|
Edited on Sat May-28-05 01:49 AM by Dover
sense, and all their actions can be placed within a broader context now that I've read that Military Industrial Complex article. They are dedicated to a unilateral power, and will not accept any "outside" interference. Here's an excerpt that spells out the two conflicting groups among elites, the Hegemonists (neocons/realists) and the Globalists (most Dems), while the military complex contains both groups and has a big internal struggle going on:
Think the globalist view has proven to be the most accurate:
This globalist approach is also evident at the Army's War College where they defined a strategic community of “stakeholders” that not only includes the E.U. and many third world partners but also potential rivals such as China, Russia and India. For military globalists security goes beyond the war machine to a broader application of power. As one paper argues, “The political and socio-cultural elements would help create conditions for long-term peace and stability by strengthening democratic institutions worldwide, by advancing human rights, and by responding to humanitarian crisis.” (Wass de Czege, 2001, 14)
Under this policy unilateralism is a dangerous self-isolating strategy. Writing for the NDU Kugler states that “any attempt by the United States to act unilaterally would both overstretch its resources and brand it an unwelcome hegemonic superpower.” (Kugler, 2000a, 23) Another study at the Army’s War College warns that “Third World perceptions that the United States wants to retain its hegemony by enforcing the status quo at all costs (will encourage) much cynicism about American ideals at home and abroad.” (Crane, 2002, 24) Military strategists at both these institutes argued the strongest guarantee for world stability is multilateral civic and military engagement. As Kugler explains, “the best hope for the future is a global partnership between (the E.U. and U.S.) acting as leaders of the democratic community.” (Kugler, 2000c, 19)
This globalist strategy was strongly promoted during the Clinton years but never fully supported within the military. Nevertheless hegemonists lacked a strategic rival enemy to focus their thinking and goals. While globalists put forward a dynamic and proactive engagement policy set inside a new grand strategy for global capitalist penetration and stability, hegemonists opposed nation building as going beyond the traditional military role and involved with non-essential global interests. As one military strategist argued, the “armed forces (should) focus exclusively on indisputable military duties” and “not diffuse our energies away from our fundamental responsibilities for war fighting.” (Dunlap, 1996, 6) In more blunt terms Samuel Huntington wrote, “A military force is fundamentally antihumanitarian: its purpose is to kill people in the most efficient way possible.” (Huntington, 1993a, 43)
12 Maintaining this correct use of the military was central to the arguement put forward by geopolitical realists like Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Dr. Condolezza Rice. As Rice explained before 9-11; “The president must remember that the military is a special instrument. It is lethal and it is meant to be. It is not a civilian police force. It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society.” (Harding, 2003)
Well, that explains why Powell chose to position himself in Bush's corner...
This opposition to globalism backed the hegemonists into a cautious defensive position that called for less foreign intervention limited only to regions of vital interests. This dilemma was evident in the presidential debates between George W. Bush and Al Gore. As Bush stated: “I think we've got to be careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win wars.” (Desch, 2001, 5)
The hegemonist aversion to nation building can still be seen in their failure to sufficiently support the new government in Afghanistan and the many problems of occupation in Iraq. The Bush administration was obviously unprepared and illequiped for the post war situiations. Just how unprepared the military was for nation building is explained by Adam Siegel, senior analyst at Northrop Grumman, “The war fighting mission does not require analysis of governmental corruption, police brutality, organized crime...international development funding (and) what is happening in the local economy.” But under globalist leadership such questions were affecting military operations. As Siegel continues, “What will be the population's voting patterns? Where will refugees try to rebuild houses? Will the local schools open on time...These are real examples that this author has seen Bridgade commanders ask their intelligence officers in Haiti and Bosnia.” (Siegel, 2001, 8)
Avoiding such situations and limiting armed interventions to warfare was a key principal for the hegemoinsts. These policy positions dominated MIC debates until the terrorist attacks on 9/11 provided a new worldwide threat that let hegemonists out of their anti-globalist box and created the long sought post Cold War enemy. This made hegemonist’s strategy operational, with the best13 articulated position provided by the neoconservatives and their vision of an aggressive U.S. empire. They quickly moved to assert their leadership and a new unilaterialist direction. Richard Perle clearly articulates their approach, “An alliance today is really not essential…the price you end-up paying for an alliance is collective decision making…We’re not going to let the discussions…the manner in which we do it (and) the targets we select to be decided by a show of hands from countries whose interests cannot be identical to our own.” (Perle, 2001)
For hegemonists such policy is a principle of independent political action and a foundation for nation/centric state power. Former U.N. representative Jeanne Kirkpatrick expresses a common neoconservative complaint that, “foreign governments and their leaders, and more than a few activists here at home, seek to constrain and control American power by means of elaborate multilateral processes, global arrangements and U.N. treaties that limit both our capacity to govern ourselves and act abroad.” (Kirkpatrick, 2000) Thus freeing the U.S. from U.N. obligations and multilaterial agreements was the path to preeminent power. Donald Rumsfeld extends this doctrine in Foreign Affairs. Using terrorism as a political wedge Rumsfeld stated, “Our challenge in this century is…to defend our nation against the unknown, the uncertain, the unseen, and the unexpected…so we can defeat adversaries that have not yet emerged.” (Rumsfeld, 2002, 23) This preemptive aggression for an endless war against non-existent enemies opens the door to unending military intervention. In his scenario the role of global allies is to serve policy determined by the U.S.
--------
|