Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Global Research: Origins of World War III
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
Oct 19, 2009, 1:23:25 PM10/19/09
to
On Oct 19, 8:25 am, Richard Moore <r...@quaylargo.com> wrote:
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15686
>
> An Imperial Strategy for a New World Order: The Origins of World
> War III Part 1
>
> By Andrew Gavin Marshall
>
> Global Research<http://www.globalresearch.ca/>, October 16, 2009
>
> Introduction
>
> In the face of total global economic collapse, the prospects of a
> massive international war are increasing. Historically, periods of
> imperial decline and economic crisis are marked by increased
> international violence and war.
>
> The decline of the great European empires was marked by World War
> I and World War II, with the Great Depression taking place in the
> intermediary period.
>
> Currently, the world is witnessing the decline of the American
> empire, itself a product born out of World War II. As the post-war
> imperial hegemon, America ran the international monetary system and
> reigned as champion and arbitrator of the global political economy.
>
> To manage the global political economy, the US has created the
> single largest and most powerful military force in world history.
> Constant control over the global economy requires constant military
> presence and action.
>
> Now that both the American empire and global political economy are
> in decline and collapse, the prospect of a violent end to the
> American imperial age is drastically increasing.
>
> This essay is broken into three separate parts. The first part
> covers US-NATO geopolitical strategy since the end of the Cold War,
> at the beginning of the New World Order, outlining the western
> imperial strategy that led to the war in Yugoslavia and the War on
> Terror. Part 2 analyzes the nature of soft revolutions or colour
> revolutions in US imperial strategy, focusing on establishing
> hegemony over Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Part 3 analyzes the
> nature of the imperial strategy to construct a New World Order,
> focusing on the increasing conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran,
> Latin America, Eastern Europe and Africa; and the potential these
> conflicts have for starting a new world war with China and Russia.
>
> Defining a New Imperial Strategy
>
> In 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, US-NATO foreign
> policy had to re-imagine its role in the world. The Cold War served
> as a means of justifying US imperialist expansion across the globe
> with the aim of containing the Soviet threat. NATO itself was created
> and existed for the sole purpose of forging an anti-Soviet alliance.
> With the USSR gone, NATO had no reason to exist, and the US had to
> find a new purpose for its imperialist strategy in the world.
>
> In 1992, the US Defense Department, under the leadership of Secretary
> of Defense Dick Cheney [later to be George Bush Jr.s VP], had the
> Pentagons Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz
> [later to be George Bush Jr.s Deputy Secretary of Defense and
> President of the World Bank], write up a defense document to guide
> American foreign policy in the post-Cold War era, commonly referred
> to as the New World Order.
>
> The Defense Planning Guidance document was leaked in 1992, and
> revealed that, In a broad new policy statement that is in its final
> drafting phase, the Defense Department asserts that Americas political
> and military mission in the post-cold-war era will be to ensure
> that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe,
> Asia or the territories of the former Soviet Union, and that, The
> classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one
> superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior
> and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations
> from challenging American primacy.
>
> Further, the new draft sketches a world in which there is one
> dominant military power whose leaders must maintain the mechanisms
> for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger
> regional or global role. Among the necessary challenges to American
> supremacy, the document postulated regional wars against Iraq and
> North Korea, and identified China and Russia as its major threats.
> It further suggests that the United States could also consider
> extending to Eastern and Central European nations security commitments
> similar to those extended to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab
> states along the Persian Gulf.[1]
>
> NATO and Yugoslavia
>
> The wars in Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s served as a justification
> for the continued existence of NATO in the world, and to expand
> American imperial interests in Eastern Europe.
>
> The World Bank and IMF set the stage for the destabilization of
> Yugoslavia.
>
> After long-time dictator of Yugoslavia, Josip Tito, died in 1980,
> a leadership crisis developed. In 1982, American foreign policy
> officials organized a set of IMF and World Bank loans, under the
> newly created Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), to handle the
> crisis of the $20 billion US debt. The effect of the loans, under
> the SAP, was that they wreaked economic and political havoc... The
> economic crisis threatened political stability ... it also threatened
> to aggravate simmering ethnic tensions.[2]
>
> In 1989, Slobodan Milosevic became President of Serbia, the largest
> and most powerful of all the Yugoslav republics. Also in 1989,
> Yugoslavias Premier traveled to the US to meet President George
> H.W. Bush in order to negotiate another financial aid package. In
> 1990, the World Bank/IMF program began, and the Yugoslav states
> expenditures went towards debt repayment. As a result, social
> programs were dismantled, the currency devalued, wages frozen, and
> prices rose. The reforms fueled secessionist tendencies that fed
> on economic factors as well as ethnic divisions, virtually ensuring
> the de facto secession of the republic, leading to Croatia and
> Slovenias succession in 1991.[3]
>
> In 1990, US the intelligence community released a National Intelligence
> Estimate (NIE), predicting that Yugoslavia would break apart, erupt
> in civil war, and the report then placed blame on Serbian President
> Milosevic for the coming destabilization.[4]
>
> In 1991, conflict broke out between Yugoslavia and Croatia, when
> it, too, declared independence. A ceasefire was reached in 1992.
> Yet, the Croats continued small military offensives until 1995, as
> well as participating in the war in Bosnia. In 1995, Operation Storm
> was undertaken by Croatia to try to retake the Krajina region. A
> Croatian general was recently put on trial at The Hague for war
> crimes during this battle, which was key to driving the Serbs out
> of Croatia and cemented Croatian independence. The US supported the
> operation and the CIA actively provided intelligence to Croat forces,
> leading to the displacement of between 150,000 and 200,000 Serbs,
> largely through means of murder, plundering, burning villages and
> ethnic cleansing.[5] The Croatian Army was trained by US advisers,
> and the general on trial was even personally supported by the CIA.[6]
>
> The Clinton administration gave the green light to Iran to arm the
> Bosnian Muslims and from 1992 to January 1996, there was an influx
> of Iranian weapons and advisers into Bosnia. Further, Iran, and
> other Muslim states, helped to bring Mujihadeen fighters into Bosnia
> to fight with the Muslims against the Serbs, 'holy warriors' from
> Afghanistan, Chechnya, Yemen and Algeria, some of whom had suspected
> links with Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan.
>
> It was Western intervention in the Balkans [that] exacerbated
> tensions and helped to sustain hostilities. By recognising the
> claims of separatist republics and groups in 1990/1991, Western
> elites - the American, British, French and German - undermined
> government structures in Yugoslavia, increased insecurities, inflamed
> conflict and heightened ethnic tensions. And by offering logistical
> support to various sides during the war, Western intervention
> sustained the conflict into the mid-1990s. Clinton's choice of the
> Bosnian Muslims as a cause to champion on the international stage,
> and his administration's demands that the UN arms embargo be lifted
> so that the Muslims and Croats could be armed against the Serbs,
> should be viewed in this light.[7]
>
> During the war in Bosnia, there was a vast secret conduit of weapons
> smuggling though Croatia. This was arranged by the clandestine
> agencies of the US, Turkey and Iran, together with a range of radical
> Islamist groups, including Afghan mojahedin and the pro-Iranian
> Hizbullah. Further, the secret services of Ukraine, Greece and
> Israel were busy arming the Bosnian Serbs.[8] Germanys intelligence
> agency, the BND, also ran arms shipments to the Bosnian Muslims and
> Croatia to fight against the Serbs.[9]
>
> The US had influenced the war in the region in a variety of ways.
