Copyright©2009F.WilliamEngdahlAllrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedortransmittedinanyformorbymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recordingorotherwisewithoutpriorwrittenpermissionofthepublisherandauthor.

CoverartbyDavidDeeswww.deesillustration.comPublishedby: edition.engdahl

Wiesbaden

ISBN:978-3-9813263-0-7eBookISBN:978-3-9813263-3-8LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2009927425PrintedinUSA

http://www.deesillustration.com

ToMargot,whosesupportandincisivesuggestionshelpedmakethisbookareality.

Contents

Introduction

CHAPTERONEAWarinGeorgia—PutinDropsaBomb

CHAPTERTWOControllingRussiaColorRevolutionsandSwarmingCoups

CHAPTERTHREEControllingChinawithSyntheticDemocracy

CHAPTERFOURWeaponizingHumanRights:DarfurtoMyanmartoTibet

CHAPTERFIVETheEmpireofBases—theBasisofEmpire

CHAPTERSIXTheCuriousHistoryOfStarWars

CHAPTERSEVENWashington’sNuclearObsession

CHAPTEREIGHTDr.StrangeloveLives!

CHAPTERNINEThePermanentWarStateLobby

CHAPTERTENYoda’s‘RevolutioninMilitaryAffairs’

CHAPTERELEVENFullSpectrumDominanceorFullyMad?

Introduction

Less than twodecadeshavepassedsince thecollapseof theSovietUnionandtheendofadecades-longpolarizedworldoftwoopposingmilitarysuperpowers.In late1989CommunistEastGermany, theGermanDemocraticRepublicas itwasknown,began tobreak thebarriersofSovietcontrolandbyNovemberofthat year the much-hated BerlinWall was being pulled down stone-by-stone.Peopledancedonthewallincelebrationofwhattheybelievedwouldbeanewfreedom,aparadiseofthe‘AmericanWayofLife.’

ThecollapseoftheSovietUnionwasinevitablebytheendofthe1980’s.TheeconomyhadbeenliterallybledtotheboneinordertofeedanendlessarmsracewithitsarchrivalandColdWaropponent,theUnitedStates.Bylate1989theSovietleadershipwaspragmaticenoughtoscrapthelastvestigesofMarxistideologyandraisethewhiteflagofsurrender.‘Freemarketcapitalism’hadwonover‘state-runsocialism.’

Thecollapseof theSovietUnionbrought jubilation everywhere,with theexception of theWhite House where, initially, President George H.W. Bushreactedwithpanic.PerhapshewasunsurehowtheUnitedStateswouldcontinueto justify its huge arms spending and its massive intelligence apparatus —ranging from the CIA to the NSA to the Defense Intelligence Agency andbeyond—withoutaSovietfoe.GeorgeH.W.BushwasaproductandashaperoftheColdWarNationalSecurityState.Hisworldwasoneof‘enemyimage,’espionage, and secrecy, where people often sidestepped the US Constitutionwhen ‘national security’was involved. In its own peculiarway it was a statewithinthestate,aworldeverybitascentrallyrunandcontrolledas theSovietUnion had been, only with private multinational defense and energyconglomerates and their organizations of coordination in place of the SovietPolitburo.ItsmilitarycontractslinkedeverypartoftheeconomyoftheUnitedStatestothefutureofthatpermanentwarmachine.

For those segments of the US establishment whose power had grownexponentiallythroughtheexpansionof thepostWorldWarIInationalsecuritystate,theendoftheColdWarmeantthelossoftheirreasonforexisting.

As the sole hegemonic power remaining after the collapse of the Soviet

Union,theUnitedStateswasfacedwithtwopossiblewaysofdealingwiththenewRussiangeopoliticalreality.

It could have cautiously but clearly signaled the openingof a newera ofpolitical and economic cooperation with its shattered and economicallydevastatedformerColdWarfoe.

The West, led by the United States, might have encouraged mutual de-escalation of the Cold War nuclear balance of terror and the conversion ofindustry—West as well as East—into civilian enterprises to rebuild civilianinfrastructureandrepairimpoverishedcities.

TheUnited States had the option of gradually dismantlingNATO just asRussia had dissolved the Warsaw Pact, and furthering a climate of mutualeconomic cooperation that could turn Eurasia into one of the world’s mostprosperousandthrivingeconomiczones.

YetWashingtonchoseanotherpath todealwith theendof theColdWar.Thepathcouldbeunderstoodonlyfromtheinnerlogicofitsglobalagenda—ageopolitical agenda. The sole remaining Superpower chose stealth, deception,lies andwars to attempt to control the EurasianHeartland—its only potentialrivalasaneconomicregion—bymilitaryforce.

KeptsecretfrommostAmericans,byGeorgeH.W.Bush,andbyhisfriendanddefactoprotégé,DemocraticPresidentBillClinton,wastherealitythatforthefactionthatcontrolledthePentagon—themilitarydefenseindustry,itsmanysub-contractors,andthegiantoilandoilservicescompaniessuchasHalliburton—theColdWarneverended.

The‘new’ColdWarassumedvariousdisguisesanddeceptivetacticsuntilSeptember11,2001.ThoseeventsempoweredanAmericanPresidenttodeclarepermanent war against an enemy who was everywhere and nowhere, whoallegedlythreatenedtheAmericanwayoflife,justifyinglawsthatdestroyedthatwayoflifeinthenameofthenewworldwideWaronTerror.Toputitcrassly,OsamabinLadenwastheanswertoaPentagonprayerinSeptember2001.

