was afraid of the vast amount of soldiers china had at its disposal, along with china's high tolerance for casualties.
the thinking back then, was that china could invade australia and send wave after wave of soldiers onto the beaches. the aussies would cut down vast amounts of chinese soldiers but eventually the guns would wear out and the invasion be successful. britian tested (and stored) tactical nukes in australia's deserts and sent a clear signal to china that any invasion would be met with low range nukes.

australia is probably the only country where nukes could have been used in their own territory for defensive purposes due to the vast empty spaces there. this tactic is credited with preventing a chinese attempt on australia, and is probably a case where high expenditure on weapons and technology may have prevented huge loss of life from a possible war.

Oh come on now Zakalwe: China did not invade anywhere in the 1950s. Or at any time at all, unless you count cross-border operations - a three week incursion into Vietnam and the occupation of Tibet. Rumours of its interests in Australia were greatly exaggerated.

forgetting North Korea are we cactus!!!

there was lots of paranoia in the 50's. and had the west failed in north korea then australia would definately been a target (after japan though).

I don't know too much about Korea but after WWII it was an occupied country, Russians to the North and US to the South. Here is a "Wiki Answer"

Why did china help north Korea invade south Korea?
In: Korean War

As they did in the Vietnam War years later, the Red Chinese warned the US/Allies NOT to approach their borders. We did, they entered the war.

China, like Russia, was concerned about its own territory and the more under pressure, the more interested in establishing buffer zones on other people's turf around their borders. Hardly a plan to take over the universe.

I found this comment on a current economics website:



"If the US government were a bank approaching an immanently projected debt of 11 trillion, it would be bankrupt. Recall the fact that US led globalization has similar effect to that experienced at the height of British Empire. It requires broad military expansion. The wider and further your key economic interests are, the wider and further your military interests must extend. Costs of globalization far exceed those of Empire. Ultimately many economic assets become contested and direct conflict is only avoidable by maintaining an obvious overwhelmingly powerful ability to respond to any challenges. That and an ever larger intelligence mechanism to identify and analyze ever growing numbers of new threats. So the cost is ever escalating, and inevitably leads to the government inability to pay for what it must have, for survival, within a capitalist free enterprise system. A necessary militarism then devours capitalism, unable to support free enterprise for its ever growing needs."



Bob Ezergailis, Hamilton, Canada

A surreal but disturbing Youtube on the same theme:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSlSZ4_9K9E

Aragon wrote:

A surreal but disturbing Youtube on the same theme:

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSlSZ4_9K9E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSlSZ4_9K9E[/quote[/url]]

You only have to go the US army website to see that there are preparations for martial law, and expectations of civil unrest in the US. This is nothing to do with the odd notions put about by the NWO/Conspiracy movement that originated from antisemitic conspiracy theories. I think those types of theories are designed to confuse people and get in the way of understanding of the common or garden systemic failure that is going on. The NWO people are very slow to come forward and say what their political strategy/alternative is, and in so far as they do, it is very right wing.