Mission accomplished in Libya? That depends on your definition of mission accomplished. When Bush and his cabal got rid of Saddam Hussein and established a military foothold in Iraq, that was mission accomplished for the “neoconservatives” (neocons). Of course they wanted and still want much more, but if you look at what they wanted, they’ve got plenty so far.
Why is the United States still involved in Afghanistan after ten years, Iraq after eight years, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and now Libya, while maintaining over 1000 military bases worldwide, stationing military, intelligence and special forces in over 120 countries (very heavily in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Africa), and spending (and borrowing) trillions to do it? Why has the United States budget for defense, intelligence, and security programs continually risen over the last ten years to approximately $1.2 trillion per year, or about 65% of the entire discretionary budget? Why do we need to spend more on "defense" than almost all other countries combined? Why do almost all U.S. politicians agree that we can’t cut, at least not substantially, the “defense” spending that has more than tripled over the last decade?
As we come upon the ten year anniversary of the Global War on Terror and the Afghanistan war (October 6th), we see the questions more often: Why? Why are we still there? Why should anymore service members be killed? For what? Are we ever going to leave?
Is it still because of 9/11, the Global War on Terror and the terrorist group Al Qaeda, after ten years of war? Is it because of Al Qaeda and any terrorist or terrorist group, anywhere, who might be a threat to the U.S. and our “interests”? Is it because of threats from other countries such as Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela and North Korea to our homeland? Is it because of Imperialism, hegemony and colonialism? Is it because of the power of the Military Industrial Complex and the Pentagon? Or is it because the United States government, or at least the elite segment of society that controls it, want nothing less than global military supremacy and full spectrum military dominance over all land, water, air, space, and cyberspace on earth and beyond?
The U.S. has a long history of enemies and wars, large defense budgets, hegemonic and colonialist actions, and military supremacy but the last ten years have taken things to another level. The neocons started it under Bush, but is there really reason to believe that the agenda they implemented has been changed? They did hold office for eight years until January 2009 but since then Obama seems to have promulgated, escalated and downright flaunted the idea of American exceptionalism fueled by a mighty military ready to fight for good and against evil the world over.
No it hasn’t changed. Different tactics are being tried based on lessons learned but the overriding goal from the Bush neocons to the present is to maintain the United States preeminence as the sole global superpower enforced by it’s massive full spectrum dominance military capabilities. At least that's the plan.
The neoconservatives fully took over under the Bush administration and implemented their foreign policy, national security and militarism plans. Today, many consider George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and other associated neocons that were involved as “war criminals”, people that should avoid traveling abroad. They brought us the illegal war in Iraq, torture, and indefinite detention. They brought us the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Africom, Full Spectrum Dominance, death and destruction and more enemies. They formally implemented an almost universal ideology among the political, military and wealthy elite establishments (i.e. oligarchy) of the right of the United States to be basically rule the world with it's military power.
Through their actions, the neocons have caused the death of perhaps a million or more Middle Eastern people, made refugees out of at least five times more, destroyed the landscape, environment, and infrastructure of Iraq and Afghanistan and created major problems for multiple generations of the people who happened to be in the way. There was no spreading of liberal democracy, it was shock and awe, destroy the country, take their resources, set up the banks and corporations and the military occupation. That is exactly what the neoconservatives wanted. There was no concern for the innocents in their way, no humanitarianism, it was all about “American Interests” and “Preeminent Power”. The American interests were their rich friends, bankers, corporations, Israel, Saudi Arabia, other NATO countries, anyone that needed protecting to further their world hegemony agenda, and world military and economic preeminent fucking power.
