The Guardian June 25, 2003


Out of their own mouths:
"Maintaining imperial order"

by Anna Pha

Empires have come and gone in world history  the Roman empire, the 
Mongols, the British and Ottoman empires. The objective of the leaders of 
Nazi Germany was world domination but they were resisted and they failed. 
The British empire disintegrated after WW2. Now, a new and even more 
powerful and dangerous nation has launched its crusade for a New World 
Order  a new world-wide American empire. They have become so arrogant 
that they do not hide their objectives and the ways by which they intend to 
enforce their domination. This article, the first of three, brings you what 
their spokespersons have said.

"The United States has no rival. We are militarily dominant around the 
world. Our military spending exceeds that of the next six or seven powers 
combined, and we have a monopoly on many advanced and not so advanced 
military technologies. We, and only we, form and lead military coalitions 
into war. We use our military dominance to intervene in the internal 
affairs of other countries, because the local inhabitants are killing each 
other, or harbouring enemies of the United States, or developing nuclear 
and biological weapons." (S R Rosen, "The Future of War and the American 
Military", Harvard Magazine, May-June 2002)

"A political unit that has overwhelming superiority in military power, and 
uses that power to influence the internal behaviour of other states, is 
called an empire. Because the United States does not seek to control 
territory or govern the overseas citizens of the empire, we are an indirect 
empire, to be sure, but an empire nonetheless. If this is correct, our goal 
is not combating a rival, but maintaining our imperial position, and 
maintaining imperial order." (Emphasis added)

"[I]mperial strategy focuses on preventing the emergence of powerful, 
hostile challengers to the empire: by war if necessary, but by imperial 
assimilation if possible", writes Rosen.

You may say that this is just extremist language but its author is part of 
a circle of very powerful and dangerous people and organisations who are in 
control of the Bush administration's foreign policy. 

In September 2000, prior to Bush's appointment to the US presidency and one 
year before the September 11 attack on the World Trade Centre, the Project 
for a New American Century (PNAC) (one of the many US think tanks) 
published a statement called Rebuilding America's Defense: Strategy, 
Forces and Resources for a New Century.

The report identifies core tasks for the US military to achieve. These 
include:

"MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY.

"DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENCES to defend America and American 
allies and to provide a secure basis for US power projection around the 
world.

"CONTROL THE NEW 'INTERNATIONAL COMMONS' OF SPACE AND 'CYBERSPACE', and 
pave the way for the creation of a new military service  US Space Forces 
 with the mission of space control.

"EXPLOIT THE 'REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS' to ensure long-term 
superiority of US conventional forces..

"INCREASE DEFENCE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 
percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to 
total defence spending annually." (PNAC) (Upper case from the original 
text)

Michael Ledeen is a member of another of the "think tanks"  the American 
Enterprise Institute (AEI). He published an article "We'll Win this War" in 
the AEI's The American Enterprise magazine in December 2001.

"We must wage revolutionary war against all the terrorist regimes, and 
gradually replace them with governments that turn to their own people's 
freely expressed desires as the basis of their political legitimacy", he 
writes.

"If we act like the revolutionary force we truly are, we can once again 
reshape the world, as we repeatedly did throughout the last century. But if 
we settle for token victories and limited accomplishments, we will permit 
our enemies to reorganize, and attack us with even greater venom in the 
future." (Emphasis added)

Shock and Awe warfare

Shock and Awe is the method of warfare to achieve these goals. It has just 
been tested in Iraq. It is explained by Rosen:

"The maximum amount of force can and should be used as quickly as possible 
for psychological impact  to demonstrate that the empire cannot be 
challenged with impunity. [W]e are in the business of bringing down 
hostile governments and creating governments favourable to us.

"Conventional international wars end and troops are brought back home. 
Imperial wars end, but imperial garrisons must be left in place for decades 
to ensure order and stability. This is, in fact, what we are beginning to 
see, first in the Balkans and now in Central Asia..

This type of warfare is explained in the strategy document, Shock and Awe: 
Achieving Rapid Dominance, which was published by the Jewish Institute for 
National Security Affairs (JINSA) in 1996. It says:

"The military posture and capability of the United States of America are, 
today, dominant. Simply put, there is no external adversary in the world 
that can successfully challenge the extraordinary power of the American 
military in either regional conflict or in 'conventional' war as we know it 
once the United States makes the commitment to take whatever action may be 
needed." (Emphasis added)

Rapid Domination

"The aim of Rapid Dominance is to affect the will, perception, and 
understanding of the adversary to fit or respond to our strategic policy 
ends through imposing a regime of Shock and Awe.

"Clearly, the traditional military aim of destroying, defeating, or 
neutralizing the adversary's military capability is a fundamental and 
necessary component of Rapid Dominance. Our intent, however, is to field a 
range of capabilities to induce sufficient Shock and Awe to render the 
adversary impotent. This means that physical and psychological effects must 
be obtained.

