NEWS: Pentagon reshuffle eminent. Targets include Azerbaijan,all Central

American-led Empire’s Planned Global Military Domination:

Pentagon reshuffle eminent. Targets to include Azerbaijan, all of Central 
and South Asia, the Middle East and Korea.

By Craig Hulet

07/31/03: (InformationClearingHouse)  The last defense vestiges of the 
Cold, Korean and Iraq wars, the U.S. military "footprint" now is heaviest 
in Germany, South Korea and the Persian Gulf region. But with the Soviet 
Union finished, South Korea more able to defend itself and Saddam Hussein’s 
antagonistic regime supposedly crushed in Iraq, the U.S. military presence 
in all three regions has largely become an anachronism,...wholesale changes 
in the American-led empire''s military global presence are now under 
consideration. "We are re-analyzing our footprint," Gen. James Jones, 
commander of U.S. troops in Europe.

The entire globe is the strategic agenda now.

As the world grows more reluctant to follow Mr. Bush anywhere no matter 
what, fewer and fewer people believe we have been told the truth about 
Iraq’s WMD, and with Tony Blair now under full siege for misinforming the 
British Parliament Mr. George W. Bush Junior seems unaffected while 
pursuing the Oligarchy’s elite agenda for global hegemony. To his critics 
he simply writes them off with his usual curt and trivial style saying 
"Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion."

This author and analyst while being interviewed on such mainstream national 
talk shows as the Jim Bohannon Show and Dave Ross was criticized rather 
vociferously when it was proposed America had evolved into an Empire-of-sorts.

The argument placed against my thesis was that America didn’t impose itself 
through placing troops on everyone’s soil.

Regions:

But the announcement, Tuesday, April 29, 2003, that U.S. forces will bail 
out of Saudi Arabia this summer marks the start of what likely will be 
great changes in where America bases its troops worldwide. As was recently 
reported:

Reflecting the last defense vestiges of the Cold, Korean and Iraq wars, the 
U.S. military "footprint" now is heaviest in Germany, South Korea and the 
Persian Gulf region. But with the Soviet Union kaput, South Korea more able 
to defend itself and Saddam Hussein’s antagonistic regime crushed in Iraq, 
the muscular U.S. military presence in all three regions has largely become 
an anachronism, according to defense experts in the Pentagon and at think 
tanks. Throw in a host of touchy political realities - such as the 
anti-U.S. backlash in South Korea following high-profile crimes committed 
by GIs, and Islamic opposition to U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia - and 
wholesale changes in the American military''s global presence are now under 
consideration. "We are re-analyzing our footprint," Gen. James Jones, 
commander of U.S. troops in Europe, said this week. (Hoffman)

Of the possible moves likely considered several surfaced in recent months. 
Here’s a look at some of the most major ones being contemplated as reported 
by Lisa Hoffman:

- Persian Gulf. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s announcement Tuesday 
that the bulk of America’s 5,000 troops in Saudi Arabia will leave the 
desert kingdom this summer sets in motion a major realignment in the 
region. Though still in flux, the plan is for no more than 400 U.S. troops 
to remain in Saudi Arabia, while most of the rest will move to the new 
state-of-the-art command complex built in the tiny Gulf nation of Qatar, 
which, unlike Saudi Arabia, is thrilled to have a U.S. presence within its 
borders.

- Another exodus already is under way in Turkey, where the 4,000 U.S. 
troops based at the Incirlik air base are moving out now that the 
12-year-long "Operation Northern Watch" air operation over Iraq is over.

- Europe: Now that the Cold War is over, the need for more than 70,000 U.S. 
troops in Germany has largely evaporated, according to Rumsfeld and Jones. 
In fact, they say, more than 20 percent of the 499 U.S. military 
installations in Europe are not needed at all anymore. While Pentagon 
officials maintain retribution for Germany’s opposition to the war in Iraq 
is not playing a role, they say that the time is coming to substantially 
cut the U.S. presence there. Under consideration is a plan that would leave 
the sprawling Ramstein Air Base in place, but slash the number of Army 
soldiers in the 1st Armored and 1st Infantry divisions there from the 
current 30,000 to as few as 6,000. At the same time, Rumsfeld is looking 
kindly on a plan to shift some Germany-based forces to a number of smaller 
outposts in countries he has dubbed the "new Europe" - former Soviet bloc 
nations such as Poland, Bulgaria and Romania, that joined the Bush 
administration''s "coalition of the willing" in the war in Iraq.