Is it any different now? It appears the U.S. will stay in Iraq against all the promises Obama made to get us out, debated numbers and types of personnel notwithstanding. The talk now is to remain in Afghanistan until 2024, however they figured that out. The Pentagon recently announced they were increasing the number of Special Forces and operations in other countries from the current 70 to 120!. You can bet the same thing goes for intelligence agencies. The latest U.S./NATO Operation in Libya was authorized separately from the actions taken and still underway in the GWOT which is basically anywhere they say there is a terrorist or terrorist group that wants to kill us. The GWOT continues and now the mission of “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) has been accepted as part of the worldwide military mission. Send in the intelligence agencies and Special Forces to destabilize, fund and arm oppositions and "joila", a Responsibility to Protect. Meanwhile another massive humanitarian disaster unfolds in Africa and the response is too little too late. There are serious indications that U.S. military involvement may be “required” in Syria, Algeria, Lebanon and beyond. Iran is and has always been on the "list". We have a responsibility to protect and if it takes reducing social security, medicare, unemployment, disabled citizens programs, and retirement pensions, then we all should be glad to contribute to that global mission. Another Madison Avenue created slogan to help the elite conquer the world.
We’re talking about the last ten years but of course it goes back much further than that. American supremacy isn’t new. The current iteration is telling however because of the manner it was documented, how it was implemented and by whom, and how it is continuing. Not to mention the enormity and dangerousness of it all. Look back at who started the current agenda and why they started it.
"The “Project for New American Century”
“The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C.. It was co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by neoconservatives William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership." Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."  The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.”
Many others were instrumental in the PNAC mission including Dick Cheney, the current American evil incarnate, as shown below.
6/3/97 - PNAC's first public act was releasing a "Statement of Principles". Notable signatories to the Statement of Principles appointed to key defense, national security and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration included:
Elliot Abrams (National Security Council); Richard Armitrage (Dep Sec of State); John Bolton (Us Ambassador to UN) ; Dick Cheney (Vice President); Eliot Cohen (Defense Policy Advisory Bd); Paula Dobriansky (Under SOS for Global Affairs); Aaron Friedberg (Dep Asst National Security Affairs); Zalmay Khalilzad (U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, UN); I. Lewis Libby (Chief of Staff); Richard Perle (Defense Policy Board); Donald Rumsfeld (Sec of Defense); Peter Rodman (Asst Sec of Defense); Randy Scheunemann (U.S. Committee on NATO); Paul Wolfowitz (Dep. Sec of Defense); Dov Zakheim (Dep of Defense Comptroller); and Robert Zoelick (Dep. Sec of State/11th President of the World Bank).
(NOTE: These are just the signees that were appointed to important positions in the Bush administration. There were many others, many notorious neocons such as Kristol and Kagen, who signed the Statement of Principles and Open Letters to President Clinton and Bush).
The Statement of Principles begins with two questions:
“As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?”
Preeminent. They’re saying the U.S. had beat the Russians in the Col War and are without question the world’s military and financial superpower. Do we have what it takes to go all the way, to take it to another level and rule the world with our military? PNAC had the answers to America’s new challenge.
Their influence was immediate. They urged and supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (H.R.4655), which President Clinton did sign into law.
1/16/98 – PNAC drafts an open letter to President Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power. They emphasized Saddam’s stockpile of WMDs. They argued that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests.
10/31/98 – HR 4655 - Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
‘Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:
The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.”
11/16/98 – William Kristol of the Weekly Standard and PNAC Member again called for regime change in Iraq stating, "...any sustained bombing and missile campaign against Iraq should be part of any overall political-military strategy aimed at removing Saddam from power”
12/16 – 19/98 – Operation Desert Fox - major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from December 16–19, 1998 by the United States and United Kingdom. The contemporaneous justification for the strikes was Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors.
The bombing campaign had been anticipated since February 1998 and incurred wide-ranging criticism and support, at home and abroad.
Less than 45 days later in January of1999, the PNAC circulated a memo that criticized the December 1998 bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox as ineffective, questioned the viability of Iraqi democratic opposition which the U.S. was supporting through the Iraq Liberation Act, and referred to any “containment” policy illusion.
September 2000, PNAC published a controversial 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century. The report expanded on their original Statement and reaffirmed their goals, "from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces.”
In the 76 page report, PNAC outlines the military and foreign policy agenda the United States should implement.
