operator kos
12-24-2006, 08:01 AM
Arch neocon Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: America's Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives provides some interesting food for thought in relation to our current involvement in the Middle East. In his book, Brzezinski says that in order for America to remain the sole superpower into the 21st century, we'll have to seize the key oil and natural gas reserves in Central Asia and the Middle East. A number of direct quotes from the book are quite telling:
*The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp. 24-25)
*But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualities, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization. (p. 35)
*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. (p. 40)
*That puts a premium on manuever and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy. (p. 198)
*Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. (p. 211)
In September of 2000, the neoconservative Project for a New American Century continued this line of thought in their publication "Rebuilding America's Defenses". They called for a radical increase in military spending in order to insure "full spectrum dominance" of the globe, but lamented that such a revolutionary change in policy would never find support among the American public "minus a catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a New Pearl Harbor".
*The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp. 24-25)
*But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualities, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization. (p. 35)
*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. (p. 40)
*That puts a premium on manuever and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy. (p. 198)
*Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. (p. 211)
In September of 2000, the neoconservative Project for a New American Century continued this line of thought in their publication "Rebuilding America's Defenses". They called for a radical increase in military spending in order to insure "full spectrum dominance" of the globe, but lamented that such a revolutionary change in policy would never find support among the American public "minus a catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a New Pearl Harbor".