Army Formulates New Global Strategy

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by poncho, Oct 13, 2014.

  1. poncho

    Expand Collapse

    Mar 30, 2004
    Likes Received:
    The Army is poised to release a new global strategy that will refocus military forces to reflect the changing nature of conflict in the 21st century.

    According to The Wall Street Journal, the Army plans to reallocate resources, shifting away from the traditional model of preparation for large-scale threats and toward a model that will prepare it to counter, and also prevent, numerous emerging regional conflicts.

    < snip >

    The strategy, titled the Army Operating Concept, will be formally released this week. In it, Russia and China are named as "competing powers," the former of which was noted to have significant territorial ambitions that the military will seek to deter using land power.

    "Without a viable land force capable of opposing the Russian army and its irregular proxy, such adventurism is likely to continue undeterred," the document says, according to the Journal.

    Read More At:

    Sounds an awful lot like the PNAC/Brzezinski neocon strategy for global hegemony and a "New American Century".

    The Source of Obama’s Foreign Policies (and the Army's "brand new global strategy" evidently)

    The Eurasian Balkans:

    It was at the middle of the unipolar moment in 1997 that Brzezinski authored “The Grand Chessboard” in which he laid out the US’ geostrategic priorities for Eurasia and how to best achieve them. He postulated that it was imperative for the US to retain a commanding influence over Eurasia, and that one of the best ways to do this was to prevent collusion between Russia and China. The strategic ‘Balkanizing’ of societies across the Eurasian landmass is a pivotal means of destabilizing the entire continent. If taken to its logical end, it is envisioned to create a tidal wave of ethnic, religious, and political anarchy that can crash into and dismember the diverse civilizations of Russia, China, and Iran. In some aspects, the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and their chaotic aftermath can be seen as following the philosophic dictates of this principle. The US has also historically undertaken regime change operations as a method of advancing continental destabilization and pushing Western power deeper into Eurasia.

    Regime Change:

    Regime change has always been a characteristic of American foreign policy, owing back to the covert overthrow of the Syrian government in 1949. Since then, it has been estimated that the CIA has overthrown or attempted to overthrow over 50 governments, although it has only admitted to 7 of them. Regime change can be either direct or indirect. Pertaining to the former, one can look at the examples of Panama in 1989 or Iraq in 2003, whereas the latter can be witnessed by the 1953 Iranian coup or the trail of Color Revolutions. [Background here, here and here, here.]

    Color Revolutions:

    Color Revolutions are outside-supported pro-Western coups. They specifically use the tools of social media and NGOs to infiltrate societies, increase their ranks, and expand their efficiency after the regime change operation has been commenced. Because they typically manipulate large groups of people, they create the illusion of a broad grassroots movement of disaffected masses rising up against a tyrannical dictatorship. This misleading perception enables the coup attempt to gain wide support and acceptance among the Western community, and it also denigrates the legitimate authorities that are trying to put down the illegal overthrow. The manipulation-prone masses are drawn to the street movements largely as a result of Gene Sharp’s tactics, which adroitly seek to amplify social protest movements to their maximum possible extent.

    Read More At:

    In a letter written in 1783, Benjamin Franklin said, “In my opinion, there never was a good War, or a bad Peace.”

    That kind of talk today probably would get Ben branded a terrorist or an associate of al-Qaeda, ISIS, or the latest enemy in the perpetual War on Terror. Lindsey Graham definitely would tell him to shut up and then send him to Gitmo. When one kills context, he makes an orphan of understanding.

    With that in mind, it is enlightening to read Franklin’s declaration in its entirety.

    Read More At:
    #1 poncho, Oct 13, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2014

Share This Page