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for the U.S. military:
-defend the American homeland;
-fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
-perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
-transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”;
Important goals were included to insure the missions: MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING, Full Spectrum Dominance including military supremacy over all Land, Air, Water, Space, and Cyberspace
“Fulfilling these requirements is essential if America is to retain its militarily dominant status for the coming decades. The true cost of not meeting our defense requirements will be a lessened capacity for American global leadership and, ultimately, the loss of a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity. “
“In relation to the Persian Gulf, citing particularly Iraq and Iran, Rebuilding America's Defenses states that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for U.S. military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the [Persian] Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the [Persian] Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.” (p 17)
“To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. . . . Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” (p 51)
9/11/01 – The terrorist attacks on New York City, the Pentagon, and over the Pennsylvania skies provide a “new Pearl Harbor” opportunity for the neocons.
Check out the selected excerpts from the PNAC “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” below. It should be clear the global military supremacy ideology advocated and sought by the Bush administration and now the Obama administration.
9/20/11 - Nine days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq”.
“...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”
PNAC continued to hammer away with their diverse media access, sources and contacts throughout 2002 and early 2003. During the period leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the PNAC had seven full-time staff members in addition to its board of directors. After the Iraq war, the declaration of “Mission Accomplished” by George W. Bush, and the subsequent hanging of Saddam Hussein, the PNAC wound down and eventually ended the organization In 2006.
“We tried to resurrect a Reaganite policy. Our view has been adopted. Even during the Clinton administration we had an effect, with Madeleine Albright [then secretary of state] saying that the United States was 'the indispensable nation'. But our ideas have not necessarily dominated. We did not have anyone sitting on Bush's shoulder. So the work now is to see how they are implemented.”
PNAC was disbanded but the people and the ideology behind it did not go away. A successor organization was started in 2009, the Foreign Policy Initiative.
Their new Mission Statement is as follows:
-continued U.S. engagement--diplomatic, economic, and military—in the world and rejection of policies that would lead us down the path to isolationism;
-robust support for America’s democratic allies and opposition to rogue regimes that threaten American interests;
-the human rights of those oppressed by their governments, and U.S. leadership in working to spread political and economic freedom;
-a strong military with the defense budget needed to ensure that America is ready to confront the threats of the 21st century;
-international economic engagement as a key element of U.S. foreign policy in this time of great economic dislocation.
“FPI looks forward to working with all who share these objectives, irrespective of political party, so that the United States successfully confronts its challenges and make progress toward a freer and more secure future.”
They began with their usual approach, open letters to the President signed by most of their members, many of the same ones who were with PNAC and many new names but all with the same neoconservative ideology of global American military and economic supremacy.
7/1/09 - “Open Letter to President Obama on Democracy and Human Rights in Russia”.
9/7/09 - “Open Letter to President Obama on Afghanistan”.
10/2/09 - “Open Letter to President Obama on Central Europe”.
Since then, FPI has published a continuing series of analysis and “Open Letters” about Afghanistan, Obama’s foreign policies, military spending, Iran, Russia, China, and particularly in 2011, Libya and Syria.
2/25/11 – Open Letter to President Obama – Foreign Policy Experts Urge President to Take Action to Halt Violence in Libya.
The United States should call upon NATO to develop operational plans to urgently:
"Establish a presence in Libyan airspace to prevent the continued use of fighter jets and helicopter gunships against civilians and carry out other missions as required.
Move naval assets into Libyan waters to aid in evacuation efforts and prepare for possible contingencies. Establish the capability to disable Libyan naval vessels used to attack civilians.
Freeze all Libyan government assets in the United States and Europe.
Consider temporarily halting importation of Libyan oil to the United States and Europe.
Make a clear statement that Col. Qaddafi and other officials who order and participate in massacres of civilians will be held accountable for their crimes under international law.
Provide humanitarian aid to the Libyan people as quickly as possible.
3/15/11 – Open Letter to President Obama – Foreign Policy Experts Urge President to Take Action to Halt Violence in Libya.
“We call on you to urgently institute a no fly zone over key Libyan cities and towns in conjunction with U.S. allies. We also call on you to explore the option of targeted strikes against regime assets in an effort to prevent further bloodshed. The United States should also immediately recognize the Libyan National Transitional Council and take all necessary actions to support their efforts to unseat the Qaddafi regime.”
“Today the United States and its allies should stand with the men, women and children of Libya who seek a future of peace and dignity. The situation in Libya in the coming days will not just impact the Libyan people. As protests continue against repressive regimes around the world, the message currently being conveyed by our inaction is that killing and repression will go unpunished and are the best option for despots seeking to postpone reform. “
3/30/11 – FPI Fact Sheet – The Case for Intervention in Libya.
"Still, this cost-centered debate overlooks key considerations such as America’s role as the sole superpower and its global responsibilities. It should also give those who have been advocating for significant cuts to defense spending or even reductions to America’s overseas commitments pause.
"Across the Middle East, the pace of events is accelerating. Our president now understands we have no choice but to become more deeply involved. It’s the right and necessary thing to do. Which is why cutting defense is the last thing America should now be doing.”
6/2/11 – FPI Bulletin – Now is Not the Time to Show a Lack of Resolve on Libya
"Admittedly, many supporters of the intervention have not been pleased with the way President Obama has handled Libya, given the mixed messages sent by senior administration officials and the unwillingness of the President to commit to a more robust U.S. role. But at the end of the day, it is in America’s national, strategic, and moral interest to see this operation through. A world without Qaddafi is a world in which free nations and free peoples will be more secure."
6/20/11 – Foreign Policy Experts Urge House Republicans to Support U.S. Operations in Libya.
“The United States should be leading in this effort, not trailing behind our allies. We should be doing more to help the Libyan opposition, which deserves our support. We should not be allowing ourselves to be held hostage to U.N. Security Council resolutions and irresolute allies."
"What would be even worse, however, would be for the United States to become one of those irresolute allies. The United States must see this effort in Libya through to its conclusion. Success is profoundly in our interests and in keeping with our principles as a nation.”
7/14/11 – FPI Fact Sheet – Five Steps to Hasten Assad’s Exit.
-Unequivocally call for Bashar al-Assad to step down
-Further sanction the Assad regime for human rights abuses
-Withdraw the U.S. Ambassador to Syria and expel Syria’s Ambassador to the United States
-Pressure the Assad regime over its secret nuclear program
-Get Turkey to exert pressure on the Assad regime
_“Unless President Obama gets serious about the Assad regime, the world will face a slow-motion human rights disaster in Syria. In addition to those on the Syrian street who looking to Washington for leadership, other dictators are paying attention. The United States therefore must do all it can to side with the Syrian people and hasten Assad's exit.”
8/10/11 – FPI Bulletin – The Administration’s New Syria Policy is Promising, But More Needs to Be Done.
“The White House should take steps that leave no doubt about where the United States stands. To begin with, President Obama should demand—clearly and without equivocation—that Assad step down and make clear that it is the policy of the United States to help the Syria people achieve their democratic aspirations.”
“As the leader of the free world, President Obama wields unparalleled moral authority. The steps the administration took today are long overdue and much needed. Now the onus is on the President to make clear that the United States is willing to follow up rhetoric with action.
8/25/11 – FPI Bulletin – Obama hasn’t “Won” on Libya.
"The reality is that Libya is a pyrrhic victory for the Obama administration. If anything, the past five months have only served to underscore the necessity of robust American leadership in world affairs, and presidential leadership at home. Both were sorely lacking in the case of Libya."
“While President Obama called for Qaddafi to go on March 3, it was not until July 15 that the United States officially recognized the Transitional National Council (TNC) as Libya’s legitimate governing authority. Doing so earlier might have bolstered the TNC’s international credibility and led to an earlier resolution of the effort to allow frozen Qaddafi assets to be handed over to them.”
The neocons, the same people who brought us the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, torture, and an out of control military and military industrial complex, advocated in the exact same manner for the overthrow of Libya’s Gaddafi and are advocating for a regime change of Syria’s Assad, just as they did for Saddam Hussein. Those heads have been on their wish list platter all along, as General Wesley Clark, former NATO Europe Supreme Allied Commander, testified when he revealed the seven countries the neocons were after first. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Libya, Sudan, and Iran. That’s what General Clark told us years ago and the neocons have long had General Gaddafi in their sites when the time was right. Of course they aren’t satisfied with Obama’s supposed milquetoast approach so far, look at what those bastards believe and want. They would nuke their grandmothers for “American interests”. But their faint praise for continuing their agenda including targeted assassinations to now include Americans is damning.