> As the Observer reported in 1995, a major facet of their involvement
> was through Military Professional Resources Inc (MPRI), a Virginia-based
> American private company of retired generals and intelligence
> officers. The American embassy in Zagreb admits that MPRI is training
> the Croats, on licence from the US government. Further, The Dutch
> were convinced that US special forces were involved in training the
> Bosnian army and the Bosnian Croat Army (HVO).[10]
>
> As far back as 1988, the leader of Croatia met with the German
> Chancellor Helmut Kohl to create a joint policy to break up Yugoslavia,
> and bring Slovenia and Croatia into the German economic zone. So,
> US Army officers were dispatched to Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, and
> Macedonia as advisers and brought in US Special Forces to help.[11]
> During the nine-month cease-fire in the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
> six US generals met with Bosnian army leaders to plan the Bosnian
> offensive that broke the cease-fire.[12]
>
> In 1996, the Albanian Mafia, in collaboration with the Kosovo
> Liberation Army (KLA), a militant guerilla organization, took control
> over the enormous Balkan heroin trafficking routes. The KLA was
> linked to former Afghan Mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan, including
> Osama bin Laden.[13]
>
> In 1997, the KLA began fighting against Serbian forces,[14] and in
> 1998, the US State Department removed the KLA from its list of
> terrorist organizations.[15] Before and after 1998, the KLA was
> receiving arms, training and support from the US and NATO, and
> Clintons Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, had a close political
> relationship with KLA leader Hashim Thaci.[16]
>
> Both the CIA and German intelligence, the BND, supported the KLA
> terrorists in Yugoslavia prior to and after the 1999 NATO bombing
> of Yugoslavia. The BND had KLA contacts since the early 1990s, the
> same period that the KLA was establishing its Al-Qaeda contacts.[17]
> KLA members were trained by Osama bin Laden at training camps in
> Afghanistan. Even the UN stated that much of the violence that
> occurred came from KLA members, especially those allied with Hashim
> Thaci.[18]
>
> The March 1999 NATO bombing of Kosovo was justified on the pretense
> of putting an end to Serbian oppression of Kosovo Albanians, which
> was termed genocide.
>
> The Clinton Administration made claims that at least 100,000 Kosovo
> Albanians were missing and may have been killed by the Serbs. Bill
> Clinton personally compared events in Kosovo to the Holocaust. The
> US State Department had stated that up to 500,000 Albanians were
> feared dead. Eventually, the official estimate was reduced to 10,000,
> however, after exhaustive investigations, it was revealed that the
> death of less than 2,500 Albanians could be attributed to the Serbs.
> During the NATO bombing campaign, between 400 and 1,500 Serb civilians
> were killed, and NATO committed war crimes, including the bombing
> of a Serb TV station and a hospital.[19]
>
> In 2000, the US State Department, in cooperation with the American
> Enterprise Institute, AEI, held a conference on Euro-Atlantic
> integration in Slovakia.
>
> Among the participants were many heads of state, foreign affairs
> officials and ambassadors of various European states as well as UN
> and NATO officials.[20] A letter of correspondence between a German
> politician present at the meeting and the German Chancellor, revealed
> the true nature of NATOs campaign in Kosovo. The conference demanded
> a speedy declaration of independence for Kosovo, and that the war
> in Yugoslavia was waged in order to enlarge NATO, Serbia was to be
> excluded permanently from European development to justify a US
> military presence in the region, and expansion was ultimately
> designed to contain Russia.[21]
>
> Of great significance was that, the war created a raison d'jtre for
> the continued existence of NATO in a post-Cold War world, as it
> desperately tried to justify its continued existence and desire for
> expansion. Further, The Russians had assumed NATO would dissolve
> at the end of the Cold War. Instead, not only has NATO expanded,
> it went to war over an internal dispute in a Slavic Eastern European
> country. This was viewed as a great threat. Thus, much of the tense
> relations between the United States and Russia over the past decade
> can be traced to the 1999 war on Yugoslavia.[22]
>
> The War on Terror and the Project for the New American Century
> (PNAC)
>
> When Bill Clinton became President, the neo-conservative hawks from
> the George H.W. Bush administration formed a think tank called the
> Project for the New American Century, or PNAC. In 2000, they published
> a report called, Rebuilding Americas Defenses: Strategy, Forces,
> and Resources for a New Century.
>
> Building upon the Defense Policy Guidance document, they state that,
> the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly
> deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars.[23] Further,
> there is need to retain sufficient combat forces to fight and win,
> multiple, nearly simultaneous major theatre wars,[24] and that the
> Pentagon needs to begin to calculate the force necessary to protect,
> independently, US interests in Europe, East Asia and the Gulf at
> all times.[25]
>
> Interestingly, the document stated that, 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.[26] However, in advocating for massive increases in defense
> spending and expanding the American empire across the globe, including
> the forceful destruction of multiple countries through major theatre
> wars, the report stated that, 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.[27] That event came one year later with the events of 9/11.
> Many of the authors of the report and members of the Project for
> the New American Century had become officials in the Bush administration,
> and were conveniently in place to enact their Project after they
> got their new Pearl Harbor.
>
> The plans for war were already under development by far right Think
> Tanks in the 1990s, organisations in which cold-war warriors from
> the inner circle of the secret services, from evangelical churches,
> from weapons corporations and oil companies forged shocking plans
> for a new world order. To do this, the USA would need to use all
> means - diplomatic, economic and military, even wars of aggression
> - to have long term control of the resources of the planet and the
> ability to keep any possible rival weak.
>
> Among the people involved in PNAC and the plans for empire, Dick
> Cheney - Vice President, Lewis Libby - Cheney's Chief of Staff,
> Donald Rumsfeld - Defence Minister, Paul Wolfowitz - Rumsfeld's
> deputy, Peter Rodman - in charge of 'Matters of Global Security',
> John Bolton - State Secretary for Arms Control, Richard Armitage -
> Deputy Foreign Minister, Richard Perle - former Deputy Defence
> Minister under Reagan, now head of the Defense Policy Board, William
> Kristol - head of the PNAC and adviser to Bush, known as the brains
> of the President, Zalmay Khalilzad, who became Ambassador to both
> Afghanistan and Iraq following the regime changes in those
> countries.[28]
>
> Brzezinskis Grand Chessboard
>
> Arch-hawk strategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the
> Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller, former National
> Security Adviser and key foreign policy architect in Jimmy Carters
> administration, also wrote a book on American geostrategy. Brzezinski
> is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the
> Bilderberg Group, and has also been a board member of Amnesty
> International, the Atlantic Council and the National Endowment for
> Democracy. Currently, he is a trustee and counselor at the Center
> for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a major US policy
> think tank.
>
> In his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski outlined a
> strategy for America in the world. He wrote, For America, the chief
> geopolitical prize is Eurasia. For half a millennium, world affairs
> were dominated by Eurasian powers and peoples who fought with one
> another for regional domination and reached out for global power.
> Further, how America manages Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the
> globes largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that
> dominates Eurasia would control two of the worlds three most advanced
> and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also
> suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail
> African subordination.[29]
>
> He continued in outlining a strategy for American empire, stating
> that, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable
> of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The
> formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy
> is therefore the purpose of this book.[30] He explained that, Two
> basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically
> dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially
> important shift in the international distribution of power and to
> decipher the central external goals of their respective political
> elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them:
> [and] second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt,
> and/or control the above.[31]
>
> What this means is that is it of primary importance to first identify
> states that could potentially be a pivot upon which the balance of
> power in the region exits the US sphere of influence; and secondly,
> to offset, co-opt, and/or control such states and circumstances.
> An example of this would be Iran; being one of the worlds largest
> oil producers, and in a strategically significant position in the
> axis of Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Iran could hold the
> potential to alter the balance of power in Eurasia if it were to
> closely ally itself with Russia or China, or both giving those
> nations a heavy supply of oil as well as a sphere of influence in
> the Gulf, thus challenging American hegemony in the region.