- South Korea: For the past several years, popular opposition to the 
presence of some 37,000 U.S. forces in South Korea has been escalating, 
reaching a crescendo last year after the rape and killing of several South 
Korean girls by U.S. troops. At the same time, the Pentagon has calculated 
that South Korea is increasingly capable of defending itself in any clash 
with North Korea. Couple those factors with the enormous leaps in 
technology that now allow U.S. forces to wage a pounding fight far from the 
front lines, and the need for all the soldiers and Marines now in South 
Korea is diminished. Already, Maj. Gen. James Soligan, deputy chief of 
staff of U.S. Forces Korea (cq), has told South Korea that a "large 
portion" of those American troops will be moved from current positions 
close to the North Korean border to other bases far south of the capital, 
Seoul.

-Worldwide: Aware of the inevitability of complaints from host countries 
about the conduct or presence of U.S. forces, and the increasing expense of 
foreign basing, Pentagon planners are toying with the idea of creating 
offshore platforms that could serve as forward bases. Dubbed "lily pads," 
these floating bases would function as a sort of cross between a land base 
and an aircraft carrier. (Sources: Cato Institute; kcandassociates.org; 
U.S. military eyes major reshuffling of global presence By Lisa Hoffman, 
Scripps Howard News Service April 29, 2003)

Azerbaijan:

In a more recent article which appeared in the English language Pravda, the 
headline read as follows: US Troops To Be Deployed in Azerbaijan 
(06/18/2003 12:46) If it happens, Americans will have to deal with all the 
problems of the region which this author has repeatedly pointed out in 
press releases and my recent book "The Hydra of Carnage." Azerbaijan is key 
to understanding everything Mr. Bush has set out to do since 9/11. 
Afghanistan was the beginning and Iraq is but the middle of what this 
analyst would describe as a fundamental shift from Cold War military 
occupation to an Empire-based corporate occupation of regions considered 
vital to, first, America’s National Security Energy Strategy, and secondly, 
the force projection in specific regions where this strategic doctrine 
might be challenged.

As was reported in the recent issue of Pravda: "The presidential election 
is to take place in the republic of Azerbaijan on October 15th. The closer 
the date, the stronger the intrigue. At first it was rumored that incumbent 
Azeri President Geydar Aliyev was going to refuse to participate in the 
election and nominate his son, Ilkham Aliyev. However, the president has 
recently announced that he is strongly determined to run for the presidency."

In fact, the 80-year-old president of Azerbaijan does not have any serious 
opponents at the election. But the intrigue has not vanished yet, the 
report argued going on to add this important note reported in the Azeri press:

Azeri mass media have recently reported that 15,000 American servicemen 
might soon be deployed from Germany to Azerbaijan. The corps, newspapers 
wrote, would be stationed in the country on a permanent basis. The 
Nezavisimaya Gazeta wrote with reference to Wall Street Journal that 
American military men would guard the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and 
take part in the struggle with the international terrorism. These goals are 
not really clear. Pipeline perspectives are rather vague at present, 
although it has been said and written a lot about this project lately. The 
struggle with the international terrorism is not clear either, because 
Azerbaijan has not been listed as a country, where terrorists exercised 
their activities.

The neighboring republic of Georgia has been mentioned in this connection 
instead, but it has not been reported yet that American troops were going 
to be deployed there. It was said, though, that American instructors would 
train Georgian servicemen. What stops the Pentagon from doing the same in 
Azerbaijan, the reported questioned?

There is an opinion that the deployment of the American military contingent 
will pursue another objective - to guarantee the stability of the current 
political regime in Azerbaijan. It is very important for the American 
administration both from the political and economic point of view - the 
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline and the access to the Caspian oil.

