New Delhi, 09
have periodically reported the new system of American power
projection across the world, which the ‘neo conservative’ ruling
coterie of the Bush administration, have chosen to pursue with great
zeal. (see ‘Straussian Waltz’).
this piece we attempt to do a more thorough analysis of the American
plans to conquer or control the world. Though no signs of WMD have
to-date been found in Iraq and Saddam Hussain like Osama-bin-Laden
is still suspected to be alive; worse still a mini guerilla war
seems to have started taking a toll of American soldiers’ lives at
a rate even higher than the Iraqi liberation war.
appears as if the Straussian disciples are embarked on a strategy of
unipolar control around the globe. To
achieve this end, the ‘neo-conservatives’ that dominate policy
making in the White House argue that the US alone is above
international law and any system of international criminal justice.
This also includes a marginalisation of the UN when it does not
adhere to American needs.
latest is that three dozen countries risk
military aid after missing a deadline for agreeing to protect
Americans on their territory from prosecution by the International
Criminal Court (ICC). Now in
the most extensive global realignment of military forces since the
end of the Cold War, the Bush administration is creating a network
of far-flung military bases designed for the rapid projection of
American military power against terrorists, hostile states and other
US plan for the new world order follows a pattern which can be
roughly described as follows:
creation of US hegemony in regions of geo-strategic importance
to the US, for example UK (in “old Europe”); Romania and
Bulgaria in South East Europe. (They are recipients of the
largest security assistance in the region); Israel in West Asia;
Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan in Central Asia; Taiwan, Philippines,
South Korea in the Far East; Pakistan in South Asia and
Australia in South East Asia.
through engagement of independent powers –– like
change in powers that aspire to challenge the
perhaps believes that as a benevolent imperial state it alone can
ensure international security and peace –– “Pax Americana”.
The White House is working out its agenda through a set of alliances
as revealed in its military tie-ups, bases and military assistance
programmes. One common denominator is that none of these is an equal
alliance, i.e. they are based on various types, levels and extents
of subordination. For instance, NATO besides being a military
interests and presence in
are lap dogs.
rid of weapons of mass destruction was the reason given for
and now for threatening
. But given the failure of the Bush-Blair team to find WMDs, ridding
the world of “pre-modern” oppressive regimes that are violating
human rights is another way of seeking legitimacy for intervention.
real reason behind this expansionism is the
aim to re-structure the international political system to suit its
national interests and those of global capital. Its strategy is
clear. First, to make US the safest place to park finance capital.
Second, to provide itself and the major Trans National Companies (TNCs)
safe and unbridled access to raw material and natural resources that
have been denied to it by regimes opposed to the US or global
capital. Third, to ensure a policing capacity at all geostrategic
areas that are linked to these resources and the routes or lines of
communication that transport these resources both to the
and other areas where their profits would be derived from this
finance capital. Fourth, to ensure its hegemony so that the earlier
three principles can be insured. These policies will ensure
dominance and the continuation of a unipolar world.
military planners are engaged in two complicated processes. The
first entails a rearrangement of existing military bases around the
world, partly to complete the readjustment begun a decade ago when
the threat of international communism ended and partly to reduce
political dependency on any host nation. The deployment of US troops
was originally designed to meet the threat of a Soviet invasion.
That threat has disappeared but tens of thousands of US forces
, largely because neither the Europeans nor the Americans want to
tackle the sensitive question of their withdrawal.
recent war in
, however, changed the situation.
discovered that, while it could use these troops and their equipment
, it could not fly them over the territory of some countries that
opposed the war. The most spectacular change of strategy came with
the idea of creating 'virtual' military bases around the world
–– staging posts for US troops –– rather than long-term,
fixed installations where
forces are stationed for decades.
has invested heavily in new transport aircraft –– vast monsters
that can airlift whole units, complete with all their equipment, in
a matter of days to any corner of the globe. The result is that the
does not need many fixed bases; all it requires is the certainty
that some areas around the world can be used as staging posts for
the airlift of US forces whenever necessary.