>
> Brzezinski removed all subtlety from his imperial leanings, and
> wrote, To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more
> brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of
> imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security
> dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and
> protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.[32]
>
> Brzezinski referred to the Central Asian republics as the Eurasian
> Balkans, writing that, Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics]
> are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical
> ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful
> neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling
> an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian
> Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize:
> an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located
> in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.[33]
> He further wrote that, It follows that America's primary interest
> is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this
> geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered
> financial and economic access to it.[34] This is a clear example
> of Americas role as an engine of empire; with foreign imperial
> policy designed to maintain US strategic positions, but primarily
> and infinitely more important, is to secure an economic prize for
> the global community. In other words, the United States is an
> imperial hegemon working for international financial interests.
>
> Brzezinski also warned that, the United States may have to determine
> how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out
> of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global
> power,[35] and he, puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in
> order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could
> eventually seek to challenge America's primacy.
>
> Thus, The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or
> combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States
> from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration
> role.[36]
>
> The War on Terror and Surplus Imperialism
>
> In 2000, the Pentagon released a document called Joint Vision 2020,
> which outlined a project to achieve what they termed, Full Spectrum
> Dominance, as the blueprint for the Department of Defense in the
> future. Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces,
> operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control
> any situation across the range of military operations. The report
> addresses full-spectrum dominance across the range of conflicts
> from nuclear war to major theater wars to smaller-scale contingencies.
> It also addresses amorphous situations like peacekeeping and noncombat
> humanitarian relief. Further, The development of a global information
> grid will provide the environment for decision superiority.[37]
>
> As political economist, Ellen Wood, explained, Boundless domination
> of a global economy, and of the multiple states that administer it,
> requires military action without end, in purpose or time.[38]
> Further, Imperial dominance in a global capitalist economy requires
> a delicate and contradictory balance between suppressing competition
> and maintaining conditions in competing economies that generate
> markets and profit. This is one of the most fundamental contradictions
> of the new world order.[39]
>
> Following 9/11, the Bush doctrine was put in place, which called
> for a unilateral and exclusive right to preemptive attack, any time,
> anywhere, unfettered by any international agreements, to ensure
> that [o]ur forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential
> adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hope of surpassing,
> or equaling, the power of the United States.[40]
>
> NATO undertook its first ground invasion of any nation in its entire
> history, with the October 2001 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
> The Afghan war was in fact, planned prior to the events of 9/11,
> with the breakdown of major pipeline deals between major western
> oil companies and the Taliban. The war itself was planned over the
> summer of 2001 with the operational plan to go to war by mid-October.[41]
>
> Afghanistan is extremely significant in geopolitical terms, as,
> Transporting all the Caspian basin's fossil fuel through Russia or
> Azerbaijan would greatly enhance Russia's political and economic
> control over the central Asian republics, which is precisely what
> the west has spent 10 years trying to prevent. Piping it through
> Iran would enrich a regime which the US has been seeking to isolate.
> Sending it the long way round through China, quite aside from the
> strategic considerations, would be prohibitively expensive. But
> pipelines through Afghanistan would allow the US both to pursue its
> aim of diversifying energy supply and to penetrate the world's most
> lucrative markets.[42]
>
> As the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out a mere two weeks following
> the 9/11 attacks, Beyond American determination to hit back against
> the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, beyond the likelihood of
> longer, drawn-out battles producing more civilian casualties in the
> months and years ahead, the hidden stakes in the war against terrorism
> can be summed up in a single word: oil.
>
> Explaining further, The map of terrorist sanctuaries and targets
> in the Middle East and Central Asia is also, to an extraordinary
> degree, a map of the world's principal energy sources in the 21st
> century. The defense of these energy resources -- rather than a
> simple confrontation between Islam and the West -- will be the
> primary flash point of global conflict for decades to come.
>
> Among the many notable states where there is a crossover between
> terrorism and oil and gas reserves of vital importance to the United
> States and the West, are Saudi Arabia, Libya, Bahrain, the Gulf
> Emirates, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan and Algeria, Turkmenistan,
> Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Chechnya, Georgia and eastern Turkey.
> Importantly, this region accounts for more than 65 percent of the
> world's oil and natural gas production. Further, It is inevitable
> that the war against terrorism will be seen by many as a war on
> behalf of America's Chevron, ExxonMobil and Arco; France's TotalFinaElf;
> British Petroleum; Royal Dutch Shell and other multinational giants,
> which have hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in the
> region.[43]
>
> Its no secret that the Iraq war had much to do with oil. In the
> summer of 2001, Dick Cheney convened an Energy Task Force, which
> was a highly secret set of meetings in which energy policy was
> determined for the United States. In the meetings and in various
> other means of communication, Cheney and his aides met with top
> officials and executives of Shell Oil, British Petroleum (BP), Exxon
> Mobil, Chevron, Conoco, and Chevron.[44] At the meeting, which took
> place before 9/11 and before there was any mention of a war on Iraq,
> documents of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals
> were presented and discussed, and Saudi Arabian and United Arab
> Emirates (UAE) documents likewise feature a map of each countrys
> oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals.[45] Both
> Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum have since received major
> oil contracts to develop Iraqi oilfields.[46]
>
> The war on Iraq, as well as the war on Afghanistan, also largely
> serve specifically American, and more broadly, Western imperial-strategic
> interests in the region. In particular, the wars were strategically
> designed to eliminate, threaten or contain regional powers, as well
> as to directly install several dozen military bases in the region,
> firmly establishing an imperial presence. The purpose of this is
> largely aimed at other major regional players and specifically,
> encircling Russia and China and threatening their access to the
> regions oil and gas reserves. Iran is now surrounded, with Iraq on
> one side, and Afghanistan on the other.
>
> Concluding Remarks
>
> Part 1 of this essay outlined the US-NATO imperial strategy for
> entering the New World Order, following the break-up of the Soviet
> Union in 1991. The primary aim was focused on encircling Russia and
> China and preventing the rise of a new superpower. The US was to
> act as the imperial hegemon, serving international financial interests
> in imposing the New World Order. The next part to this essay examines
> the colour revolutions throughout Eastern Europe and Central Asia,
> continuing the US and NATO policy of containing Russia and China;
> while controlling access to major natural gas reserves and
> transportation routes. The colour revolutions have been a pivotal
> force in geopolitical imperial strategy, and analyzing them is key
> to understanding the New World Order.
>
> Endnotes
>
> [1] Tyler, Patrick E. U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring
> No Rivals Develop: A One Superpower World. The New York Times: March
> 8, 1992.
>
> http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm
>
> [2] Louis Sell, Slobodan Milosevic and the Destruction of
> Yugoslavia.
>
> Duke University Press, 2002: Page 28
>
> Michel Chossudovsky, Dismantling Former Yugoslavia, Recolonizing
> Bosnia-Herzegovina. Global Research: February 19, 2002:
>
> http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=370
>
> [3] Michel Chossudovsky, Dismantling Former Yugoslavia,
> Recolonizing Bosnia-Herzegovina. Global Research: February 19, 2002:
>
> http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=370
>
> [4] David Binder, Yugoslavia Seen Breaking Up Soon. The New
> York Times:
>
> November 28, 1990
>
> [5] Ian Traynor, Croat general on trial for war crimes. The
> Guardian:
>
> March 12,
> 2008:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/12/warcrimes.balkans
>
> [6] Adam LeBor, Croat general Ante Gotovina stands trial for
> war crimes. The Times Online: March 11, 2008:
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3522828.ece
>
> [7] Brendan ONeill, 'You are only allowed to see Bosnia in
> black and white'. Spiked: January 23,
> 2004:http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA374.htm
>
> [8] Richard J. Aldrich, America used Islamists to arm the
> Bosnian Muslims. The Guardian: April 22,
> 2002:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/22/warcrimes.comment/print
>
> [9] Tim Judah, German spies accused of arming Bosnian Muslims.