Much of their rhetoric involves “spreading freedom”, democratic aspirations, free nations and free peoples. We’ve heard it all before under Bush. However, reading thru the PNAC documents and letters and now FPI’s letters and documents, it’s clear they have one goal, world supremacy and “American interests”.
The Obama administration can't stop it even if they wanted to. The only question left is if the American people will stop it, if it will be stopped by a collapse of the United States, or if the agenda will lead to a utterly destructive world war and nuclear holocaust.<blockquote>
EXCERPTS from _"Rebuilding America's Defenses" (Project for a New American Century, September 2000):
"Since today’s peace is the unique product of American preeminence, a failure to preserve that preeminence allows others an opportunity to shape the world in ways antithetical to American interests and principles. The price of American preeminence is that, just as it was actively obtained, it must be actively maintained" (p. 73).
"Moreover, America stands at the head of a system of alliances which includes the world’s other leading democratic powers. At present the United States faces no global rival.
America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible. There are, however, potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and eager to change it, if they can, in directions that endanger the relatively peaceful, prosperous and free condition the world enjoys today. Up to now, they have been deterred from doing so by the capability and global presence of American military power. But, as that power declines, relatively and absolutely, the happy conditions that follow from it will be inevitably undermined" (p. i).
"RAD" takes the posture that only the U.S. should manipulate international relations and points out "trouble spots" that may cause future problems, like Iraq, Iran, Korea and all of East Asia. There is concern that several nations might come together to challenge U.S. interests. Consequently any nation that produces nuclear weapons or engages in significant arms build-up will be viewed as a potential threat.
states seeking to establish regional hegemony continue to probe for the limits of the American security perimeter" (p. 5).
“Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (p. 14).
"In Europe, the Persian Gulf and East Asia, enduring U.S. security interests argue forcefully for an enduring American military presence" (p. 74).
"The Air Force presence in the Gulf region is a vital one for U.S. military strategy, and the United States should consider it a de facto permanent presence, even as it seeks ways to lessen Saudi, Kuwaiti and regional concerns about U.S. presence" (p. 35).
"It is now commonly understood that information and other new technologies – as well as widespread technological and weapons proliferation – are creating a dynamic that may threaten America’s ability to exercise its dominant military power. Potential rivals such as China are anxious to exploit these transformational technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate" (p. 4).
"The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself. The blessings of the American peace, purchased at fearful cost and a century of effort, should not be so trivially squandered" (p. 75).
"Raising U.S. military strength in East Asia is the key to coping with the rise of China to great-power status. (p. 18).
"Despite the shifting focus of conflict in Europe, a requirement to station U.S. forces in northern and central Europe remains. The region is stable, but a continued American presence helps to assure the major European powers, especially Germany, that the United States retains its longstanding security interest in the continent. This is especially important in light of the nascent European moves toward an independent defense 'identity' and policy; it is important that NATO not be replaced by the European Union, leaving the United States without a voice in European security affairs" (p. 16).
"Although U.S. Navy and Marine forces generally operate on a regular cycle of deployments to European waters, they rely on a network of permanent bases in the region, especially in the Mediterranean. These should be retained, and consideration given to establishing a more robust presence in the Black Sea" (p. 17).
"American military preeminence will continue to rest in significant part on the ability to maintain sufficient land forces to achieve political goals such as removing a dangerous and hostile regime when necessary" (p. 61).
"The need to respond with decisive force in the event of a major theater war in Europe, the Persian Gulf or East Asia will remain the principal factor in determining Army force structure for U.S.-based units. However one judges the likelihood of such wars occurring, it is essential to retain sufficient capabilities to bring them to a satisfactory conclusion, including the possibility of a decisive victory that results in long-term political or regime change" (p. 25).