Whatfewwereawareof, largelybecause their responsiblenationalmediarefusedtotellthem,wasthatsincethefalloftheBerlinWallinNovember1989,the Pentagon had been pursuing, step-by-careful-step, a military strategy fordominationoftheentireplanet,agoalnoearliergreatpowerhadeverachieved,though many had tried. It was called by the Pentagon, ‘Full SpectrumDominance’ and as its name implied, its agenda was to control everythingeverywhere including the high seas, land, air, space and even outer space andcyberspace.

That agenda had been pursued over decades on amuch lower scalewithCIA-backed coups in strategic countries such as Iran, Guatemala, Brazil,Vietnam, Ghana, the Belgian Congo. Now the end of a countervailingSuperpower, the Soviet Union, meant the goal could be pursued effectivelyunopposed.

As far back as 1939 a small elite circle of specialists hadbeen convenedunder highest secrecy by a private foreign policy organization, theNewYorkCouncil on Foreign Relations. With generous funding from the RockefellerFoundation, the group set out tomap the details of a postwarworld. In theirview, a new world war was imminent and out of its ashes only one countrywouldemergevictorious—theUnitedStates.

Their task, as some of the members later described, was to lay thefoundationsofapostwarAmericanEmpire—butwithoutcallingitthat.Itwasa shrewd bit of deception that initially led much of the world to believe theAmericanclaimsofsupportfor‘freedomanddemocracy’aroundtheworld.By2003 and the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq on the false and legallyirrelevant assertion that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of massdestruction,thatdeceptionwaswearingthin.

WhatwastherealagendaoftherelentlessPentagonwars?Wasit,assomesuggested,astrategy tocontrolmajorworldoil reserves inaneraoffutureoilscarcity?Orwas there a far different,more grandiose, agenda behind theUSstrategysincetheendoftheColdWar?

The litmus test as to whether the aggressive military agenda of the twoBush administrations was an extreme aberration of core American foreignmilitarypolicy,oronthecontrary,attheveryheartofitslong-termagenda,wasthePresidencyofBarackObama.

The initial indicationswerenotoptimistic for thosehoping for themuch-toutedchange.AsPresident,Obamaselectedalong-timeBushfamilyintimate,formerCIADirector andBushSecretary ofDefense,RobertGates, to run thePentagon. He choose senior career military people as head of the NationalSecurity Council and Director of National Intelligence, and his first act asPresidentwastoannounceanincreasedtroopcommitmenttoAfghanistan.

Thepurposeofthepresentbookistoplaceeventsofthepasttwodecadesandmore into a largerhistoricalorgeopolitical context, to illuminate thedarkcornersofPentagonstrategyandactionsandtheextremedangers to thefuture— not only of the United States but of the entire world — that their FullSpectrumDominance represents. This is no ordinary book onmilitary policy,

ratheritisageopoliticalanalysisofapowerestablishmentthatoverthecourseof the Cold War had spun out of control and now threatens not only thefundamentalinstitutionsofdemocracy,butevenoflifeontheplanetthroughthegrowingriskofnuclearwarbymiscalculation.

—F.WilliamEngdahl,April2009

CHAPTERONE

AWarinGeorgia—PutinDropsaBomb

Wehaveabout 50%of theworld’swealthbut only6.3%of its population…Inthissituation,wecannot fail tobe theobjectofenvyandresentment.Ourrealtaskinthecomingperiodistodeviseapatternofrelationshipswhichwillpermitus to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to ournationalsecurity.Todoso,wewillhavetodispensewithallsentimentalityandday-dreaming;andourattentionwillhavetobeconcentratedeverywhereonourimmediatenationalobjectives.Weneednotdeceiveourselvesthatwecanaffordtodaytheluxuryofaltruismandworld-benefaction. –GeorgeF.Kennan,USStateDepartmentPolicyMemorandum,February

19481

GunsOfAugustAndOneOfThoseFunnyNumbers“Eighteighteight”isoneofthosefunnynumbers,like666or911.Somepeopleattachgreatmysterioussignificancetoit.Soitwasmoreominousthanotherwisethatontheeighthdayoftheeighthmonthoftheeighthyearofthenewcentury,a small land in the remote Caucasus mountains of the former Soviet Uniondecidedtoorderitsrag-tagarmytomarchintoaterritoryastinyasLuxemburgtoreclaimitinthenameofagreaterRepublicofGeorgia.

Onthatdaymuchoftheworldwaslookingelsewhere,toBeijing,asChinalaunched the dramatic beginning of the 2008 SummerOlympics.Manyworldleaders were in Beijing for the event, including the President of the UnitedStates,GeorgeW.Bush,andthenewPrimeMinisterofRussia,VladimirPutin.

The surprising news that theGeorgianArmy had invaded the breakawayprovinceofSouthOssetiaatfirstdrewlittleinterest.FewpeopleintheWesthadeverheardofSouthOssetia.Theregionwasremoteandbelievedtobeoflittlepoliticalsignificance.

AUS-backedattackbyGeorgiainAugust2008surprisedtheWestwhenRussiarespondedsoswiftlytodefendOssetians

As it turnedout, the smallRepublicofGeorgiaand its invasionofSouth

OssetiawouldmarktheonsetofthemostdangerousphaseinworldaffairssincetheCubanMissileCrisisofOctober1962whenthetwoColdWaradversaries,theSovietUnion and theUnitedStates, stood ‘eyeball to eyeball’ and came ahair’sbreadthfromnuclearwar.

Somebegan to feara21stCentury rerunof theGunsofAugust,whenanequally remote event—- the assassination in August 1914 of the heir to thethrone of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy by a Serb assassin in Sarajevo –triggeredtheoutbreakoftheGreatWarinEurope.

OthersspokeofaNewColdWar,areferencetothemutualbalanceofterrorthatdominatedworldaffairsfromroughly1946untilthefalloftheBerlinWallandthecollapseoftheSovietUnionin1989-1990.

That 1962 Cuban crisis, as some recalled, was triggered by USreconnaissance photos showing construction of a Sovietmissile base inCuba,some90milesfromFlorida.SuchamissilebasewouldgiveRussiatheabilitytolaunch a nuclear strike on theUS homelandwithinminutes, not allowingUSnuclearbomberssufficienttimetorespond.

What few in theWest—outside the Pentagon and highestUS andNATOcircles—were told was that the Soviet missile installation in Cuba was not aprovocationoutof theblue. ItwasRussia’s response,however ineffectiveandhoweverreckless,totheearlierUSdecisiontoplaceitsThorandJupiternuclearmissiles in Turkey, a NATO member dangerously close to Soviet strategicnuclearsites.

AswithCuba in1962, sowithGeorgia in2008, the crisiswas thedirectconsequence of an aggressive provocation initiated by military and politicalcirclesinWashington.2

EndOfAColdWar,SeedsOfANewOneTheColdWarostensiblyendedwithMikhailGorbachev’sdecisioninNovember1989 not to order Soviet tanks into East Germany to block the growingnonviolentanti-governmentcandlelightprotestmovementand to let theBerlinWall, the symbol of the ‘IronCurtain’ dividingEastern fromWesternEurope,falldown.TheUSSRwasbankrupt,economically,militarilyandpolitically.

TheColdWarwasover.TheWest,abovealltheUnitedStatesofAmerica—thesymbolofliberty,freedom,democracyandeconomicprosperityformuchof theworld, above all for the peoples of the former communist countries ofEasternEurope—hadwon.

With the end of the Cold War, Washington proclaimed its aim was thespreadofdemocracyto thosepartsof theworldthathadbeenrigidlyconfinedwithintheSovietsocialistsystemsinceatleasttheendoftheSecondWorldWarandinmanycasessincethe1917RussianRevolution.

DemocracywasWashington’smosteffectiveweapontoincreaseitscontrolover theemergingnationsof theformerCommunistbloc inEurope.Theword‘democracy,’however,astheancientGreekoligarchicfamilieswellknew,wasadouble-edgedweapon;itcouldbemanipulatedintoanenragedmobandhurledwithdirectedfuryagainstone’spoliticalopponents.

All that was needed was to control the techniques for shaping publicopinion and the levers of economic change. In these, Washington was wellequipped; it dominated global media through instruments such as CNN, andorchestratedeconomictransformationthroughitscontrolofinstitutionssuchastheInternationalMonetaryFundandtheWorldBank.

WashingtonwouldspreaddemocracyafterthecollapseoftheSovietUnion.But it was to be a special kind of democracy, if you will, a ‘totalitariandemocracy,’ welding American economic, political and cultural hegemonytogetherunderthemilitarycontrolofNATO.

MostoftheworldwasjubilantattheofferofAmerican-styledemocracy.InBerlin theGermans, from both east andwest, playedBeethoven’sOde to Joyand danced on theWall. In Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and across thenations or regions which had been locked into the Soviet side of the ‘Iron

Curtain’ since 1948, the citizens were euphoric in celebration of what theybelievedwouldbethebeginningofabetterlife,alifeoffreedomandprosperity,the ‘American Way of Life.’ They believed the propaganda that had beenbeamedatthemovertheyearsbyRadioFreeEuropeandotherUSandWesterngovernmentmedia.Paradiseonearthwasabouttoarrive,orsotheythought.

The euphoria was short-lived. Almost immediately, Washington and itsWestern allies imposed a form of economic ‘shock therapy’ on the formersocialist, centrally planned, state economies. The InternationalMonetary Fund(IMF)demanded immediate ‘market reforms.’Thiswas code for the completetransformationofentireeconomies.

The IMF staff had in no way been prepared for the complexity oftransforming the inter-connected economic space of six former Warsaw Pactnations (Bulgaria,Czechoslovakia, EastGermany,Hungary, Poland,Romania)andfifteenformerSovietRepublics.TheIMFtechnocrats,underordersfromUSTreasury Secretary and former Wall Street banker, Robert Rubin, demandedimmediateprivatizationofallstate-ownedindustries,devaluationoftheRussianruble,anddevaluationofeachoftheothersixnationalcurrencies.3

IMF‘shocktherapy’(StructuralAdjustmentPolicies)flungopenthedoorsoftheformerSovietbloctodollar-holdingWesternspeculators.Amongthoseinthe stampede were the American hedge fund billionaire George Soros, thefugitivemetalstraderMarcRich,andaggressivebankssuchasCreditSuisseandChase. The IMF policies allowed them literally to loot the ‘Crown Jewels’ ofRussia for pennies. The loot included everything fromoil to nickel, and fromaluminumtoplatinum.

AtinyhandfulofRussianbusinessmen–-mostlyformerCommunistpartyor KGB functionaries –- seized invaluable state-owned raw material assetsduring the corrupt Yeltsin era and became billionaires overnight. They wereaccuratelyreferredtointhemediaasRussian‘oligarchs’—menwhosewealthwouldallowthemtobecomethenewmastersofpost-communistRussia—themoneymasters.But, therewas a catch: their newwealthwas denominated indollars.Russia’snewoligarchswere tied, soWashingtonbelieved, to theWestand, specifically to theUnited States.Washington’s strategy had been to takecontrolofpost-SovietRussiabytakingcontrolofitsnewbillionaireoligarchs.