> The Telegraph: April 20,
> 1997:http://www.serbianlinks.freehosting.net/german.htm
>
> [10] Charlotte Eagar, Invisible US Army defeats Serbs. The
> Observer:
>
> November 5, 1995:http://charlotte-eagar.com/stories/balkans110595.shtml
>
> [11] Gary Wilson, New reports show secret U.S. role in Balkan
> war.
>
> Workers World News Service: 1996:http://www.workers.org/ww/1997/bosnia.html
>
> [12] IAC, The CIA Role in Bosnia. International Action Center:
>
> http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/ciarole.htm
>
> [13] History Commons, Serbia and Montenegro: 1996-1999: Albanian
> Mafia and KLA Take Control of Balkan Heroin Trafficking Route. The
> Center for Cooperative Research:
>
> http://www.historycommons.org/topic.jsp?topic=country_serbia_and_mont...
>
> [14] History Commons, Serbia and Montenegro: 1997: KLA Surfaces
> to Resist Serbian Persecution of Albanians. The Center for Cooperative
> Research:
>
> http://www.historycommons.org/topic.jsp?topic=country_serbia_and_mont...
>
> [15] History Commons, Serbia and Montenegro: February 1998:
> State Department Removes KLA from Terrorism List. The Center for
> Cooperative Research:
>
> http://www.historycommons.org/topic.jsp?topic=country_serbia_and_mont...
>
> [16] Marcia Christoff Kurop, Al Qaeda's Balkan Links. The Wall
> Street Journal: November 1,
> 2001:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/561291/posts
>
> [17] Global Research, German Intelligence and the CIA supported
> Al Qaeda sponsored Terrorists in Yugoslavia. Global Research:
> February 20, 2005:
>
> http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=431
>
> [18] Michel Chossudovsky, Kosovo: The US and the EU support a
> Political Process linked to Organized Crime. Global Research:
> February 12, 2008:
>
> http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8055
>
> [19] Andrew Gavin Marshall, Breaking Yugoslavia. Geopolitical
> Monitor:
>
> July 21,
> 2008:http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/content/backgrounders/2008-07-21/brea
> king-yugoslavia/
>
> [20] AEI, Is Euro-Atlantic Integration Still on Track? Participant
> List.
>
> American Enterprise Institute: April 28-30, 2000:
>
> http://www.aei.org/research/nai/events/pageID.440,projectID.11/defaul...
>
> [21] Aleksandar Pavi, Correspondence between German Politicians
> Reveals the Hidden Agenda behind Kosovo's "Independence". Global
> Research: March 12, 2008:http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8304
>
> [22] Stephen Zunes, The War on Yugoslavia, 10 Years Later.
> Foreign Policy in Focus: April 6, 2009:http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6017
>
> [23] PNAC, Rebuilding Americas Defenses. Project for the New
> American Century: September 2000, page 6:
>
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm
>
> [24] Ibid. Page 8
>
> [25] Ibid. Page 9
>
> [26] Ibid. Page 14
>
> [27] Ibid. Page 51
>
> [28] Margo Kingston, A think tank war: Why old Europe says no.
> The Sydney Morning Herald: March 7, 2003:
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826528748.html
>
> [29] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American
> Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Pages
> 30-31
>
> [30] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American
> Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page
> xiv
>
> [31] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American
> Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page
> 41
>
> [32] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American
> Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page
> 40
>
> [33] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American
> Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page
> 124
>
> [34] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American
> Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page
> 148
>
> [35] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American
> Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page
> 55
>
> [36] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American
> Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page
> 198
>
> [37] Jim Garamone, Joint Vision 2020 Emphasizes Full-spectrum
> Dominance.
>
> American Forces Press Service: June 2, 2000:
>
> http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45289
>
> [38] Ellen Wood, Empire of Capital. Verso, 2003: page 144
>
> [39] Ellen Wood, Empire of Capital. Verso, 2003: page 157
>
> [40] Ellen Wood, Empire of Capital. Verso, 2003: page 160
>
> [41] Andrew G. Marshall, Origins of Afghan War. Geopolitical
> Monitor:
>
> September 14, 2008:
>
> http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/content/backgrounders/2008-09-14/o...
> f-the-afghan-war/
>
> [42] George Monbiot, America's pipe dream. The Guardian: October
> 23, 2001:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/23/afghanistan.terrorism11
>
> [43] Frank Viviano, Energy future rides on U.S. war. San
> Francisco Chronicle: September 26, 2001:
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/200...
> MN70983.DTL
>
> [44] Dana Milbank and Justin Blum, Document Says Oil Chiefs
> Met With Cheney Task Force. Washington Post: November 16, 2005:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR200...
> 42_pf.html
>
> [45] Judicial Watch, CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE
> MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS. Commerce Department: July 17, 2003:
>
> http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_iraqi-oilfield-pr.shtml
>
> [46] TERRY MACALISTER, Criticism as Shell signs $4bn Iraq oil
> deal. Mail and Guardian: September 30, 2008:
>
> http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-09-30-criticism-as-shell-signs-4bn-i...
> deal
>
> Al-Jazeera, BP group wins Iraq oil contract. Al Jazeera Online:
> June 30,
> 2009:http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200963093615637434.
>
> html
>
> Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for
> Research on Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political
> Economy and History at Simon Fraser University.
>
> ________________________________
>
> Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
> responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those
> of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this
> article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for
> Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any
> inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
>
> To become a Member of Global
> Research<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=section§ionName=m
> embership>
>
> The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research
> articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title
> are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be
> displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or
> other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
> crgedi...@yahoo.com <mailto:crgedi...@yahoo.com>
>
> www.globalresearch.ca<http://www.globalresearch.ca/www.globalresearch.ca>
> contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
> specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
> material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair
> use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political,
> economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed
> without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
> receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to
> use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you
> must request permission from the copyright owner.
>
> For media inquiries: crgedi...@yahoo.com<mailto:crgedi...@yahoo.com>
>
> Copyright Andrew Gavin Marshall, Global Research, 2009
>
> The url address of this article is:
>
> www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=15686<http://www.globalresea
> rch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=15686>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca Web site engine by Polygraphx
> Multimedia<http://www.polygraphx.com/> ) Copyright 2005-2007
>
> ___________________________ subscribe mailto:
>
> newslog+...@googlegroups.com<mailto:newslog+...@googlegroups.com>
>
> websites:
>
> http://www.governourselves.org/http://escapingthematrix.org/http://thecreditbankdevelopmentmodel.blogspot.com/http://cyberjournal.org
>
> archives:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/newslog/topicshttp://groups.google.com/group/cyberjournal/topics
>
> Moderator: r...@quaylargo.com<mailto:r...@quaylargo.com> (comments
> welcome)
>
> __._,_.___
>
> Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings
> via the
> Web<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newslog/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJnaHNpMDVrBF9TA...
> Dc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTUzOTc2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3MQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNzdG5ncw
> RzdGltZQMxMjU1OTU4Njg1> (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via
> email: Switch delivery to Daily
> Digest<mailto:newslog-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Dige
> st> | Switch to Fully
> Featured<mailto:newslog-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Deliver
> y%20Format:%20Fully%20Featured> Visit Your Group
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newslog;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcWFvaDZtBF9TAzk3ND...
> GdycElkAzIwMTUzOTc2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3MQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNocGYEc3RpbWUDMT
> I1NTk1ODY4NQ--> | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> | Unsubscribe
> <mailto:newslog-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> __,_._,___
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15686
>
> An Imperial Strategy for a New World Order: The Origins of World
> War III Part 1
>
> By Andrew Gavin Marshall
>
> Global Research<http://www.globalresearch.ca/>, October 16, 2009
>
> Introduction
>
> In the face of total global economic collapse, the prospects of a
> massive international war are increasing. Historically, periods of
> imperial decline and economic crisis are marked by increased
> international violence and war.
>
> The decline of the great European empires was marked by World War
> I and World War II, with the Great Depression taking place in the
> intermediary period.
>
> Currently, the world is witnessing the decline of the American
> empire, itself a product born out of World War II. As the post-war
> imperial hegemon, America ran the international monetary system and
> reigned as champion and arbitrator of the global political economy.
>
> To manage the global political economy, the US has created the
> single largest and most powerful military force in world history.
> Constant control over the global economy requires constant military
> presence and action.
>
> Now that both the American empire and global political economy are
> in decline and collapse, the prospect of a violent end to the
> American imperial age is drastically increasing.
>
> This essay is broken into three separate parts. The first part
> covers US-NATO geopolitical strategy since the end of the Cold War,
> at the beginning of the New World Order, outlining the western
> imperial strategy that led to the war in Yugoslavia and the War on
> Terror. Part 2 analyzes the nature of soft revolutions or colour
> revolutions in US imperial strategy, focusing on establishing
> hegemony over Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Part 3 analyzes the
> nature of the imperial strategy to construct a New World Order,
> focusing on the increasing conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran,
> Latin America, Eastern Europe and Africa; and the potential these
> conflicts have for starting a new world war with China and Russia.
>
> Defining a New Imperial Strategy
>
> In 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, US-NATO foreign
> policy had to re-imagine its role in the world. The Cold War served
> as a means of justifying US imperialist expansion across the globe
> with the aim of containing the Soviet threat. NATO itself was created
> and existed for the sole purpose of forging an anti-Soviet alliance.
> With the USSR gone, NATO had no reason to exist, and the US had to
> find a new purpose for its imperialist strategy in the world.
>
> In 1992, the US Defense Department, under the leadership of Secretary
> of Defense Dick Cheney [later to be George Bush Jr.s VP], had the
> Pentagons Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz
> [later to be George Bush Jr.s Deputy Secretary of Defense and
> President of the World Bank], write up a defense document to guide
> American foreign policy in the post-Cold War era, commonly referred
> to as the New World Order.
>
> The Defense Planning Guidance document was leaked in 1992, and
> revealed that, In a broad new policy statement that is in its final
> drafting phase, the Defense Department asserts that Americas political
> and military mission in the post-cold-war era will be to ensure
> that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe,
> Asia or the territories of the former Soviet Union, and that, The
> classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one
> superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior
> and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations
> from challenging American primacy.
>
> Further, the new draft sketches a world in which there is one
> dominant military power whose leaders must maintain the mechanisms
> for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger
> regional or global role. Among the necessary challenges to American
> supremacy, the document postulated regional wars against Iraq and
> North Korea, and identified China and Russia as its major threats.
> It further suggests that the United States could also consider
> extending to Eastern and Central European nations security commitments
> similar to those extended to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab
> states along the Persian Gulf.[1]
>
> NATO and Yugoslavia
>
> The wars in Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s served as a justification
> for the continued existence of NATO in the world, and to expand
> American imperial interests in Eastern Europe.
>
> The World Bank and IMF set the stage for the destabilization of
> Yugoslavia.
>
> After long-time dictator of Yugoslavia, Josip Tito, died in 1980,
> a leadership crisis developed. In 1982, American foreign policy
> officials organized a set of IMF and World Bank loans, under the
> newly created Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), to handle the
> crisis of the $20 billion US debt. The effect of the loans, under
> the SAP, was that they wreaked economic and political havoc... The
> economic crisis threatened political stability ... it also threatened
> to aggravate simmering ethnic tensions.[2]
>
> In 1989, Slobodan Milosevic became President of Serbia, the largest
> and most powerful of all the Yugoslav republics. Also in 1989,
> Yugoslavias Premier traveled to the US to meet President George
> H.W. Bush in order to negotiate another financial aid package. In
> 1990, the World Bank/IMF program began, and the Yugoslav states
> expenditures went towards debt repayment. As a result, social
> programs were dismantled, the currency devalued, wages frozen, and
> prices rose. The reforms fueled secessionist tendencies that fed
> on economic factors as well as ethnic divisions, virtually ensuring
> the de facto secession of the republic, leading to Croatia and
> Slovenias succession in 1991.[3]
>
> In 1990, US the intelligence community released a National Intelligence
> Estimate (NIE), predicting that Yugoslavia would break apart, erupt
> in civil war, and the report then placed blame on Serbian President
> Milosevic for the coming destabilization.[4]
>
> In 1991, conflict broke out between Yugoslavia and Croatia, when
> it, too, declared independence. A ceasefire was reached in 1992.
> Yet, the Croats continued small military offensives until 1995, as
> well as participating in the war in Bosnia. In 1995, Operation Storm
> was undertaken by Croatia to try to retake the Krajina region. A
> Croatian general was recently put on trial at The Hague for war
> crimes during this battle, which was key to driving the Serbs out
> of Croatia and cemented Croatian independence. The US supported the
> operation and the CIA actively provided intelligence to Croat forces,
> leading to the displacement of between 150,000 and 200,000 Serbs,
> largely through means of murder, plundering, burning villages and
> ethnic cleansing.[5] The Croatian Army was trained by US advisers,
> and the general on trial was even personally supported by the CIA.[6]
>
> The Clinton administration gave the green light to Iran to arm the
> Bosnian Muslims and from 1992 to January 1996, there was an influx
> of Iranian weapons and advisers into Bosnia. Further, Iran, and
> other Muslim states, helped to bring Mujihadeen fighters into Bosnia
> to fight with the Muslims against the Serbs, 'holy warriors' from
> Afghanistan, Chechnya, Yemen and Algeria, some of whom had suspected
> links with Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan.
>
> It was Western intervention in the Balkans [that] exacerbated
> tensions and helped to sustain hostilities. By recognising the
> claims of separatist republics and groups in 1990/1991, Western
> elites - the American, British, French and German - undermined
> government structures in Yugoslavia, increased insecurities, inflamed
> conflict and heightened ethnic tensions. And by offering logistical
> support to various sides during the war, Western intervention
> sustained the conflict into the mid-1990s. Clinton's choice of the
> Bosnian Muslims as a cause to champion on the international stage,
> and his administration's demands that the UN arms embargo be lifted
> so that the Muslims and Croats could be armed against the Serbs,
> should be viewed in this light.[7]
>
> During the war in Bosnia, there was a vast secret conduit of weapons
> smuggling though Croatia. This was arranged by the clandestine
> agencies of the US, Turkey and Iran, together with a range of radical
> Islamist groups, including Afghan mojahedin and the pro-Iranian
> Hizbullah. Further, the secret services of Ukraine, Greece and
> Israel were busy arming the Bosnian Serbs.[8] Germanys intelligence
> agency, the BND, also ran arms shipments to the Bosnian Muslims and
> Croatia to fight against the Serbs.[9]
>
> The US had influenced the war in the region in a variety of ways.