As I have reported often and on a number of radio and TV talk shows 
Azerbaijan is the key, always has been to the entire region. It is an open 
secret that Azerbaijan takes an extremely important strategic position in 
the region - it borders on Iran. Nevertheless, as the Pravda article 
pointed out correctly "all Caucasian republics can boast of their strategic 
positions, but it does not mean that American army bases will be situated 
on their territories. There are a lot of problems and conflict zones in the 
region, both internal and foreign ones: Karabakh, Abkhazia, South Osetia. 
If the American administration is seriously interested in the U.S. military 
presence in the Caucasus, it means that American military men will have to 
deal with those issues sooner or later."

Pravda asks the right question: "Is the game worth the candle?" The US 
ambassador to Baku Ross Wilson stated that the American administration did 
not have any plans to deploy troops in the republic. To all appearance, 
Washington does not have all the answers yet. I would argue more forcefully 
that this deployment is most necessary and must come-about. (Source: Read 
the original in Russian: Vasily Bubnov
"http://world.pravda.ru/world/2003/5/73/400/11368_Baku.html"; (Translated 
by: Dimitri Sudokov for the English Edition)

Afghanistan:

In the most recent CNA all-inclusive newsline of /13:44 20.06.2003/ it was 
announced that a 2-day conference on the proposed project of laying a gas 
pipe line between Turkmenistan and Pakistan via Afghanistan is scheduled on 
June 25-26, 2003 at Ashgabat. The press account is quoted in full here:

Islamabad, June 20, 2003. (CNA). A 2-day conference on proposed project of 
laying gas pipe line between Turkmenistan and Pakistan via Afghanistan is 
scheduled on June 25-26 at Ashgabat. Pakistan`s Minister for Petroleum and 
Natural Resources Nauraiz Shakoor Khan will leave for Ashgabat, 
Turkmenistan on June 23 to attend the conference. The conference will 
review the progress of the project, PPI reports.
The gas pipeline project would give boost to trade, industrial and human 
resource development, regional cooperation. The minister said construction 
of the 1600- km pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan 
could start as early as next year. If India does not participate, even then 
this pipeline is going to come to Pakistan, he added. Turkmenistan, 
Afghanistan and Pakistan are the three important participants in the project.

''''We formally invited India during TAP conference held in Manila in April 
to join the project, but India is still silent and did not respond to the 
proposal,'''' he said. The project is expected to cost $ 2-2.5 billion and 
take three years time to complete. The companies interested in investing in 
the pipeline had completed their pre-qualification and the groundwork could 
start in the first quarter next year, he added. The pipeline will carry up 
to 30 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year from Turkmenistan, 
Daulatabad fields. It is intended to supply northern India, Pakistan and 
Afghanistan as well as Pakistan''s Sea ports for shipment to other Asian 
markets. (Source: credit Caspian News Agency "CNA/www.caspian.ru")

This is the second pipeline deal being struck with the Harmid Karzai 
regime. (Karzai was a Unocal consultant through 1996 negotiating these very 
pipeline deals prior to his appointment as commissar of Afghanistan’s 
American occupying forces.) This is now clearly one of the unstated 
political objectives of Mr. Bush & Co. for removing the recalcitrant 
Taliban regime, who had rejected the Unocal/U.S. proposals because they 
would not allow the multilateral American-led institutions like the World 
Bank, IMF and WTO to dictate their economic structure; it was never because 
they wouldn‘t get rid of Usamah bin Laden. That myth doesn’t fly any longer 
for many reasons I have belabored too long, not the least of which bin 
Laden is in Eastern Afghanistan at this moment. The same scenario will play 
out as was pointed out above where other pipelines must be protected by 
U.S. military personnel. Indeed, this has been the case for decades, from 
Columbia to Saudi Arabia, it is just very rare Americans hear this news. 
(See my "Record of Terror" white paper and supplement, May/June 2003)

South Korea:

Currently in South Korea, most U.S. troops are deployed in the northern 
part of the country, between the capital, Seoul, and the Demilitarized Zone 
(DMZ) that separates South Korea from communist North Korea. Now there is 
change afoot. During a recent visit to South Korea, U.S. Deputy Secretary 
of Defense Paul Wolfowitz announced Washington’s intention to "reposition" 
some of its military forces stationed in South Korea. The redeployment 
would entail moving those forces farther south.