scheme has the added advantage of precluding political disputes, for
the stationing of US troops can create huge difficulties. In
contrast, the conclusion of agreements about the possible use of
staging posts in case of crises can pass unnoticed. Few are aware
has already created a constellation of such 'virtual' military bases
on the territories of all the former Soviet republics in
, conveniently close to
bases are being built or expanded in countries such as
, and the
. The new bases will become key nodes in the implementation of the
administration's doctrine of preemptive attack against terrorists
and hostile states believed to have chemical, biological or nuclear
withdrawal of US troops from the Demilitarized Zone between North
, announced last month, and the recent removal of most
are the opening moves in a complex shift that should replace most
large, permanent US bases overseas with smaller facilities that can
be used as needed.
new network of bases corresponds to what defence officials call an
"arc of instability" that runs from the Andean region in
the Southern Hemisphere through North Africa to the Middle East and
into Southeast Asia.
would still maintain a ring of permanent military "hubs"
territory, such as
, and in closely allied countries, such as
. But many of the major bases on which it had relied, such as those
, will be replaced by dozens of spartan "forward operating
bases" in southern
, maintained only by small, permanent support units.
the hubs and forward operating bases would be a ring of
"forward operating locations," or prearranged but
unmaintained staging areas that US forces would be allowed by host
nations to occupy quickly in the event of a conflict. These forward
facilities would be augmented by greater reliance on basing forces
and equipment aboard ships at sea, and on pre-positioning forces and
heavy combat equipment at staging areas along major shipping routes.
forces have vacated two large permanent air bases in
used for patrolling the northern and southern "no-fly"
for more than a decade, they have established forward operating
United Arab Emirates
. Military personnel are stationed in all of those countries, with
5th Fleet headquarters in
, a major Air Force operations center in
and two huge Army bases in
. But there are no combat units permanently based in any of those
countries, as there are in
, home to the Army's 1st Armored and 1st Infantry divisions.
continued basing of 60,000 Army troops in
, where they have been since the end of World War II, is under
review. Pentagon wants to continue using Ramstein Air Base in
, and view it as a critical hub facility for supporting deployments
to more distant forward operating bases and locations. One scenario
under consideration, calls for the troops in
to be brought home and based in the
could then be rotated on six-month assignments in countries such as
, which are closer to the Balkans and
and less restrictive than
as training sites. There is interest in operating locations along
southern European shipping routes in
. Farther east, in
, it is planned to maintain bases in
, which were established in 2001 to support the war in
. The Pentagon is hoping to possibly re-establish bases or locations
, although it is not clear how receptive the Philippine government
is also considering bases or staging areas in northeast
, where the
military has close ties and excellent training relationships with
the Australian military. But some sources doubt that any forthcoming
agreements would call for US Marines to be permanently based there.
Last month, there were unconfirmed reports that Pentagon had also
for some base facilities.
is using military aid as leverage to advance its agenda. To win over
allies for their
policy, several countries have been sanctioned military aid. These
–– $1 billion in economic aid;
, $700m economic and $406m in military aid and an additional $1.4b
in defence department reimbursements.
will receive $1b in military aid plus $9b in loan guarantees.
got $300m in economic aid. Fifteen countries –– Bahrain,
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Oman,
Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia received a total of $308m
military aid for the “logistic support” they provided for the
Iraq war. (The Prime Minister of Slovenia announced that his country
was erroneously listed as a member of the Coalition and would not
receive the $4.5m in
military aid.) In addition to this,
received $200m in military aid for border security. They have now
been promised an additional $3b for the next three years, half of
which for defence related purposes. The
, an old
base, has a “visiting forces” agreement and received $92m worth
of excess military equipment. In addition,
and Equador are also to receive military assistance. The new
got $64m in military aid and training to “fight Arab soldiers with
ties to Al Qaeda.”
is being said in public and, for the moment, most of the changes are
imperceptible. Yet they amount to an extraordinary reassessment of
the way US forces will be positioned around the world.
is hell bent to plan for wars anywhere around the globe. However,
most troops will be positioned in the
, rather than in forward bases on various continents. Some of the
NATO allies like
have strongly opposed US moves as evident from
, despite their growing contacts with the
, are in favour of a multi-polar system and oppose unilateralist
too would favour a world order without US or any single power’s
monopoly. But the present economic, technological and military
puts it in an envious position to rule the roost. The rest have no
go but to wait and watch.