> As the Observer reported in 1995, a major facet of their involvement
> was through Military Professional Resources Inc (MPRI), a Virginia-based
> American private company of retired generals and intelligence
> officers. The American embassy in Zagreb admits that MPRI is training
> the Croats, on licence from the US government. Further, The Dutch
> were convinced that US special forces were involved in training the
> Bosnian army and the Bosnian Croat Army (HVO).[10]
>
> As far back as 1988, the leader of Croatia met with the German
> Chancellor Helmut Kohl to create a joint policy to break up Yugoslavia,
> and bring Slovenia and Croatia into the German economic zone. So,
> US Army officers were dispatched to Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, and
> Macedonia as advisers and brought in US Special Forces to help.[11]
> During the nine-month cease-fire in the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
> six US generals met with Bosnian army leaders to plan the Bosnian
> offensive that broke the cease-fire.[12]
>
> In 1996, the Albanian Mafia, in collaboration with the Kosovo
> Liberation Army (KLA), a militant guerilla organization, took control
> over the enormous Balkan heroin trafficking routes. The KLA was
> linked to former Afghan Mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan, including
> Osama bin Laden.[13]
>
> In 1997, the KLA began fighting against Serbian forces,[14] and in
> 1998, the US State Department removed the KLA from its list of
> terrorist organizations.[15] Before and after 1998, the KLA was
> receiving arms, training and support from the US and NATO, and
> Clintons Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, had a close political
> relationship with KLA leader Hashim Thaci.[16]
>
> Both the CIA and German intelligence, the BND, supported the KLA
> terrorists in Yugoslavia prior to and after the 1999 NATO bombing
> of Yugoslavia. The BND had KLA contacts since the early 1990s, the
> same period that the KLA was establishing its Al-Qaeda contacts.[17]
> KLA members were trained by Osama bin Laden at training camps in
> Afghanistan. Even the UN stated that much of the violence that
> occurred came from KLA members, especially those allied with Hashim
> Thaci.[18]
>
> The March 1999 NATO bombing of Kosovo was justified on the pretense
> of putting an end to Serbian oppression of Kosovo Albanians, which
> was termed genocide.
>
> The Clinton Administration made claims that at least 100,000 Kosovo
> Albanians were missing and may have been killed by the Serbs. Bill
> Clinton personally compared events in Kosovo to the Holocaust. The
> US State Department had stated that up to 500,000 Albanians were
> feared dead. Eventually, the official estimate was reduced to 10,000,
> however, after exhaustive investigations, it was revealed that the
> death of less than 2,500 Albanians could be attributed to the Serbs.
> During the NATO bombing campaign, between 400 and 1,500 Serb civilians
> were killed, and NATO committed war crimes, including the bombing
> of a Serb TV station and a hospital.[19]
>
> In 2000, the US State Department, in cooperation with the American
> Enterprise Institute, AEI, held a conference on Euro-Atlantic
> integration in Slovakia.
>
> Among the participants were many heads of state, foreign affairs
> officials and ambassadors of various European states as well as UN
> and NATO officials.[20] A letter of correspondence between a German
> politician present at the meeting and the German Chancellor, revealed
> the true nature of NATOs campaign in Kosovo. The conference demanded
> a speedy declaration of independence for Kosovo, and that the war
> in Yugoslavia was waged in order to enlarge NATO, Serbia was to be
> excluded permanently from European development to justify a US
> military presence in the region, and expansion was ultimately
> designed to contain Russia.[21]
>
> Of great significance was that, the war created a raison d'jtre for
> the continued existence of NATO in a post-Cold War world, as it
> desperately tried to justify its continued existence and desire for
> expansion. Further, The Russians had assumed NATO would dissolve
> at the end of the Cold War. Instead, not only has NATO expanded,
> it went to war over an internal dispute in a Slavic Eastern European
> country. This was viewed as a great threat. Thus, much of the tense
> relations between the United States and Russia over the past decade
> can be traced to the 1999 war on Yugoslavia.[22]
>
> The War on Terror and the Project for the New American Century
> (PNAC)
>
> When Bill Clinton became President, the neo-conservative hawks from
> the George H.W. Bush administration formed a think tank called the
> Project for the New American Century, or PNAC. In 2000, they published
> a report called, Rebuilding Americas Defenses: Strategy, Forces,
> and Resources for a New Century.
>
> Building upon the Defense Policy Guidance document, they state that,
> the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly
> deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars.[23] Further,
> there is need to retain sufficient combat forces to fight and win,
> multiple, nearly simultaneous major theatre wars,[24] and that the
> Pentagon needs to begin to calculate the force necessary to protect,
> independently, US interests in Europe, East Asia and the Gulf at
> all times.[25]
>
> Interestingly, the document stated that, 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.[26] However, in advocating for massive increases in defense
> spending and expanding the American empire across the globe, including
> the forceful destruction of multiple countries through major theatre
> wars, the report stated that, 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.[27] That event came one year later with the events of 9/11.
> Many of the authors of the report and members of the Project for
> the New American Century had become officials in the Bush administration,
> and were conveniently in place to enact their Project after they
> got their new Pearl Harbor.
>
> The plans for war were already under development by far right Think
> Tanks in the 1990s, organisations in which cold-war warriors from
> the inner circle of the secret services, from evangelical churches,
> from weapons corporations and oil companies forged shocking plans
> for a new world order. To do this, the USA would need to use all
> means - diplomatic, economic and military, even wars of aggression
> - to have long term control of the resources of the planet and the
> ability to keep any possible rival weak.
>
> Among the people involved in PNAC and the plans for empire, Dick
> Cheney - Vice President, Lewis Libby - Cheney's Chief of Staff,
> Donald Rumsfeld - Defence Minister, Paul Wolfowitz - Rumsfeld's
> deputy, Peter Rodman - in charge of 'Matters of Global Security',
> John Bolton - State Secretary for Arms Control, Richard Armitage -
> Deputy Foreign Minister, Richard Perle - former Deputy Defence
> Minister under Reagan, now head of the Defense Policy Board, William
> Kristol - head of the PNAC and adviser to Bush, known as the brains
> of the President, Zalmay Khalilzad, who became Ambassador to both
> Afghanistan and Iraq following the regime changes in those
> countries.[28]
>
> Brzezinskis Grand Chessboard
>
> Arch-hawk strategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the
> Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller, former National
> Security Adviser and key foreign policy architect in Jimmy Carters
> administration, also wrote a book on American geostrategy. Brzezinski
> is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the
> Bilderberg Group, and has also been a board member of Amnesty
> International, the Atlantic Council and the National Endowment for
> Democracy. Currently, he is a trustee and counselor at the Center
> for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a major US policy
> think tank.
>
> In his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski outlined a
> strategy for America in the world. He wrote, For America, the chief
> geopolitical prize is Eurasia. For half a millennium, world affairs
> were dominated by Eurasian powers and peoples who fought with one
> another for regional domination and reached out for global power.
> Further, how America manages Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the
> globes largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that
> dominates Eurasia would control two of the worlds three most advanced
> and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also
> suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail
> African subordination.[29]
>
> He continued in outlining a strategy for American empire, stating
> that, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable
> of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The
> formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy
> is therefore the purpose of this book.[30] He explained that, Two
> basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically
> dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially
> important shift in the international distribution of power and to
> decipher the central external goals of their respective political
> elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them:
> [and] second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt,
> and/or control the above.[31]
>
> What this means is that is it of primary importance to first identify
> states that could potentially be a pivot upon which the balance of
> power in the region exits the US sphere of influence; and secondly,
> to offset, co-opt, and/or control such states and circumstances.
> An example of this would be Iran; being one of the worlds largest
> oil producers, and in a strategically significant position in the
> axis of Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Iran could hold the
> potential to alter the balance of power in Eurasia if it were to
> closely ally itself with Russia or China, or both giving those
> nations a heavy supply of oil as well as a sphere of influence in
> the Gulf, thus challenging American hegemony in the region.