The Asia Times noted that Wolfowitz "offered only a vague justification for 
such a move, contending that repositioning forces would make them more 
effective in meeting the threat posed by North Korea." Given the heightened 
rhetoric emanating from the North Korean regime and Bush’s Axis of Evil 
misstep of the SitRep, that is a very odd argument to be making. Since the 
end of the Korean War in 1953, the principal rationale for stationing the 
troops near the DMZ has been that they would serve as "a tripwire in case 
of a North Korean attack, guaranteeing U.S. involvement in any conflict. 
North Korea, knowing that it would then face war not only with South Korea 
but also with the United States, would be deterred from taking such a 
reckless gamble." according to the Asia Times article. That this is 
obviously true needs little elaboration.

Why is the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush Junior proposing 
to abandon the long-standing tripwire function of U.S. forces in South 
Korea? There is one unsettling possibility according to analyst Ted Galen 
Carpenter:

The administration is considering a preemptive military attack on North 
Korea’s nuclear installations and wants to move U.S. troops out of harm’s 
way. Even the most hawkish U.S. experts on Korea concede that if the United 
States did launch such an attack, the North would likely respond with an 
intense artillery and missile barrage of the Seoul metropolitan area and, 
possibly, with a ground attack through the DMZ. U.S. troops stationed 
between Seoul and the DMZ could easily end up being dead tripwire forces.

I had argued before the March 2003 offensive against Iraq that there was a 
difference between what Bush was saying and what he was doing over the 
threat from North Korea and what he was prepared to do with Iraq. That Bush 
was prepared to attack Iraq with enormous military force and yet utilize 
diplomacy (at that time) regarding what seemed a greater threat from North 
Korea argued, at least to my humble way of thinking about such things, that 
it was proof Iraq did not have WMD capability of threatening any level of 
serious American interests. In other words: If Iraq had WMD we wouldn’t 
attack, only if we knew Iraq "did not have the capability" would we be 
willing to do so. I went so far on KING 5 Television to state it thusly: 
"Nobody wants to say this president is lying or exaggerating." (Robert Mak, 
KING 5 Up-Front, see transcript on their site)

Even so, Carpenter is right in pointing out that "True, Bush administration 
officials have stated that they want to solve through diplomacy the crisis 
created by North Korea’s resumption of its nuclear-weapons program. But 
those same officials have stressed that all options, including the use of 
military force, remain on the table. When South Korean President Roh 
Moo-hyun went to the United States in May, he sought an assurance that the 
controversial doctrine of preemptive war embedded in the administration’s 
national-security strategy would not apply to North Korea. U.S. officials 
rebuffed his request." What this means, well it seems to me at least, is 
that with the (wrong) perception of easy victories in both Afghanistan and 
Iraq (both boiling-over with renewed guerrilla activity taking American 
lives every week now since May1st through June/July 2003), the 
administration’s more hawkish members, fresh with a blood-lust flush on 
their cheeks, may think it time to push yet another third-world 
nationalistic leader down.

Indeed, the national-security strategy document approved in September 2002, 
noted in the above piece by carpenter, clearly would seem to apply to the 
North Korean situation. "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their 
terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass 
destruction against the United States and our allies and friends," the 
document affirmed. The administration’s policy on combating weapons of mass 
destruction, adopted in December 2002, stated the point even more 
succinctly, emphasizing that the United States would not "permit the 
world’s more dangerous regimes" to pose a threat "with the world’s most 
destructive weapons." Nuclear weapons in the hands of secretive, Stalinist 
North Korea would fill that category according to Carpenter. This would 
seem less likely should both Great Britain’s Parliament and the U.S. 
Congress each pursue intelligence enquiries into "what they knew and when 
did they know it"? regarding both Bush and Blair. But I think Carpenter is 
still correct to point out this strange redeployment of U.S. troops. Why? 
Because Mr. Bush seems immune to criticism of any nature, often remarking 
trivially in response to fully serious questions from his own recently 
retired seasoned counter-terrorism analysts that Bush exaggerated the 
claims for WMD against all sound intelligence data from both CIA and the 
Pentagon’s DIA; and then with often a rather flippant "They are entitled to 
their opinion."

