- Finally, here it is - the Pentagon's road map to
hell and beyond which they are following right to the letter. Remember
this was written a couple years ago, so some of it has not happened as
predicted or planned. This piece taken straight from the mouthpiece of
the pentagon, speaks volumes.
-
- Below is the basic text of a two hour lecture by Dr.
Barnett, last known to be aired from the pentagon on "American
Perspectives" last year. He is a political scientist who works for the
pentagon. Incredibly proud of promoting US global domination, he
educates (ie., brainwashes) all areas of the military about it.
-
- If Barnett was born about 50 years earlier, Hitler
would have hired him in an instant.
-
- It's all here and spelled out, straight from a
pentagon run .MIL website. Finally, those Americans and countless
people in other nations who are still asleep and un-informed, will
FINALLY gain a real understanding of:
-
- * Why our men and women are NEVER coming home from
the mid-east
-
- * Why war is planned to continue INDEFINITELY
-
- * Why 9-11 happened and how the government gained
from it
-
- * Why ALL the westernized countries MUST be
conquered and absorbed into "the core" and much more.
-
- This piece should be required reading to wake anyone
up. NONE of this will EVER see the light of day on FOX, CNN or any
other mainstream news source. No one can read this, and think the
occasional administration's slip of the tongue about "the American
Empire" is not true.
-
- Barnett's terminology is a bit unique. "The gap" is
codespeak for "those countries who are NOT under US control." "The
Core" is codespeak for those WHO ALREADY ARE UNDER US control. Barnett
all but comes out and states the government caused 9-11, as he shows
how the event will be used to promote and assist US global
domination.
-
- Without doubt, he proves that "The US has the best
enemies money can buy."
-
- Ted Twietmeyer
-
-
- The Pentagon's New Map
It Explains Why We're Going To War...And Why We'll Keep
Going To War.
By Thomas P.M. Barnett
U.S. Naval War
College
-
- 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 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. militaryÅfs
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 1990's, 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 and 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 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 below), 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 to 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 1990's, 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
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 naive
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 mullah's 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 a 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 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 Ease 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 that 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 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. o
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. o 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). A 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 year:
-
- 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. o 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. o 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.
-
- Web link to download this document:
- http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets
- /ThePentagonsNewMap.htm
-
- Actual document is from:
- http://www.oft.osd.mil/initiatives/
- ncw/docs/The_Pentagon_s_New_Map.doc
|