As a logical consequence of draconian IMF policies imposed on Russiaduring the 1990’s, unemployment exploded and living standards plummeted.Most shocking, life expectancy for Russian men fell to 56 years during thisperiod.Theelderlywereleftwithoutpensionsoradequatemedicalcareinmany

cases. Schools were closed; housing fell into disrepair; alcoholism, drugaddictionandAIDSspreadamongRussianyouth.

IMFdemands includedsavage reduction instatesubsidies inaneconomywhere all necessary social services from daycare to medical care had beenprovidedfreeoratnominalcostbythestate.TheRussianpopulationwasagainbeing put through hell, half a century after they had givenmore than twentythreemillionoftheirfinestyoungcitizensinbattlesothattheUnitedStatesandBritaincoulddominatethepostwarworld.AsmanyRussianssawit,economicshocktherapywasastrangewayfor theWest toshowgratitudefor theendoftheWarsawPact.

ThelastSovietleader,MikhailGorbachev,hadtriedtorevitalizetheSovietstatefromwithinwithGlasnostandPerestroika;thesehadfailed.Now,inreturnforGorbachevallowingtheWest,viathecontroversialIMF,todictatethetermsof economic transformation into the ‘capitalist paradise,’ the administration ofUSPresidentGeorgeH.W.BushhadofferedGorbachevapromise.Specifically,theofficialpromisewasthattheUnitedStateswouldnotextendNATOeastwardtoenvelopthenewlyliberatedcountriesoftheformerWarsawPact.4

GorbachevtrustedthispledgefromtheBushadministrationingoodfaith,as official policy. And so it seemed. In the chaos of the moment, however,Gorbachev apparently forgot to get Bush’s promise in writing. Memories inWashington were good, but conveniently short when it suited them, assubsequenteventswouldshow.

In response to that solemnUSpledge, the formerlymightySovietUnion,nowavastlyreducedRussia,hadpromisedWashingtonandNATOthatitwouldsystematically dismantle its formidable nuclear arsenal. Toward that end, theRussian Duma had ratified a Start II Treaty that provided a schedule forreduction of actively deployed nuclear weapons. They made the ratificationcontingentonboththeUSandRussiaadheringtothe1972Anti-BallisticMissileTreatywhichprohibiteddeploymentofanactivemissiledefenseshieldbyeitherside.5

OnDecember13,2001,GeorgeW.BushgaveRussianoticeoftheUnitedStates’withdrawalfromtheABMtreaty.ThatwasthefirsttimeinrecenthistorytheUnitedStateshadwithdrawnfromamajor internationalarmstreaty.Itwasdone in order to open the door to the creation of the US Missile DefenseAgency.6

An exhausted Russia had dissolved the Warsaw Pact, its counterpart toNATO.IthadwithdrawnitstroopsfromEasternEuropeandotherregionsofthe

former Soviet Union. The satellite states of the Soviet Union and even theformer Soviet Republics were encouraged to declare themselves independentcountries—albeit usually with Western promises and enticements of possiblemembershipinthenewEuropeanUnion.

TheRepublicofGeorgiawasonesuchnewcountry,eventhoughGeorgiahadbeenanintegralpartofaRussianempireextendingbacktothedaysoftheCzarswellbeforetheRevolutionof1917.

‘WeWon!’Despite the solemn pledges and apparently official agreements ofWashingtonnot to extend NATO eastward, George H.W. Bush and later, President BillClinton,wentbackontheirpromises.Theyenticedthecountriesof theformerWarsawPact,onebyone,intowhatwastobecomeanewlyenlarged,eastwardexpandingNATO.

George Herbert Walker Bush was the scion of a wealthy New Englandfamilythathadmadeitsfortuneoverdecades,firstwithinvestmentsinHitler’sReich and continuing through powerful alignments with Rockefeller oil andarmamentsindustries.“Wewon,”heproclaimednow,asifhailinganNFLSuperBowlvictoryandnotthecessationofamilitaryandpoliticalcontestthatoftenheldthefateoftheentireplanetinthebalance.

Asoneobserverdescribed thenewAmericanarrogance inWashington inthe beginning of the 1990’s and George H.W. Bush’s administration:“Presidential travels abroad assumed the trappings of imperial expeditions,overshadowing in scale and security demands the circumstances of any otherstatesman…America’sanointmentas theworld’s leader[was] insomerespectsreminiscentofNapoleon’sself-coronation.”7

The author of these critical comments was no outsider or opponent ofAmerican power. He was Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National SecurityAdviser to President Jimmy Carter and senior foreign policy strategist forseveralpresidentsandadvisortomany,includingpresidentialcandidateBarackObama.

Brzezinski was a careful student of the master of Anglo-Americangeopolitics, Sir Halford Mackinder. He knew well the dangers of imperialarrogance at the peak of empire. Such arrogance had in his view caused thecollapseoftheBritishEmpireapparentlyatitspeakbetweentheendofthe19thCenturyandtheoutbreakoftheFirstWorldWar.

Brzezinski warned that such domineering arrogance on the part ofWashingtonacenturylatercouldleadtoasimilarcrisisofAmericanhegemony.America, he warned, could lose its status as ‘Sole Superpower’ or as ‘theAmerican Empire’—the term favored by neo-conservative hawks such asWilliam Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and Robert Kagan, SeniorAssociateattheCarnegieEndowmentforInternationalPeace.

Zbigniew Brzezinski had been one of the architects of the war inAfghanistanagainsttheSovietUnioninthelate1970s.Byprovokingandthenmasterminding thatwar, inwhich theUSGovernment had trainedOsama binLadenandotherradicalIslamistswithadvancedtechniquesofirregularwarfareand sabotage, Brzezinski had done more than perhaps any other postwarstrategist,with thepossible exceptionofHenryKissinger, to extendAmericandominancethroughmilitaryforce.