>
> Brzezinski removed all subtlety from his imperial leanings, and
> wrote, To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more
> brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of
> imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security
> dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and
> protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.[32]
>
> Brzezinski referred to the Central Asian republics as the Eurasian
> Balkans, writing that, Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics]
> are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical
> ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful
> neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling
> an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian
> Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize:
> an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located
> in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.[33]
> He further wrote that, It follows that America's primary interest
> is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this
> geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered
> financial and economic access to it.[34] This is a clear example
> of Americas role as an engine of empire; with foreign imperial
> policy designed to maintain US strategic positions, but primarily
> and infinitely more important, is to secure an economic prize for
> the global community. In other words, the United States is an
> imperial hegemon working for international financial interests.
>
> Brzezinski also warned that, the United States may have to determine
> how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out
> of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global
> power,[35] and he, puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in
> order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could
> eventually seek to challenge America's primacy.
>
> Thus, The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or
> combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States
> from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration
> role.[36]
>
> The War on Terror and Surplus Imperialism
>
> In 2000, the Pentagon released a document called Joint Vision 2020,
> which outlined a project to achieve what they termed, Full Spectrum
> Dominance, as the blueprint for the Department of Defense in the
> future. Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces,
> operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control
> any situation across the range of military operations. The report
> addresses full-spectrum dominance across the range of conflicts
> from nuclear war to major theater wars to smaller-scale contingencies.
> It also addresses amorphous situations like peacekeeping and noncombat
> humanitarian relief. Further, The development of a global information
> grid will provide the environment for decision superiority.[37]
>
> As political economist, Ellen Wood, explained, Boundless domination
> of a global economy, and of the multiple states that administer it,
> requires military action without end, in purpose or time.[38]
> Further, Imperial dominance in a global capitalist economy requires
> a delicate and contradictory balance between suppressing competition
> and maintaining conditions in competing economies that generate
> markets and profit. This is one of the most fundamental contradictions
> of the new world order.[39]
>
> Following 9/11, the Bush doctrine was put in place, which called
> for a unilateral and exclusive right to preemptive attack, any time,
> anywhere, unfettered by any international agreements, to ensure
> that [o]ur forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential
> adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hope of surpassing,
> or equaling, the power of the United States.[40]
>
> NATO undertook its first ground invasion of any nation in its entire
> history, with the October 2001 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
> The Afghan war was in fact, planned prior to the events of 9/11,
> with the breakdown of major pipeline deals between major western
> oil companies and the Taliban. The war itself was planned over the
> summer of 2001 with the operational plan to go to war by mid-October.[41]
>
> Afghanistan is extremely significant in geopolitical terms, as,
> Transporting all the Caspian basin's fossil fuel through Russia or
> Azerbaijan would greatly enhance Russia's political and economic
> control over the central Asian republics, which is precisely what
> the west has spent 10 years trying to prevent. Piping it through
> Iran would enrich a regime which the US has been seeking to isolate.
> Sending it the long way round through China, quite aside from the
> strategic considerations, would be prohibitively expensive. But
> pipelines through Afghanistan would allow the US both to pursue its
> aim of diversifying energy supply and to penetrate the world's most
> lucrative markets.[42]
>
> As the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out a mere two weeks following
> the 9/11 attacks, Beyond American determination to hit back against
> the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, beyond the likelihood of
> longer, drawn-out battles producing more civilian casualties in the
> months and years ahead, the hidden stakes in the war against terrorism
> can be summed up in a single word: oil.
>
> Explaining further, The map of terrorist sanctuaries and targets
> in the Middle East and Central Asia is also, to an extraordinary
> degree, a map of the world's principal energy sources in the 21st
> century. The defense of these energy resources -- rather than a
> simple confrontation between Islam and the West -- will be the
> primary flash point of global conflict for decades to come.
>
> Among the many notable states where there is a crossover between
> terrorism and oil and gas reserves of vital importance to the United
> States and the West, are Saudi Arabia, Libya, Bahrain, the Gulf
> Emirates, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan and Algeria, Turkmenistan,
> Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Chechnya, Georgia and eastern Turkey.
> Importantly, this region accounts for more than 65 percent of the
> world's oil and natural gas production. Further, It is inevitable
> that the war against terrorism will be seen by many as a war on
> behalf of America's Chevron, ExxonMobil and Arco; France's TotalFinaElf;
> British Petroleum; Royal Dutch Shell and other multinational giants,
> which have hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in the
> region.[43]
>
> Its no secret that the Iraq war had much to do with oil. In the
> summer of 2001, Dick Cheney convened an Energy Task Force, which
> was a highly secret set of meetings in which energy policy was
> determined for the United States. In the meetings and in various
> other means of communication, Cheney and his aides met with top
> officials and executives of Shell Oil, British Petroleum (BP), Exxon
> Mobil, Chevron, Conoco, and Chevron.[44] At the meeting, which took
> place before 9/11 and before there was any mention of a war on Iraq,
> documents of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals
> were presented and discussed, and Saudi Arabian and United Arab
> Emirates (UAE) documents likewise feature a map of each countrys
> oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals.[45] Both
> Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum have since received major
> oil contracts to develop Iraqi oilfields.[46]
>
> The war on Iraq, as well as the war on Afghanistan, also largely
> serve specifically American, and more broadly, Western imperial-strategic
> interests in the region. In particular, the wars were strategically
> designed to eliminate, threaten or contain regional powers, as well
> as to directly install several dozen military bases in the region,
> firmly establishing an imperial presence. The purpose of this is
> largely aimed at other major regional players and specifically,
> encircling Russia and China and threatening their access to the
> regions oil and gas reserves. Iran is now surrounded, with Iraq on
> one side, and Afghanistan on the other.
>
> Concluding Remarks
>
> Part 1 of this essay outlined the US-NATO imperial strategy for
> entering the New World Order, following the break-up of the Soviet
> Union in 1991. The primary aim was focused on encircling Russia and
> China and preventing the rise of a new superpower. The US was to
> act as the imperial hegemon, serving international financial interests
> in imposing the New World Order. The next part to this essay examines
> the colour revolutions throughout Eastern Europe and Central Asia,
> continuing the US and NATO policy of containing Russia and China;
> while controlling access to major natural gas reserves and
> transportation routes. The colour revolutions have been a pivotal
> force in geopolitical imperial strategy, and analyzing them is key
> to understanding the New World Order.
>
> Endnotes
>
> [1] Tyler, Patrick E. U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring
> No Rivals Develop: A One Superpower World. The New York Times: March
> 8, 1992.
>
> http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm
>
> [2] Louis Sell, Slobodan Milosevic and the Destruction of
> Yugoslavia.
>
> Duke University Press, 2002: Page 28
>
> Michel Chossudovsky, Dismantling Former Yugoslavia, Recolonizing
> Bosnia-Herzegovina. Global Research: February 19, 2002:
>
> http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=370
>
> [3] Michel Chossudovsky, Dismantling Former Yugoslavia,
> Recolonizing Bosnia-Herzegovina. Global Research: February 19, 2002:
>
> http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=370
>
> [4] David Binder, Yugoslavia Seen Breaking Up Soon. The New
> York Times:
>
> November 28, 1990
>
> [5] Ian Traynor, Croat general on trial for war crimes. The
> Guardian:
>
> March 12,
> 2008:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/12/warcrimes.balkans
>
> [6] Adam LeBor, Croat general Ante Gotovina stands trial for
> war crimes. The Times Online: March 11, 2008:
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3522828.ece
>
> [7] Brendan ONeill, 'You are only allowed to see Bosnia in
> black and white'. Spiked: January 23,
> 2004:http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA374.htm
>
> [8] Richard J. Aldrich, America used Islamists to arm the
> Bosnian Muslims. The Guardian: April 22,
> 2002:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/22/warcrimes.comment/print
>
> [9] Tim Judah, German spies accused of arming Bosnian Muslims.