"America’s adversaries will continue to resist the building of the American peace; when they see an opportunity as Saddam Hussein did in 1990, they will employ their most powerful armed forces to win on the battle-field what they could not win in peaceful competition; and American armed forces will remain the core of efforts to deter, defeat, or remove from power regional aggressors" (p. 10).
"If an American peace is to be maintained, and expanded, it must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence" (p. 4).
One stated objective of "RAD" is "to outline the large, 'full-spectrum' forces that are necessary to conduct the varied tasks demanded by a strategy of American preeminence for today and tomorrow" (p. 5).
Much of the document is an elucidation of those missions and includes specific recommendations about weaponry, deployment patterns, increased personnel and defense spending.
"In sum, the 1990s have been a 'decade of defense neglect'. This leaves the next president of the United States with an enormous challenge: he must increase military spending to preserve American geopolitical leadership, or he must pull back from the security commitments that are the measure of America’s position as the world’s sole superpower and the final guarantee of security, democratic freedoms and individual political rights" (p. 4).
"Preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself requires a globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future. But years of cuts in defense spending have eroded the American military’s combat readiness, and put in jeopardy the Pentagon’s plans for maintaining military superiority in the years ahead. Increasingly, the U.S. military has found itself undermanned, inadequately equipped and trained, straining to handle contingency operations, and ill-prepared to adapt itself to the revolution in military affairs" (p. i).
Most of the document detailed the steps that should be taken to carry out the Core missions, such as increasing defense spending, modernizing forces, Full Spectrum Dominance including Cyberspace and Space,
"As a supplement to forces stationed abroad under long-term basing arrangements, the United States should seek to establish a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase the reach of current and future forces. Not only will such an approach improve the ability to project force to outlying regions, it will help circumvent the political, practical and financial constraints on expanding the network of American bases overseas" (p. 19).
"The Air Force should be redeployed to reflect the shifts in international politics. Independent, expeditionary air wings containing a broad mix of aircraft, including electronic warfare, airborne command and control, and other support aircraft, should be based in Italy, Southeastern Europe, central and perhaps eastern Turkey, the Persian Gulf, and Southeast Asia" (p. 31).
"…significant reductions in U.S. nuclear forces might well have unforeseen consequences that lessen rather than enhance the security of the United States and its allies" (p. 8).
"But what should finally drive the size and character of our nuclear forces is not numerical parity with Russian capabilities but maintaining American strategic superiority – and, with that superiority, a capability to deter possible hostile coalitions of nuclear powers. U.S. 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" (p. 8).
"Until the process of transformation is treated as an enduring military mission – worthy of a constant allocation of dollars and forces – it will remain stillborn" (p. 60).
"RAD" envisions a future in which the United States is in complete control of land, sea, air, space and cyberspace of planet Earth. It finds objectionable the limitations imposed by the ABM treaty and urges a newer rendition of Reagan's 'Star Wars' defense shield program. Three missions are seen as crucial.
2. Control of Space — "RAD" advises instituting a new "Space Service" thereby escalating U.S. military preparedness "from the theatre level to the global level" in order to achieve worldwide dominance, both militarily and commercially.
"Yet to truly transform itself for the coming century, the Air Force must accelerate its efforts to create the new systems – and, to repeat, the space-based systems – that are necessary to shift the scope of air operations from the theater level to the global level" (p. 64).
"…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" (p. 55).
"Conversely, an offensive capability could offer America's military and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in a decisive manner. Taken together, the prospects for space war or 'cyberspace war' represent the truly revolutionary potential inherent in the notion of military transformation. These future forms of warfare are technologically immature, to be sure. But, it is also clear that for the U.S. armed forces to remain preeminent and avoid an Achilles Heel in the exercise of its power they must be sure that these potential future forms of warfare favor America just as today’s air, land and sea warfare reflect United States military dominance" (p. 57).
And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool" (p. 60).
Under the 'Land Warrior' program, some Army experts envision a 'squad' of seven soldiers able to dominate an area the size of the Gettysburg battlefield – where, in 1863, some 165,000 men fought" (p. 62)