As Carpenter is not remiss in addressing "Even if one takes the Bush 
administration at its word that it wants to settle the crisis through 
diplomacy, it begs a crucial question: What does the United States do if 
diplomacy (or diplomacy combined with economic pressure) fails to induce 
North Korea to abandon its nuclear program? Is the administration prepared 
to live with a North Korea armed with nuclear weapons? The statement issued 
by Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi after their recent 
summit suggests otherwise. The two leaders stated bluntly that they "would 
not tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea." (Ibid.)

If diplomacy fails, it is not clear how that result can be prevented except 
through military force. The Bush administration may not be committed to 
such a course yet, but in deciding to move U.S. forces away from the DMZ 
and South, "it is creating a precondition for pursuing that option. South 
Koreans, who know how horribly their country would suffer if the United 
States launched preemptive strikes on the North, now have reason to be 
very, very nervous..." as Carpenter is again correct to point out.

(Sources: 06/12/03: Asia Times; KING 5 "Up-Front" with Robert Mak; Record 
of Terror www.kcandassociates.org ; and Ted Galen Carpenter (vice president 
for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute) Author of 
Peace & Freedom: Foreign Policy for a Constitutional Republic. This article 
is republished with the permission of the "http://www.cato.org/";.)

The Globe:

But these particular regions are not alone and not the only ones of 
importance. As it did in its seemingly quick but still clearly unfinished 
military campaign in Iraq, as in Afghanistan, the Pentagon is hastily 
planning to re-deploy U.S. forces and equipment around the world in ways 
that will permit Washington to play "GloboCop," according to another 
well-thought-out piece in the American analytical field. It is now being 
more openly argued by analysts who know these issues well that while 
"preparing sharp reductions in forces in Germany, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, 
military planners are talking about establishing semi-permanent or 
permanent bases along a giant swathe of global territory – increasingly 
referred to as "the arc of instability" – from the Caribbean Basin through 
Africa to South and Central Asia and across to North Korea. The latest 
details were disclosed by the Wall Street Journal on June 10, 2003 and 
include plans to increase U.S. forces in "Djibouti on the Horn of Africa 
across the Red Sea from Yemen, set up semi-permanent ‘forward bases’ in 
Algeria, Morocco and possibly Tunisia, and establish smaller facilities in 
Senegal, Ghana and Mali that could be used to intervene in oil-rich West 
African countries, particularly Nigeria." (Source Wall Street Journal, 6/10/03)

Similar bases – or what some call "lily pads" – are now being sought or 
expanded in northern Australia, Thailand (whose prime minister Thaksin 
Shinawatra was here for talks the week of 6/10/03), Singapore, the 
Philippines, Kenya, Georgia; also throughout Central Asia, Poland, Romania, 
Bulgaria, Qatar, Vietnam and Iraq. Azerbaijan was mentioned in the same 
article again.

‘We are in the process of taking a fundamental look at our military posture 
worldwide, including in the United States,’ said Deputy Defense Secretary 
Paul Wolfowitz on a recent visit to Singapore, where he met with military 
chiefs and defense ministers from throughout East Asia about U.S. plans 
there. ‘We’re facing a very different threat than any one we’ve faced 
historically.’ (Ibid.)

Those plans represent a major triumph for Wolfowitz, who 12 years ago 
argued in a controversial draft "Defense Planning Guidance" (DPG) for 
realigning U.S. forces globally so as to "retain pre-eminent responsibility 
for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our own 
interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously 
unsettle international relations." (Source: Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service 
June 13, 2003)

The same draft, also argued for "a unilateral U.S. defense guarantee" to 
Eastern Europe "preferably in co-operation with other NATO states," and the 
use of pre-emptive force against nations suspected of having weapons of 
mass destruction – both of which views are now codified as U.S. strategic 
doctrine.

The draft DPG also argued that U.S. military intervention should become a 
"constant fixture" of the new world order. It is precisely that capability 
towards which the Pentagon’s force realignments appear to be directed. 
Interestingly the very same draft was largely repudiated by the first Bush 
administration after it was leaked to the New York Times. But that isn’t so 
strange upon some reflection as Bush the Senior had the diplomatic skill 
and power (two very different things) to bring a coalition together with 
the simple use of the telephone, something the Bush the Younger lacks in 
both skill and power to achieve today.

Empire argues for such a global "footprint" and Bush Junior is setting the 
course for, no matter what Republican talk-show hosts would rather choose 
to believe. This is empire-building of the rawest kind. But not empire the 
way most on the Left see it and not how the far Right envision it. It is 
not America as America but American-led and corporate. But it shall look 
rather reminiscent of Rome "[W]ith forward bases located all along the 
so-called "arc of instability," (where) Washington can pre-position 
equipment and military personnel that would permit it to intervene with 
force within hours of the outbreak of any crisis.... In that respect, the 
new global strategy would be similar to the U.S. position beginning in the 
19th century vis-à-vis Latin America, where the U.S. has frequently 
intervened to protect its interests from real or perceived threats...." 
according to the well-informed Mr. Lobe (Ibid.) As he wrote and I must 
quote it here for the younger generations with little concern for current 
history which has nothing to do with the acronymic-age of MTV, ESPN, etc.:

Nearby countries so involved included Cuba, Mexico, Nicaragua, Haiti and 
several others. The interventions were usually followed by long occupations 
and the establishment of friendly but authoritarian regimes, like those of 
Batista, Somoza and "Papa Doc" Duvalier. The U.S. Contra war against the 
Sandinista regime in Nicaragua in the 1980s might be considered a sequel to 
the earlier action. America’s increasing role in Colombia’s current civil 
war also fits the pattern....On a grander scale, the U.S. has assisted 
military takeovers in larger countries like Chile, Brazil, and Argentina, 
with the usual bloody results. (Ibid., Lobe)

According to Max Boot, a neo-conservative writer at the Council on Foreign 
Relations, Wolfowitz’s 1992 draft – now mostly codified in the September 
2002 National Security Strategy of the USA – is not all that different from 
the 1903 Theodore Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe 
Doctrine asserted Washington’s "international police power" to intervene 
against "chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general 
loosening of the ties of civilized society." The new and proposed 
deployments are being justified by similar rhetoric. Just substitute 
"globalization" for "civilization."

The emerging Pentagon doctrine, founded mainly on the work of retired 
Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, chief of the Pentagon’s Office of Force 
Transformation, and Thomas Barnett of the U.S. Naval War College, argues 
that it is precisely countries and regions that are "disconnected" from the 
prevailing trends of economic globalization that posed the greatest 
dangers. "Disconnectedness is one of the great danger signs around the 
world," Cebrowski told an audience at the Heritage Foundation last month in 
an update of the "general loosening of the ties of civilized society" 
formula of a century ago. (Ibid.)

This seems to make the ideas not just acceptable but a simple evolution of 
what we have always done in the past. But I would argue that while the 
progressive Left "needs" to believe this (which makes their standard 
[Howard} Zinnian approach seem the more valid: i.e., America has always 
been a Rich-White-Man’s-State), but they are wrong; the radical Right does 
so too, as these poor saps actually think (now anyways) that this empire, 
if it exists, is likened unto Rome and in some cases they believe that as 
Romans, therefore it shall benefit them personally as Rome did Romans. The 
two extreme sides are both wrong. This empire is, while seemingly familiar 
in many past regards, a "corporate empire" to benefit the monopoly 
corporation’s elite, stock holders, outright majority owners and the 
"banking fraternity" inextricably intertwined within Corporatism’s circle 
of friends. That they see threats that concern their interests does not 
mean their interests are yours or mine; their interests do not in fact 
interest me at all, nor should they you if you understand what this all 
means. But the corporate-state’s interests are the same as the elite’s, as 
Lobe points out well:

