Also, the Analyst views (and intends) this document to be a vehicle to provoke public debate on the theme article issue and that the White House/DOD/State Department et al to read this, "acknowledge" the threat, and revise the following proposed "Commulism Response Framework" accordingly. The ideas presented are aggressive, if not unconventional in some areas, as they must be given the seriousness of the threat. They are provocative, for the sole purpose of sparking that much needed, yet currently absent public and government debate, in the vital interests of collective U.S. national and economic security.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Part 1: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_brock_no_080125_u_s__economic_securi.htm  concluded with the integrated "5 Pillar Superpower (Commulism) Sustainability Framework" to support the core ideology - Communism:

                                  Economic/Military/Social/Technology/Partnerships 

Note: For the visual, see the illustrative Commulism 5 Pillar Structure Chart at the end of article (note included in all 10 Parts). The columned look was chosen to denote the insidious nature of Commulism, by capturing the underlying Communist ideology intent to displace Democracy.

Part 2: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_brock_no_080126__22commulism_series_22__.htm provided the first half of the analysis and assessment of the first of the 5 Commulism Pillars - "Economic".  

Part 3: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_brock_no_080127__22commulism_series_22__.htm  completed the Commulism "Economic Pillar" analysis and assesment with "What's the Endgame?"

Part 4: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_brock_no_080130_part_4____22commulism_.htm provided analysis and assessment of the next three Commulism Pillars - Military, Social Order and Technology.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 5 will now analyze and assess the final Commulism Pillar – Strategic Partnerships (and Polarities). 

E) STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS/POLARITY (i.e. Power Block): 

Lesson – The Soviet sponsored Warsaw Pact demonstrated that any superpower still needs some minimal strategic partnering to compete (and buffer itself) against another (e.g. the U.S. and NATO, ASEAN, OAS (ex Venezuela), Africa, etc. – i.e. WEAST). This lesson complimenting the one above regarding being an economically “functional” superpower.  

Analyst Note: Polarity: From a “polarity” in international relations perspective, the overall Cold War situation was really one that can be described as bi-polar, with the world strategically aligning in two camps. Of course the Sino-Soviet split during that period might suggest a multi-polar situation, but the Chinese were again visibly quiet and aside from population numbers arguably not true super power status. So it's questionable during that period whether there was an active third power, and too if it came down to picking sides, they’d likely align Communist (Soviet).  

While on the polarity issue, one can argue the period from 1989 until just recently as the world living in a uni-polar situation, with but one superpower being the U.S., possessing most of the global cultural, economic, and military influence. Call it the age of U.S. hegemony, which is now rapidly disappearing as the world moves back to a bi-polar if not derivative multi-polar mix. Bi-polar from the standpoint that China has emerged as the new superpower offset to the U.S..  Multi-polar from that standpoint that a resurgent Russia is on the heels of China in regaining superpower status. Other key nations, most notably BRIC + V countries India and Brazil are on the rise and at the cusp of achieving that status too. Vietnam (V), has aggressively embraced Commulism and is rapidly on the rise and emerging as a global power player. The Analyst suggests it be added to the high profile BRIC mix. With Russia (and Vietnam) clearly aligned with China and communism, it then comes down to how India and Brazil and their own respective global strategic partners ultimately either align or not to the U.S. or China or a derivative block unto themselves and others, that will determine final global polarity at least over the intermediate term.  

A final polarity comment, the term superpower, in the purest sense, which historically implied the ability of a nation to sustain itself more or less independent of the rest of the world may be a term of the past as respects both the U.S. (and China too) which is now deeply rooted and dependent on the global economy. China too needs natural resources from across the globe to support its population, generating growing dependencies on other nations too.  

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4