Brzezinskiwasno softy.Hewas an ardentAmerican imperialist,what inWashingtonwascalleda‘realist.’HeknewthatAmericanimperialdomination,even when it masqueraded under the name of democracy, needed carefulattention to its allies inorder tomaintainglobalpowerand tocontrolwhathecalled the chessboard — Eurasia. Other powers were to be managed andmaneuveredtopreventtheemergenceofrivalstoUSdominance.Inthiscontext,in hiswidely debated 1997 book,TheGrandChessboard, Brzezinski referredrepeatedly to US allies, even including Germany and Japan, as America’s“vassals.”8

Brzezinskihadnoquarrelwith theapparentendgoalof theBush-Cheneyforeignpolicy—namely,aglobalAmericanCentury,anAmericanizedversionofimperialrule.Rather,Brzezinskidifferedonlyinhisvisionofthemeanswithwhichtoreachthatgoal.

“Symptomatic of the first decade and a half of America’s supremacy,”Brzezinskihadnoted,“weretheworldwidepresenceofUSmilitaryforcesandthe increased frequencyof their engagement incombator coerciveoperations.Deployedoneverycontinentanddominatingeveryocean,theUnitedStateshadnopoliticalormilitarypeer.”9

One areawhereUSmilitary forces were being deployedwas in the tinyCentralAsianformerSovietrepublicofGeorgia,wheresinceatleastSeptember2003,theBushAdministrationhadbeenprovidingdirectUSmilitaryassistanceandadvisorstothetinybutstrategiccountrythathaddeclareditsindependencefromtheSovietUnionin1990.10

The events in Georgia of August 2008 could not be understood without

goingbacktothe1990sandthehistoryofUSNATOexpansiontothedoorsofMoscow. The Administration of George Bush, Sr. had broken its promise toRussia not to expand NATO to the east. Now, in 2008, another BushAdministrationwas putting enormous pressure on a reluctant EuropeanUnionandEuropeangovernmentstoadmittwoformerSovietRepublics,GeorgiaandUkraine,intoNATO.

ThatnewNATOexpansioncame in thewakeof aboldannouncement inearly2007bytheUnitedStatesGovernmentthatitplannedtoinstalladvancedmissile bases and radar stations in two former Warsaw Pact countries, nowNATOmembers:PolandandtheCzechRepublic.11

TheBushAdministrationclaimedthatthedecisiontoplaceitsdeceptively-named Ballistic Missile ‘Defense’ infrastructure in Poland and the CzechRepublic was allegedly to defend against ‘rogue states like Iran.’12 Thisassertionproduced the strongest response from theKremlin. In actualmilitaryfactitwasnotdefensiveatall,butamajoroffensivegainforWashingtoninanyfuturemilitaryshowdownwithMoscow.

InFebruary2007,Russia’sPresidentVladimirPutinaddressed theannualMunich, Germany International Conference on Security, formerly theWehrkundeConference.Deliveringakeynotespeechthatwasextraordinarybyanystandards,Putin’sremarkscaughtmanyintheWestbysurprise:

NATOhasputitsfrontlineforcesonourborders…[I]tisobviousthatNATOexpansiondoesnothaveanyrelationwiththemodernisationofthe Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On thecontrary, it representsaseriousprovocation thatreduces the levelofmutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is thisexpansion intended? And what happened to the assurances ourwesternpartnersmadeafterthedissolutionoftheWarsawPact?13

These frank words from Russia’s President unleashed a storm of protestfrom Western media and politicians. Vladimir Putin, a former KGB careerofficerwhohadbrieflyheaded theFSB(theKGB’ssuccessororganizationforforeignintelligence),couldbeaccusedofmanythings.Hehadclearlyclimbedto the top of Russia’s power pyramid not by being a ‘nice guy.’ One thingVladimirPutincouldnotbeaccusedof,however,wasbeingstupid,especiallywhenRussianvitalinterestswerethreatened.

ForthefirsttimesincetheendoftheSovietUnionin1991Westernmedia

spokeofaNewColdWarbetween theWestandRussia. In fact,however, thespeechof theRussianPresidentonlymadeopenandpublicaprocess thathadneverended,evenwiththefalloftheBerlinWallinNovember1989.

OriginsOfTheIronCurtainThe ColdWar began in the late 1940s with, among other events, the formalcreationoftheNorthAtlanticTreatyOrganization,butevenwiththecollapseoftheSovietUnion in1989-90, ithadnever reallyended.Thatwaswhatwassouncomfortable about Putin’s speech and so difficult for Western listeners todigest.

Putin had, in effect, exposed the dangerous implications ofWashington’sentirepost-ColdWarNATOexpansionstrategyasoneofencirclementofRussiaandnotoneofguaranteeingpeacefultransitiontoWestern-styledemocracyforthenationsoftheformerSovietUnion.

Washington, the de facto commanding head ofNATO, had been steadilyadvancing itsmilitary superiority overRussia since the collapse of the SovietUnion.WiththeprojecteddeploymentstoPolandandtheCzechRepublic, thishadreachedthepointwhereRussiafeltcompelledtoreactopenlyandbluntly.

Whatwas unfolding clearly in the first years of the newmillenniumwasaggressive military expansion by the United States. Underneath layers ofcalculatedmisinformationandeffectivepropagandacampaignsaboutspreadingUS-styledemocracytotheformerSovietRepublicsandEasternbloccountries,theUnitedStateswassteadilybuilding towardsamilitaryconfrontationunlikeanytheworldhadseensincetheColdWar.

