Home > Uncategorized > Towards a Framework of Global Warfare?

Towards a Framework of Global Warfare?

Global Research
March 3, 2013

Towards a Framework of Global Warfare?
Washington Establishment Think Tank
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Washington’s most influential establishment think tank The Brookings Institution has called upon the Obama administration to implement what is tantamount to a framework of Global Warfare.

According to Brookings Michael E. O’Hanlon, the US should intervene simultaneously through direct military action in both the Middle East and Africa, in two major geopolitical hubs, namely Syria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The concept of waging simultaneous US led theater wars is nothing new. It is an integral part of US military doctrine. It was put forth in 2000 by the Project of the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think tank linked to the Defense-Intelligence establishment, the Republican Party and the powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

The PNAC’s declared objective formulated in 2000 was to “Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous theater wars” in different parts of the World.

According to Brookings Michael E. O’Hanlon:

“There is a case for more assertive U.S. action in both Congo and Syria…[I]n Syria…the most likely scenario for U.S. troops resembles what the North Atlantic Treaty Organization did in Bosnia in the 1990s. First, we arm the weaker side. Then we support it with air strikes…Using the Bosnia precedent, and allowing for a population four times its size, up to 200,000 foreign troops could be needed in a post-war stabilization effort…

“[W]e can as part of multilateral coalitions that intervene in both Congo and Syria at once.” [sic] (Michael E. O’Hanlon, Brookings Institution, February 2012, emphasis added)

What is being intimated is to “tone down” prevailing non-conventional and covert forms of intervention in favor of conventional theater wars involving the extensive use of air power and the deployment of US-NATO ground forces, under a R2P humanitarian mandate.

Direct military action involving the deployment of tens of thousands of US NATO forces in Syria would trigger conditions of a broader Middle East war, including the possibility of a confrontation with Russia and Iran, namely a framework of military escalation.

Similarly, US military intervention in the Congo, would create conditions for the militarization of the central African region, which is strategic in terms of its wealth of minerals, oil and natural gas.

A military operation in the Congo would also be a sequel to the war on Libya (2011) and the ongoing war on Mali and Niger, which is characterised by the deployment of coalition ground forces under the pretext of a counter-terrorism mandate. What is at stake is the conquest of strategic resources, including gold, uranium and natural gas.

The Congo is contiguous to the Sahel region. Direct US military intervention in the Congo could potentially lead to escalation over a large part of the African continent including the sub-Saharan Sahelian belt, Central Africa and East Africa. This process of global warfare applied to Africa is part of a US military and strategic “road-map”. It is a project of neo-colonial conquest by the US over a vast area.

This military agenda –implemented at the crossroads of the most serious economic crisis in modern history– is directly supportive of corporate interests in mining, energy, oil and gas, not to mention the multibillion dollar weapons industry, namely the US “defense contractors”.

The underlying war propaganda used to justify these military operations hinges upon NATO’s R2P. These operations would be conducted under a “peace-keeping mandate”, “with the full support of the international community”.

“Obama has an opportunity here to revalidate the Nobel Committee’s decision to award him its peace prize four years ago. It’s also an opportunity to show that the 2011 Libya mission, of which the president is justifiably proud, was not a one-off. Now, with his new Cabinet, Obama should seriously explore his options in both these tragic wars.” (Michael E. O’Hanlon op cit)

Thanks to Rick Rozoff, Stop NATO for bringing the Brookings article to our attention.

Categories: Uncategorized
  1. rosemerry
    March 4, 2013 at 6:56 pm

    Think tank? Ignore all these warmongers.


  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: