In a little-noted article printed in early August in the Armed Forces Journal, a monthly magazine for officers and leaders in the United States military community, early retired Major Ralph Peters sets out the latest ideas in current US strategic thinking. And they are extremely disturbing.
Ethnically Cleansing the Entire Middle East
Maj. Peters, formerly assigned to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence where he was responsible for future warfare, candidly outlines how the map of the Middle East should be fundamentally re-drawn, in a new imperial endeavour designed to correct past errors. "Without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East," he observes, but then adds wryly: "Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works."
Thus, acknowledging that the sweeping reconfiguration of borders he proposes would necessarily involve massive ethnic cleansing and accompanying bloodshed on perhaps a genocidal scale, he insists that unless it is implemented, "we may take it as an article of faith that a portion of the bloodshed in the region will continue to be our own." Among his proposals are the need to establish "an independent Kurdish state" to guarantee the long-denied right to Kurdish self-determination. But behind the humanitarian sentiments, Maj. Peters declares that: "A Free Kurdistan, stretching from Diyarbakir through Tabriz, would be the most pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan."
He chastises the United States and its coalition partners for missing "a glorious chance" to fracture Iraq, which "should have been divided into three smaller states immediately." This would leave "Iraq's three Sunni-majority provinces as a truncated state that might eventually choose to unify with a Syria that loses its littoral to a Mediterranean-oriented Greater Lebanon: Phoenecia reborn." Meanwhile, the Shia south of old Iraq "would form the basis of an Arab Shia State rimming much of the Persian Gulf." Jordan, a US-Israeli friend in the region, would "retain its current territory, with some southward expansion at Saudi expense. For its part, the unnatural state of Saudi Arabia would suffer as great a dismantling as Pakistan." Iran too would "lose a great deal of territory to Unified Azerbaijan, Free Kurdistan, the Arab Shia State and Free Baluchistan, but would gain the provinces around Herat in today's Afghanistan." Although this vast imperial programme could be impossible to implement now, with time, "new and natural borders will emerge", driven by "the inevitable attendant bloodshed."
As for the goals of this plan, Maj. Peters is equally candid. While including the necessary caveats about fighting "for security from terrorism, for the prospect of democracy", he also mentions the third important issue -- "and for access to oil supplies in a region that is destined to fight itself".
The whole thing sounds disturbingly familiar, especially to those who have read the musings of then Israeli Foreign Ministry official Oded Yinon.
Keeping the World Safe... for Our Economy
Despite trying to dress up his vision as an exercise in attempting to selflessly democratize the Middle East, in a contribution to the quarterly US Army War College journal Parameters almost a decade ago, he acknowledged with some jubilation that: "Those of us who can sort, digest, synthesize, and apply relevant knowledge soar--professionally, financially, politically, militarily, and socially. We, the winners, are a minority." This minority will inevitably conflict with the vast majority of the world's population. "For the world masses, devastated by information they cannot manage or effectively interpret, life is 'nasty, brutish . . . and short-circuited.'" In "every country and region", these masses who can neither "understand the new world", nor "profit from its uncertainties... will become the violent enemies of their inadequate governments, of their more fortunate neighbors, and ultimately of the United States." The coming clash, then, is not really about blood, faith, ethnicity, at all. It is about the gap between the haves and the have-nots. "We are entering a new American century", he says, in a veiled reference to the Bush administration Project of the same name founded in the same year he was writing. In the new century, "we will become still wealthier, culturally more lethal, and increasingly powerful. We will excite hatreds without precedent."
In predicting the future course for the US Army, Maj. Peters argues that: "We will see countries and continents divide between rich and poor in a reversal of 20th-century economic trends." In this context, he says, "we in the United States will continue to be perceived as the ultimate haves", and therefore, "terrorism will be the most common form of violence", along with "transnational criminality, civil strife, secessions, border conflicts, and conventional wars." Meanwhile, "in defense of its interests", the US "will be required to intervene in some of these contests." And then he sums it all up in one tidy paragraph:
"There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing."
So what's prompted Maj. Peter's decision to air his vision for the Middle East in the Armed Forces Journal at this time in the wake of the latest Middle East crisis? A number of critical developments.
Source: Imminent Global Crises Converge
According to an American source with high-level access to the US military, political and intelligence establishment, Western policymakers are in no doubt that the world faces the imminent convergence of multiple global crises. These crises threaten not only to undermine the basis of Western power in its current military and geopolitical configurations, but also to destabilize the entire foundations of industrial civilization.