TheprincipalarchitectoftheoriginalColdWarpolicyof‘containment’wasGeorgeF.Kennan,USStateDepartmentDirectorofPolicyPlanning.In1948,inan internal policymemorandum classified Top Secret, he outlined the foreignpolicyobjectivesoftheUnitedStatesasitwascreatingthepost-warempiretobeknownastheAmericanCentury.

Kennan’sthesis,eventuallydeclassified,wasstunninglyclear:

We have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of itspopulation….In thissituation,wecannot fail tobe theobjectofenvyand resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise apatternofrelationships,whichwillpermitustomaintainthispositionofdisparitywithoutpositivedetriment toournationalsecurity.Todo

so,wewillhavetodispensewithallsentimentalityandday-dreaming;and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on ourimmediatenationalobjectives.Weneednotdeceiveourselvesthatwecanaffordtodaytheluxuryofaltruismandworld-benefaction.14

America’sleadingpost-warplannershadbeeninvolvedinthe1939War&Peace Studies Project of the New York Council on Foreign Relations. Theirstrategy had been to create a kind of informal empire, one inwhichAmericawouldemergeastheunchallengedhegemonicpowerinanewworldordertobeadministeredthroughthenewly-createdUnitedNationsOrganization.15

Thearchitectsof thepost-warUS-dominatedglobalorderexplicitlychosenot to call it an ‘empire.’ Instead, theUnitedStateswouldproject its imperialpowerundertheguiseofcolonial‘liberation,’supportfor‘democracy’and‘freemarkets.’ Itwasoneof themost effective anddiabolical propaganda coupsofmoderntimes.

SolongastheUnitedStateswastheworld’slargesteconomyandAmericandollarswereindemandasdefactoworldreservecurrency,thischaradeworked.AslongasWesternEurope,JapanandAsiadependedonUSmilitaryprotection,thede factoAmericanEmpirecouldeffectivelyportray itself as thebeaconoflibertyfornewlyindependentnationsofAfricaandAsia.16

A genuinely fearsome East-West barricade arose as tanks, bombers andweapons of mass destruction were rolled into position around the socialisteconomiesoftheWarsawPactafter1948,aswellasthenewPeoples’Republicof China and Tito’s Yugoslavia, separating them from a US-dominated ‘freeworld.’

Itwasduringthisperiod–betweenChurchill’sfamous‘IronCurtain’speechinFulton,Missouriin1946,andtheformalcreationoftheUS-dominatedNorthAtlantic Treaty Organization in April 1949 — that Eurasia was effectivelyplaced beyond the reach of US economic policies. Eurasia — the vastgeopolitical treasure stretching from the River Elbe in Germany down to theAdriatic,throughSofia,Bulgaria,acrosstheBlackSea,theCaspianSea,throughCentralAsiaandChina–-washenceforthsealedofffromthedirectinfluenceofUSinvestmentcapitaland,forthemostpart,beyondthereachofUSeconomicpolicies.

The‘GeographicalPivot’OfHistory

Unknowntomostoftheworld,ithadalwaysbeenthegoalofUSforeignpolicyto secure total economic and military control over Russia. Throughout itsnumerousestablishedinstitutions—itsmilitary-industrialsectors,multinationalenergy corporations, and the US National Security State consisting of thePentagon, CIA, National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, andnumerous specialized intelligence agencies — the US foreign policyestablishment worked towards the goal of securing total control over Russiaaboveallothergoals.

EvenwhiletheUnitedStatesandtheSovietUnionwerestillformalalliesinthewartodefeatGermany,theUnitedStatesstartedtoprepareforwarwiththe Soviet Union. In the summer of 1945, at the time of the Conference inPotsdamconcludingWorldWarII,andwithindaysofthefirstsuccessfultestofthe atom bomb in the New Mexico desert, the US Pentagon was secretlydevelopinganewAmericanpolicyof‘strikingthefirstblow’inanuclearwar.The first plan for all out conventional war against the Soviet Union, calledTOTALITY, was drafted by General Dwight Eisenhower on the order ofPresidentTrumanin1945.17

ThefirstplanforanuclearwaragainsttheSovietUnion,includingapre-emptive strike, was completed soon afterwards by the Joint IntelligenceCommitteewithintheJointChiefsofStaff,justtwomonthsafterHiroshimaandNagasaki.18

There was no sentimentality inWashington about wartime exigencies. Itwas strictly business—the business of establishing unchallenged Americansupremacy—benignly called the ‘AmericanCentury.’According to theBritishfather of geopolitics, Sir Halford Mackinder, Russia represented the“geographicalpivotofhistory.”19 Inaseminalpolicypaper in1904before theRoyal Geographic Society in London, Mackinder had unequivocally assertedthatcontroloverRussiawoulddeterminewhowouldorcouldcontrol thevastexpanses of Eurasia, and by extension the entire world. The British ForeignOfficeclearlyagreedwithhim.

Already more than a century ago, Mackinder was convinced that whileEuropeexpandedoverseastoIndia,Africaandothercoloniallands,theRussianstate,based inEasternEuropeandCentralAsia,wouldexpandsouthandeast,organizingavastexpanseofhumanandnaturalresources.Thatenormousspace,hepredicted,wouldsoonbecoveredwithanetworkofrailways,therebygreatlyenhancing themobility and strategic reach of land power for the first time inhistory.

Against that geo-historical backdrop, Mackinder identified the northern-central core ofEurasia as the ‘pivot state’ or ‘heartland’ ofworld politics.Heplaced Germany, Austria, Turkey, India and China — lands immediatelyadjacent to the pivot region— in an ‘inner crescent’ around theHeartland orpivotstate.

