Dissecting the US National Defense Strategy 2005
Dmitri August 15th, 2007
Most of us aware of the history of World War 2 would be aware of the Reich Ministry of Propaganda in National Socialist (Nazi) Germany. If you wonder how the Germans could become prey to such anti-world and anti-Semitic views, it would be enlightening if we were to have a look at something new and more recent, closely similar to the policies and propaganda of third Deutsches Reich. Issued by the United States Department of Defense, the National Defense Strategy was signed by Dick Cheney (Vice President of United States) and approved by the previous US Senate. If one reads between the lines, it answers a lot of questions and doubts about how much the United States respects freedom and peace around the globe; also how international the US policies are…
On page 2 of the report, it talks about the ‘threats’ the United States faces in from its ‘adversaries’ in the international arena -
The US military predominates the world in traditional forms of warfare. Potential adversaries accordingly shift away from traditional military action and adopt asymmetric capabilities and methods……
Traditional challenges are posed by states employing recognised military capablities and forces in well understood forms of military competition and conflict.
Disruptive challenges may come from adversaries who develop and use breakthrough technologies to negate US advantages in key operational domains.
While challenges of competition in military and technology is a normal phenomena for any country that is something on the globe, it is only the US which finds it such a serious threat that a fear and paranoia against the whole world becomes an order of the day. Any nation with a strong and powerful military is a potential threat to the United States and need to be condemned if they cannot be silenced. Such an attitude breeds a perfect excuse for Americans to have some mud slinging at Russia, China or Venezuela - countries who stand as a threat to US supremacy either because of military power or ability to influence global oil price-market mechanism. It is no surprise then, when this distrust causes China and Russia respond by revitalising their military forces and deploying their nuclear missiles on US targets - just in case….
On page 5, on the objectives about how the United States seeks to remain the only global superpower - at any cost for any country -
We will have no global peer competitor and will remain unmatched in traditional military capability.
We will maintain important advantages in other elements of national power - eg. political, economic, technological and cultural
The first one is pretty self explanatory, in short the United States wants to remain The One in the field of military strength, at any cost. If this domain is challenged or threatened, the United States needs several strategies to counter the scales it its favour; which also include a propaganda campaign against those countries. The second objective gives an insight why the United States administration sees any independent political, technological or economic power as a threat, unless they submit to US will and become mirror puppets like Australia. “We will not have anyone who can beat us, we will attack them if they even dare to think of it.”
One the same page (Page 5), the report also speaks about the challenges and vulnerabilities which would be faced by America on the path to achieve these objectives -
Some allies and partners will decide not to act with us or will lack the capacity to act with us.
Our leading position in the world affairs will continue to breed unease, a degree of resentment, and resistance.
Our strength as a nation will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial process and terrorism.
So, garnering international support or seeking justice through judicial process has become something as evil as terrorism. We can understand why diplomatic and peaceful methods are as serious as terrorism for the US government, they work more effectively and convince more people than the usual violent methods employed by terrorists. It is clear now why the United States totally disregards and discredits anything which serves greater interests of the world rather than its own, like Kyoto Protocol or Global Warming Summit. It is no surprise then, when some old time allies turn away from US demands; like France did by refusing to side with the US in Gulf War II (2003) or Spain who refused to side with US in the Libyan bombings of 1986.
So much for liberty, justice and freedom of choice - these terms have relevance only in relation to American people and their interests. For the rest of the world, using these ideals is on par with terrorism and need to be countered by all means. No wonder nations like Russia, China, Venezuela, etc. have such deep rooted distrust for the United States, they are aware of these government policies. Such propaganda based government policies coupled with past experiences make these nations suspicious of every US move till they are sure of the motives.
On page 6, the points state how the United States will secure itself from the threat or ‘international fora’ and ‘judicial processes’ which could be used by other countries -
The United States cannot influence what it cannot reach. Securing strategic access to key regions, lines of communication, and the global commons:
- Promotes the security and prosperity of the United States;
- Ensures freedom of action
In short, the United States wants to access and control all lines of communication on the globe so that they can influence global opinion and obtain freedom from being responsible for its actions. In the name of ’security and prosperity of US’ of course. It never liked international scrutiny for its actions, particularly its genocides, war crimes and more recently, the secret CIA torture camps. Never mind that the the United States accused the Nazi Gestapo and Reich Ministry of Propaganda of doing the same things during World War 2 era; America is holier than thou - over and above criticism, irrespective of its actions. A dose of double standards anyone..?
Any nation that values its national interests, security and self sufficiency cannot risk getting very close by military partnerships with the United States; the US would use its national objectives to subjugate that nation to a position of weak and voiceless. It is no surprise that Australia has become a mirror for American interests and voices around the globe without any real political or military freedom of its own, much to the humour of the rest of the world. Global leaders like Hu Jintao, Vladimir Putin or Hugo Chavez are aware of this and keep the US at an arms length when dealing with military or political issues. One has to read between the lines and ‘goodwill’ propaganda to see the Fourth Reich ideals hidden in….
More Information and Resources -
- The National Defense Strategy of the United States of America - Report on March 1, 2005 by the United States Department of Defense
- reference book by John Whiteclay Chambers
Loading ...