"`Dominance' means the ability to affect and dominate an adversary's will 
both physically and psychologically. Physical dominance includes the 
ability to destroy, disarm, disrupt, neutralize, and to render impotent. 
(Emphasis added)

"Psychological dominance means the ability to destroy, defeat, and neuter 
the will of an adversary to resist; or convince the adversary to accept our 
terms and aims short of using force. The target is the adversary's will, 
perception, and understanding..

" deception, confusion, misinformation, and disinformation, perhaps in 
massive amounts, must be employed." (Emphasis added)

"Theoretically, the magnitude of Shock and Awe Rapid Dominance seeks to 
impose (in extreme cases) is the non-nuclear equivalent of the impact that 
the atomic weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had on the Japanese.

"The impact of those weapons was sufficient to transform both the mindset 
of the average Japanese citizen and the outlook of the leadership through 
this condition of Shock and Awe. The Japanese simply could not comprehend 
the destructive power carried by a single airplane. This incomprehension 
produced a state of awe..

"It will imply more than the direct application of force. It will mean the 
ability to control the environment and to master all levels of an 
opponent's activities to affect will, perception, and understanding.

"This could include means of communication, transportation, food 
production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure as well as 
the denial of military responses. Deception, misinformation, and 
disinformation are key components in this assault on the will and 
understanding of the opponent."

 The JINSA document continues: "The first priority of a doctrine of Rapid 
Dominance should be to deter, alter, or affect the will and therefore those 
actions that are either unacceptable to U.S. national security interests or 
endanger the democratic community of states and access to free markets.

"Should deterrence fail, the application of Rapid Dominance in these 
circumstances should create sufficient Shock and Awe to the immediate 
threat forces and leadership as well as provide a clear message for other 
potential threat partners. The doctrine of Rapid Dominance . has 
applications in a variety of areas such as countering WMD, terrorism, and 
perhaps other tasks.

"...in addition to improving our force capabilities, the US must develop an 
intelligence repository far more extensive than during the Cold War, 
covering virtually all the important regions and organizational structures 
throughout the world." (JINSA)

Space control

Space control is also necessary in the eyes of the imperial war hawks. As 
long ago as 1976, the Joint Strategy Review by the National Defense Panel 
said, "Unrestricted use of space has become a major strategic interest of 
the United States." (as quoted in Rebuilding America's Defenses)

"Building an effective, robust, layered, global system of missile defenses 
is a prerequisite for maintaining American preeminence." (PNAC)

"The Clinton Administration's adherence to the 1972 ABM Treaty frustrated 
development of useful ballistic missile defenses", says the PNAC strategy 
document.

"No system of missile defenses can be fully effective without placing 
sensors and weapons in space ... US armed forces are uniquely dependent 
upon space." (PNAC)

"The US Space Command foresees that in the coming decades, . an adversary 
might also share the same commercial satellite services for communications, 
imagery, and navigation.The space 'playing field' is levelling rapidly, so 
US forces will be increasingly vulnerable." (PNAC) (Italics are quote from 
US Space Command.)

"For US armed forces to continue to assert military preeminence, control of 
space  defined by Space Command as 'the ability to assure access to 
space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to 
deny others the use of space'  must be an essential element of our 
military strategy." (Emphasis added)

"As Space Command also recognizes, the United States must also have the 
capability to deny America's adversaries the use of commercial space 
platforms for military purposes in times of crises."

"But, over the longer term, maintaining control of space will inevitably 
require the application of force both in space and from space, including 
but not limited to anti-missile defenses and defensive systems capable of 
protecting US and allied satellites; space control cannot be sustained in 
any other fashion, with conventional land, sea or airforce, or by 
electronic warfare." (Emphasis added) (PNAC)

Nuclear weapons

"Shutting the country down would entail both the physical destruction of 
appropriate infrastructure and the shutdown and control of the flow of all 
vital information and associated commerce so rapidly as to achieve a level 
of national shock akin to the effect that dropping nuclear weapons on 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki had on the Japanese. Simultaneously, Iraq's armed 
forces would be paralysed with the neutralization or destruction of its 
capabilities. Deception, disinformation, and misinformation would be 
applied massively." (JINSA)

This does not rule out the use, development or testing of nuclear weapons. 
Rebuilding America's Defences (PNAC) is quite categoric on this question. 
The maintenance of a moratorium on nuclear tests is "an untenable 
situation" it says.

"...there may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed 
to address new sets of military requirements, such as would be required in 
targeting the very deep underground, hardened bunkers that are being built 
by many of our potential adversaries." (Emphasis added)

"US nuclear superiority is nothing to be ashamed of; rather, it will be an 
essential element in preserving American leadership in a more complex and 
chaotic world." (Emphasis added) (PNAC)

* * *
AEI: the American Enterprise Institute. JINSA, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance, (JINSA) 1996. Ledeen, M, We'll Win this War, The American Enterprise magazine, December 2001. PNAC: Project for a New American Century (PNAC), Rebuilding America's Defense: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, September 2000. Rosen, SP, The Future of War and the American Military, Harvard Magazine, May-June 2002. All documents quoted available from each organisation's website.

Back to index page