Hewarnedthat,“Theoversettingofthebalanceofpowerinfavourofthepivot state, resulting in its expansion over the marginal lands of Euro-Asia,would permit the use of vast continental resources for fleet-building, and theempireoftheworldwouldthenbeinsight.20

AsMackinder saw it, eitheraRusso-Germanalliance,oraSino-JapaneseempirethatconqueredRussia,wouldbeabletocontendforworldhegemony.Ineither case, “oceanic frontage would be added to the resources of the greatcontinent,”creating thegeopoliticalconditionsnecessary forproducingagreatpowerthatwassupremebothonlandandatsea.

British foreign policy, from theRusso-JapaneseWar of 1904-05 until thecreation of NATO in 1949, had been obviously premised on Mackinder’sanalysis.Itwasdedicatedtopreventing,atallcosts,theemergenceofacohesiveEurasian pivot power centered on Russia and capable of challenging Britishglobalhegemony.

America’sManifestDestiny:ControlOfEurasiaMeanwhile,however,Mackinder’scounterpartsacrosstheAtlanticintheUnitedStates,weredevelopingtheirownideasofwhattheycalledAmerica’sManifestDestiny—anAmericanglobal imperium.Americahad conquered itswesternlands to the Pacific Ocean, achieved victory in its unevenly-matched contestwithSpainin1898.ConqueringthePhilippines,farfromAmerica’sshores,initsfirst openly imperial war had given America’s political and financialestablishmentitsfirsttasteofwhatglobalimperialpowermightbelike.

Around the same time asMackinder’s landmark 1904 essay on Eurasiangeopolitics, Brooks Adams, an influential American propagandist, envisionedtheadventofanAmericanworldempireandtheconquestbytheUnitedStatesof the entireEurasiangeopolitical space.21 Scionofoneof the country’smostrespected elite families dating back to the founding fathers, Adams deeplyinfluencedAmerican leaders of his day, includinghis close friends,PresidentsTheodoreRooseveltandWoodrowWilson.

During the Cold War in the early 1950’s the ideas of Brooks Adams,

particularly his justification of an American global empire conquering theEurasiancontinent,wererevivedasapolicyguideforUSColdWarplanning.22

Adams had promoted a policy of aggressive expansionism aimed attransformingAsiaintoanAmericancolony,givingtheUnitedStatesavastnewfrontier in Asia. The US conquest of the Philippines in 1898 in the Spanish-American War had been envisioned as the first step in that process. Thatexpansionism, a kind of global American ‘Manifest Destiny,’ remained aconscious if unspoken goal of leading foreign policy strategists all the waythroughtheColdWarandbeyond.

TheAmericanarchitectsofpost-Warpower-–centeredinandaroundthepowerfulCouncilonForeignRelations, theRockefellerFoundationand,aboveall, the Rockefeller faction in US politics and economics — had adoptedMackinder’s geopolitical view as their own. The leading strategists withinRockefeller’s faction, including Henry Kissinger and, later, ZbigniewBrzezinski, bothmen part of the powerful Rockefeller faction in US politics,weretrainedinMackindergeopolitics.

Inhisbook,TheGrandChessboard,Brzezinski trumpeted theUSvictoryintheColdWaragainsthislife-longgeopoliticalfoe,SovietRussia.HisviewofAmerica’spresumedalliesinWesternEurope,however,expressedthearroganceofpower.Hedeclared:

In brief, for the United States, Eurasian geo-strategy involves thepurposefulmanagementofgeo-strategicallydynamicstates…Toputitina terminology thatharkensback to themorebrutalageofancientempires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geo-strategy are toprevent collusion and to maintain security dependence among thevassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep thebarbariansfromcomingtogether.23

Brzezinski was declaring openly the unspoken viewpoint of victoriousAmericanpolicyelitestowardsthenationsoftheEuropeanUnionandEurasiainthe wake of their ColdWar victory. Translated into plain English, Brzezinskiasserted that America’s sole superpower status would be maintained bypreventing ‘collusion’— a crass word for bilateral cooperation — amongsovereignEurasian states.Thismeant, in effect, precludingEurasian countriesfromdevelopingtheirowndefensepillarsorsecuritystructuresindependentofUS-controlledNATO.The‘barbarians’wereaclear referencebyBrzezinski to

Russia,ChinaandthenationsofCentralAsia.

MackinderGivesTheColdWarBlueprintToTheUsaDuringtheSecondWorldWar,Brzezinski’sintellectualmentor,Mackinder,hadbeen invitedbyForeignAffairs, theCouncil onForeignRelations’ prestigiousjournal,tooutlinehisthoughtsonpost-wargeopolitics.

Theresultingarticle,publishedin1943,ominouslypresagedtheColdWarto come. Even before the outcome ofWorldWar Two was clear, Mackinderwrote:

[T]heconclusionisunavoidablethatiftheSovietUnionemergesfromthiswarasconquerorofGermany,shemustrankasthegreatestlandPower on the globe. Moreover, she will be the Power in thestrategicallystrongestdefensiveposition.TheHeartlandisthegreatestnaturalfortressonearth.Forthefirsttimeinhistory,itismannedbyagarrisonsufficientbothinnumberandquality.24

In1919inaworkpreparedforBritishnegotiatorsattheVersaillespeacetalks,Mackinder set forth his most famous dictum of geopolitics. In his view, thestrategyoftheBritishEmpirehadtobetoprevent,atallcosts,aconvergenceofinterests between the nations of Eastern Europe — Poland, Czechoslovakia,Austria-Hungary— and the Russia-centered Eurasian ‘Heartland.’ Mackindersummeduphisideaswiththefollowingdictum:

WhorulesEastEuropecommandstheHeartland;

WhorulestheHeartlandcommandstheWorld-Island;

WhorulestheWorld-Islandcommandstheworld.25

Mackinder’sHeartlandwasthecoreofEurasia—RussiaandUkraine.TheWorld-Islandwas all of Eurasia, including Europe, theMiddle East andAsia.Great Britain, in Mackinder’s world view, was never a part of ContinentalEurope; it was a separate naval and maritime power, and should remain sowhateverthecost.

