The Coming U.S. Global Wars

March 30, 2002
by William Buckler

The Erasing Of All The Borders

The Washington Post reports that President Bush has signed a secret directive authorizing lethal covert operations against suspected terrorists in 80 (repeat - EIGHTY) countries. In the recently leaked Nuclear Posture Review, U.S. nuclear armaments have been re-aimed at Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya and Syria. In a speech on January 31 to the National Defense University in Washington, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announced the new U.S. defense doctrine as follows: "Deterrence in four critical theatres backed by the ability to swiftly defeat two aggressors at the same time while preserving the option for one massive counter-offensive to occupy an aggressor’s capital and replace the regime." 

War is a certainty. The Bush Regime is so far out on its bellicose limb that it cannot retreat. 

The Coming U.S. Global Wars: 

The U.S. defense doctrine is an enormous undertaking. Under the heading of "deterrence", it is a design to "deter" four strategic opponents in critical theatres of war. Russia, the old foe, will clearly see itself as one of those theatres. China will see itself as another. That leaves two more strategic theatres. Looking all around the globe, one can place the Middle East as the third theatre. That leaves one more. The last strategic theatre is hard to find, given the criteria that it must be a strategic theatre and a strategic opponent of the United States. The only remaining conglomeration of sufficient military force which might qualify in strength and capabilities is - EUROPE! 

This realization will undoubtedly come as a surprise and a dawning sense of geo-political reality to the continental Europeans. The fact that by global default, there is no one else to be found with the strategic weight to otherwise qualify as a potential strategic opponent to the United States, means that Europe must be it. The Bush/Rumsfeld geo-strategic design then goes further. While likely opponents in the four critical theatres are "deterred", the U.S. stands with the ready military means to defeat two of these strategic opponents at the same time! Finally, a U.S. military option has to be in hand with which to drive a decisive attack straight at a chosen opponent’s capital and, once there, replace the defeated regime. 

This U.S. defense doctrine amounts to deterring two opponents while engaging in a war with the other two with the means to win quickly and, finally, invading the capital and overthrowing one of the two.

Geo-politically, this is nothing more or less than a strategic design for global supremacy, upheld and enforced by U.S. military means.

Some Short Strategic History:

Historically, the political establishments of most nations have been acutely aware of what is known as keeping a strategic balance. They know, or ought to know from history, that for a large nation to become either politically or strategically unbalanced is to court disaster. This rarely happens. The times when it has happened in history stand out as exceptions. These exceptions are when empires dissolve - like the U.S.S.R., or crash into utter strategic defeat - like the empires of Hitler or Napoleon. The other example is an empire which blows apart because of internal strains often caused by engaging in war. That’s what happened to the Austro-Hungarian empire as a result of WW I. The Austrians just wanted a short sharp war with Serbia while Imperial Germany "deterred" the rest of Europe from intervening. This design collapsed when Germany mobilized instead of "deterring". That led to the mobilization of France and Russia, and the WAR was on.

Another strategic imbalance comes in the form of a "One Man Show" such as those which Napoleon and Hitler ran. In these instances, a political establishment does not exist. There is the one man dictator surrounded by a crowd of bootlickers who stake their standing and career upon being in the good favor of the man himself. In such circumstances, the man himself is least likely to get sound advice from those closest to him. Such was the self-imposed fate of both Hitler and Napoleon.

Finally, there are the real economic costs of empire. Here, these have always been costs which the core of the empire couldn’t cover. All empires, from Athens to Rome through the Spanish, British, and French empires found that they had to extract economic gains from other areas which they controlled by military means. In all cases, the cost of control became more than the wealth gained by means of this control.

Now, look at the extravagance of the Bush/Rumsfeld strategic doctrine. This is a "4-2-1" doctrine (deter 4 - defeat 2 at the same time - occupy and overthrow 1). Already faced with the necessity to borrow - just to cover - just the starting costs of this massive design, the further theU.S. drives in this direction, the closer it gets to having to place real economic demands upon other nations - or to forcibly extract them. The end cost of empire is always external extortion and internal repression.

http://www.911-strike.com/war.htm