The source said that the latest petroleum data indicates that "global oil production most likely peaked two years ago." This is consistent with the findings of respected geologists such as leading oil depletion expert Dr. Colin Campbell, who in the late 90s predicted that world oil production would peak in the early 21st century. "We have come to the end of the first half of the Oil Age," said Dr. Campbell, who has a doctorate in geology from the University of Oxford and more than 40 years of experience in the oil industry. Similarly, Kenneth Deffeyes, a geologist and professor emeritus at Princeton University, estimates the occurrence of the peak near the end of last year.
The source also said that leading US financial analysts privately believe that "a collapse of the global banking system is imminent by 2008." Although the warning is consistent with the public findings of other experts, this is the first time that a more precise date has been estimated. In a prescient analysis drawing on highly placed financial sources, US historian Gabriel Kolko, professor emeritus at York University, concluded in late July that:
The US Army's candor is disturbing but not surprising. People from Thomas Malthus to Jay Hansen have been warning us for quite some time, that sooner rather than later, our species would be running into the finite parameters defining our existence. Malthus has been excoriated by those ignorant of the fact that his predictions were made a century prior to the discovery of "rock oil", thus delaying but not usurping humanity's inevitable decline.
I would suggest that the US Army as well as the rest of the Megamachine has in fact been implementing this "redrawing" operation for quite some time. 9-11 was just the pretext contrived to catalyze the process. Unfortunately for the Megamachine, their desperation due to time constraints has led to some rather unprofessional results in the propaganda department. Exxon has just announced a multi million dollar ad campaign denouncing peak oil theory. This comes on the heels of their well known multi million dollar ad campaign denouncing global warming (sorry, climate change). What can they possibly hope to accomplish through such disinformaion? To buy time. The same thing we're all doing.
An MSNBC news poll tonight asked the question whether this war on "terror" is akin to fighting the Nazis in WW II. 52% out of over a quarter million respondents answered in the negative. What's going to happen when the critical mass of people overcome their own cognitive dissonance and see this regime for the awful muderers they are? A full fledged taxpayer revolt is not too far fetched, and might throw a wrench into the Army's plans.
by
RJCW (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 9:31:19 PM
Many thanks to Mr. Mosaddeq Ahmed for his thought-provoking article.
Many field and company grade officers, the middle management sector of the Officers' Corps, are expressing views similar to those expressed in this article. Their experience and observations in commanding operations there in the current environment give them a particularly relevant and authoritative perspective in their views.
For the sake of simplicity, I will confine these remarks to Iraq only. Even a cursory reading of Iraqi history must lead to the conclusion that the current State is a League of Nations mandate state without any sort of unifying or nationalizing factors. The current boundaries of Iraq are literally, lines drawn on a map by European diplomats.
The tribalism, the sectarianism and the extreme ethnic divergences that have created the 100 or so separate armed political groups that existed in Iraq BEFORE the invasion have been exacerbated by the delegitimazation of the national institutions under the occupation.
Despite the American rhetoric about free and fair elections, vast segments of the Iraqi population boycotted the elections as a political strategy. People and politicians will respond to power and the Occupation backed regime is the most powerful group currently in Iraq, but it only has power when it is backed by American firepower.
The Administration did not split Iraq because that would have sent the message of conquest too boldly to the neighboring countries and nations like Saudi Arabia may very well have been even more destabilized than they have been from our current inept and futile operations.
Kurdistan is not going to happen. The inauguration of a Kurdish state would entail taking territory from Iran and Turkey as well. If the Turkish and Iranian Kurdish territories were not granted in the first land grant, it would embroil those countries in a nasty war against the Kurds that would bring on Saddamesque atrocities and end in the absorption of the current Kurdish autonomous region of Iraq into Turkey and Iran.
The statement that ethnic cleansing works is odious beyond comment, and untrue. The current border difficulties we are experiencing domestically in this country show that ethnic cleansing doesn't work.
After a 200 year long ethnic cleansing campaign against the red race, we know find our borders swarming with millions of their descendants trying to make a living in the land of where their fathers died.
The good news is that reliable polls show that Iraqi nationalism has a strong hold on the imagination of Iraqi masses and that they are committed to the country within its current borders.
In an odd way the current sectarian violence may be the catalyst to more general Iraqi identity. It has been reliably reported that people are changing their names from overtly Shia of Sunni names to more general Arab names, thus submerging the raw edge of sectarianism. Perhaps, after the incendiary influence of the occupation has been removed and the Iraqis have had a period of reconciliation the seeds of nationalism that are now being sown from resistance to the foreign occupiers and merging of sectarian differences will flower in a resurgence of Iraqi identity and development.
The American foreign policy and military establishment need to understand the American aid and involvement are NOT ESSENTIAL in other peoples' development. Our role in the world should be to provide educational resources, research, commerce and perhaps investment funds for peaceful and productive enterprises.
Robert Chapman
Lansing, New York
by
Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 557 comments)
on Friday, September 1, 2006 at 6:59:54 AM