Barnett’s term for areas of greatest threat is "the Gap," places where 
"globalization is thinning or just plain absent." Such regions are 
typically "plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty 
and disease, routine mass murder, and – most important – the chronic 
conflicts that incubate the next generation of terrorists."..."If we map 
out U.S. military responses since the end of the Cold War, we find an 
overwhelming concentration of activity in the regions of the world that are 
excluded from globalization''s growing Core – namely the Caribbean Rim, 
virtually all of Africa, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the 
Middle East and Southwest Asia, and much of Southeast Asia," Barnett wrote 
in Esquire magazine earlier this year. (Ibid., Lobe)

The challenge in fighting terrorist networks is both to "get them where 
they live" in the arc of instability and prevent them from spreading their 
influence into what Barnett calls "seam states" located between the Gap and 
the Core. According to Lobe again, "Such seam states, he says, include 
Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Morocco, Algeria, Greece, Turkey, Pakistan, 
Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia. Those nations, the logic 
goes, should play critical roles, presumably including providing forward 
bases, for interventions into the Gap."

At the same time, if states "loosen their ties" to the global economy, 
"bloodshed will follow. If you are lucky," according to Barnett, "so will 
American troops." Lucky? Lucky for whom? I had argued years ago during 
Persian Gulf I that what Bush the Senior was "about" was something very 
different than what most perceived. I stated categorically that the states 
that remained "outside of the emerging global interdependence," outside of 
the process of globalization," would be seen as exercising their 
"nationalism" and would no longer be tolerated. If one was "outside the 
process of GATT, the WTO, NAFTA and the host of international governing 
organizations (IGOs)" one would be "outside of The Law," that is to say: 
"An Outlaw." I gave the name to it of "Global Triage," and "they" would 
"decide who lives and dies as a regime." (See my Global Triage: Imperium in 
Imperio, Artful Nuance Publishing, 1999; and see also 
www.kcandassociates.org for audio/video tapes of lectures and interviews. 
1988-1999)

On the eve of the war in Iraq, which has been followed by an occupation 
increasingly under siege, Barnett predicted that taking Baghdad would not 
be about settling old scores or enforcing the disarmament of those famous 
weapons of mass destruction, yet to be found. Rather, he wrote, and this is 
very important: [it] "will mark a historic tipping point – the moment when 
Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of 
globalization." And some would still dare argue this is not empire 
building? This is not a familiar empire but it certainly is Empire. 
Barnett’s arc corresponds perfectly to regions of oil, gas and mineral 
wealth, which Lobe is quick to concede is also "a reminder again of 
Wolfowitz’s 1992 draft study." It asserted then that the key objective of 
U.S. strategy should be "to prevent any hostile power from dominating a 
region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to 
generate global power." Any "other" nation-state from challenging American 
hegemony in other words; any region forming any alliance of states which 
could offer resistance to American preponderance.

But understand what is missing in these above very good analyst’s works: 
This empire is not, I must repeat, a simple Roman model, but a corporate 
model which leaves America as a nation-state a simple cog in the wheel, and 
Americans simple subjects to the corporate dictate; which may well leave 
American’s scrambling for jobs in far off lands; scrambling for work and 
food here at home; scrambling for understanding why they were so duped. And 
so easily it would seem.


(Further sources: Wall Street Journal 6/10/03; KC& Associates’ thirty press 
releases from March through May 29, 2003; Pentagon Dreams of Playing 
‘GloboCop’ By Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service June 13, 2003: Jim Lobe writes 
on U.S. foreign policy for IPS, Foreign Policy in Focus, TomPaine.com and 
Alternet. [Republished with the permission of the "http://www.cato.org/] )

________________________________________
Mr. Craig B Hulet; Security, Military Affairs & International Relations 
Expert (Author: The Hydra of Carnage: Bush’s Imperial War-making and the 
Rule of Law: An Analysis of the Objectives and Delusions of Empire. 
Available @ www.kcandassociates.org); Hulet was Special Assistant to 
Congressman Jack Metcalf (Ret.). www.craigbhulet.com cali@localaccess.com

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4303.htm