> The Telegraph: April 20,
> 1997:http://www.serbianlinks.freehosting.net/german.htm
>
> [10] Charlotte Eagar, Invisible US Army defeats Serbs. The
> Observer:
>
> November 5, 1995:http://charlotte-eagar.com/stories/balkans110595.shtml
>
> [11] Gary Wilson, New reports show secret U.S. role in Balkan
> war.
>
> Workers World News Service: 1996:http://www.workers.org/ww/1997/bosnia.html
>
> [12] IAC, The CIA Role in Bosnia. International Action Center:
>
> http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/ciarole.htm
>
> [13] History Commons, Serbia and Montenegro: 1996-1999: Albanian
> Mafia and KLA Take Control of Balkan Heroin Trafficking Route. The
> Center for Cooperative Research:
>
> http://www.historycommons.org/topic.jsp?topic=country_serbia_and_mont...
>
> [14] History Commons, Serbia and Montenegro: 1997: KLA Surfaces
> to Resist Serbian Persecution of Albanians. The Center for Cooperative
> Research:
>
> http://www.historycommons.org/topic.jsp?topic=country_serbia_and_mont...
>
> [15] History Commons, Serbia and Montenegro: February 1998:
> State Department Removes KLA from Terrorism List. The Center for
> Cooperative Research:
>
> http://www.historycommons.org/topic.jsp?topic=country_serbia_and_mont...
>
> [16] Marcia Christoff Kurop, Al Qaeda's Balkan Links. The Wall
> Street Journal: November 1,
> 2001:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/561291/posts
>
> [17] Global Research, German Intelligence and the CIA supported
> Al Qaeda sponsored Terrorists in Yugoslavia. Global Research:
> February 20, 2005:
>
> http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=431
>
> [18] Michel Chossudovsky, Kosovo: The US and the EU support a
> Political Process linked to Organized Crime. Global Research:
> February 12, 2008:
>
> http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8055
>
> [19] Andrew Gavin Marshall, Breaking Yugoslavia. Geopolitical
> Monitor:
>
> July 21,
> 2008:http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/content/backgrounders/2008-07-21/brea
> king-yugoslavia/
>
> [20] AEI, Is Euro-Atlantic Integration Still on Track? Participant
> List.
>
> American Enterprise Institute: April 28-30, 2000:
>
> http://www.aei.org/research/nai/events/pageID.440,projectID.11/defaul...
>
> [21] Aleksandar Pavi, Correspondence between German Politicians
> Reveals the Hidden Agenda behind Kosovo's "Independence". Global
> Research: March 12, 2008:http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8304
>
> [22] Stephen Zunes, The War on Yugoslavia, 10 Years Later.
> Foreign Policy in Focus: April 6, 2009:http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6017
>
> [23] PNAC, Rebuilding Americas Defenses. Project for the New
> American Century: September 2000, page 6:
>
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm
>
> [24] Ibid. Page 8
>
> [25] Ibid. Page 9
>
> [26] Ibid. Page 14
>
> [27] Ibid. Page 51
>
> [28] Margo Kingston, A think tank war: Why old Europe says no.
> The Sydney Morning Herald: March 7, 2003:
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826528748.html
>
> [29] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American
> Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Pages
> 30-31
>
> [30] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American
> Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page
> xiv
>
> [31] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American
> Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page
> 41
>
> [32] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American
> Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page
> 40
>
> [33] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American
> Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page
> 124
>
> [34] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American
> Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page
> 148
>
> [35] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American
> Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page
> 55
>
> [36] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American
> Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page
> 198
>
> [37] Jim Garamone, Joint Vision 2020 Emphasizes Full-spectrum
> Dominance.
>
> American Forces Press Service: June 2, 2000:
>
> http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45289
>
> [38] Ellen Wood, Empire of Capital. Verso, 2003: page 144
>
> [39] Ellen Wood, Empire of Capital. Verso, 2003: page 157
>
> [40] Ellen Wood, Empire of Capital. Verso, 2003: page 160
>
> [41] Andrew G. Marshall, Origins of Afghan War. Geopolitical
> Monitor:
>
> September 14, 2008:
>
> http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/content/backgrounders/2008-09-14/o...
> f-the-afghan-war/
>
> [42] George Monbiot, America's pipe dream. The Guardian: October
> 23, 2001:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/23/afghanistan.terrorism11
>
> [43] Frank Viviano, Energy future rides on U.S. war. San
> Francisco Chronicle: September 26, 2001:
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/200...
> MN70983.DTL
>
> [44] Dana Milbank and Justin Blum, Document Says Oil Chiefs
> Met With Cheney Task Force. Washington Post: November 16, 2005:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR200...
> 42_pf.html
>
> [45] Judicial Watch, CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE
> MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS. Commerce Department: July 17, 2003:
>
> http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_iraqi-oilfield-pr.shtml
>
> [46] TERRY MACALISTER, Criticism as Shell signs $4bn Iraq oil
> deal. Mail and Guardian: September 30, 2008:
>
> http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-09-30-criticism-as-shell-signs-4bn-i...
> deal
>
> Al-Jazeera, BP group wins Iraq oil contract. Al Jazeera Online:
> June 30,
> 2009:http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200963093615637434.
>
> html
>
> Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for
> Research on Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political
> Economy and History at Simon Fraser University.
>
> ________________________________
>
> Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
> responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those
> of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this
> article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for
> Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any
> inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
>
> To become a Member of Global
> Research<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=section§ionName=m
> embership>
>
> The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research
> articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title
> are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be
> displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or
> other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
> crgedi...@yahoo.com <mailto:crgedi...@yahoo.com>
>
> www.globalresearch.ca<http://www.globalresearch.ca/www.globalresearch.ca>
> contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
> specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
> material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair
> use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political,
> economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed
> without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
> receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to
> use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you
> must request permission from the copyright owner.
>
> For media inquiries: crgedi...@yahoo.com<mailto:crgedi...@yahoo.com>
>
> Copyright Andrew Gavin Marshall, Global Research, 2009
>
> The url address of this article is:
>
> www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=15686<http://www.globalresea
> rch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=15686>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca Web site engine by Polygraphx
> Multimedia<http://www.polygraphx.com/> ) Copyright 2005-2007
>
> ___________________________ subscribe mailto:
>
> newslog+...@googlegroups.com<mailto:newslog+...@googlegroups.com>
>
> websites:
>
> http://www.governourselves.org/http://escapingthematrix.org/http://thecreditbankdevelopmentmodel.blogspot.com/http://cyberjournal.org
>
> archives:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/newslog/topicshttp://groups.google.com/group/cyberjournal/topics
>
> Moderator: r...@quaylargo.com<mailto:r...@quaylargo.com> (comments
> welcome)
>
> __._,_.___
>
> Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings
> via the
> Web<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newslog/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJnaHNpMDVrBF9TA...
> Dc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTUzOTc2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3MQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNzdG5ncw
> RzdGltZQMxMjU1OTU4Njg1> (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via
> email: Switch delivery to Daily
> Digest<mailto:newslog-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Dige
> st> | Switch to Fully
> Featured<mailto:newslog-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Deliver
> y%20Format:%20Fully%20Featured> Visit Your Group
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newslog;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcWFvaDZtBF9TAzk3ND...
> GdycElkAzIwMTUzOTc2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3MQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNocGYEc3RpbWUDMT
> I1NTk1ODY4NQ--> | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> | Unsubscribe
> <mailto:newslog-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> __,_._,___
0 new messages