TheMackindergeopoliticalperspectiveshapedBritain’sentryintothe1914Great War. It shaped her entry into World War Two. It shaped Churchill’s

calculatedprovocations toenticeSovietRussia intoa ‘ColdWar’withBritain,beginningalready in1943.By forcingWashington to joinwithBritainagainsttheUSSR,BritaincynicallycalculatedthatWashingtonwouldbeforcedtorelyonLondon’ssuperiorglobalpoliticalcapabilities.Britainwouldtherebyremain‘inthegame.’

In 1997, in his role as former US National Security Adviser, ZbigniewBrzezinski,drewonMackinder’sgeopoliticsbyname,astheprincipalstrategytoenabletheUnitedStatestoremainthesoleSuperpowerfollowingthecollapseoftheSovietUnion.26

JusttwoyearsafterMackinder’s1943ForeignAffairsarticleoutlininghisgeopoliticalplan forUnitedStates’globaldominance,PrimeMinisterWinstonChurchilladdedanotherMackindervoicetothechorus.InApril1945,ChurchillbeganagitatingGeneralDwightEisenhowerandPresidentRoosevelt to launchan immediate full-scalewaragainst theSovietUnion,usingup to12capturedGerman divisions— prisoners of war— as cannon fodder to destroy Russiaonceandforall.

Ironically,inlightofUSpolicyafter1990,WashingtonrejectedChurchill’sproposal out of hand as being “too risky.”27 In point of fact, it seems thatWashingtonhadalready reached theconclusion that its interests indominatingtheentirenon-communistworldwerebetterservedbyahostileSovietUnion.SolongasWesternEuropeandaJapan-centeredAsiafeltmilitarily threatenedbythe SovietUnion or the People’sRepublic ofChina, theywouldmore or lessbow,howeverreluctantly,toWashington’sdictates,likeBrzezinski’s‘vassals.’

In1945,whenPresidentHarryS.TrumanorderedGeneralEisenhowerandhisJointChiefstopreparesecretplansforasurprisenuclearstrikeonsome20citiesoftheSovietUnion,itwasknownthattheSovietUnionposednodirectorimmediatethreattotheUnitedStates.28

The secret nuclear war plan, code-named, “Strategic Vulnerability of theU.S.S.R.toaLimitedAirAttack,”wasthefirstAmericanwarplanwhosegoalwastoobliteratetheRussianHeartland.Itwouldbynomeansbethelast.

MoscowshockedWashingtonbytestingitsownatomicbombin1949andhydrogenbombssoon thereafter.When theRussiansdemonstrated theballisticmissile delivery capability to deploy them by its bold launch of the Sputnikspacesatellitein1957,USpolicyeliteswereforcedtoputtheirdreamofnuclearfirststrike,called‘nuclearprimacy,’onice.ItwastoremainoniceformorethanahalfcenturyuntilDonaldRumsfeld,DickCheney,PaulWolfowitzandasmallcliqueofneo-conservativewarhawksintheAdministrationofGeorgeW.Bush

resurrecteditafterSeptember11,2001.The‘Bushdoctrine,’ thepolicyofpre-emptivewar,nowincludedthedoctrineofpre-emptivenuclearstrike.

From that point on, a powerful segment of the US military-industrialleadershipanditspolicyeliteswerereadytoreneweffortstoattainnuclear‘firststrike’superiority.ThatwastherealreasontheconflictintinyGeorgiainAugust2008 had such terrifying potential for most informed European governments.Most Americans were kept blissfully ignorant of those awesome stakes by alargelycontrolledmediaandabarrageofdisinformationfromtheWhiteHouse.

TheNewColdWar—EncirclingRussiaAndChinaThefirstPentagonwarplanfornuclearfirststrikewasneverimplemented.TheSovietUnion’s detonationof its ownatomicbomb inAugust 1949 caught theUnited States planners completely by surprise. The swift development of theRussian atomic bomb changed the calculus of a first strike for the comingdecades,andwhatwouldhavebeenahotwarcametobetheColdWar.

In 2007, however, a number of leading US policy makers saw it asunfinished business to accomplish the utter and complete dismemberment ofRussiaasanindependentpivotforEurasia.Nuclearmissileswerebutonetoolinavastarsenalofweaponsanddeceptivecampaignsbeingdeployed toencircleRussia.Theirgoalwasultimatelytodestroytheoneremainingpowerthatcouldprevent a total global American Century— the realization of Full SpectrumDominance,asthePentagoncalledit.29

Russia’sVladimirPutindrewthelineagainstNATO’sadvanceatthe2007Munichconference

At the time of President Putin’s 2007 speech inGermany, theworldwasalreadydeepinaNewColdWar.TheNewColdWarhadnotbeeninitiatedbyMoscow.But, inevitably, at a certainpointMoscowwasmoved to react.Ever

sincePutinorderedthearrestofRussianoiloligarch,MikhailKhodorkovskyin2003, theKremlinhadbeenputting theenginesofeconomiccontrol into statehands once again. The US Missile Defense decision shifted those Kremlinmotorsintohighgear.

The dynamic set in motion by Washington’s announcement of a ‘pre-emptive’nuclearpolicyhadmadenuclearwarbymiscalculationafarhigherriskthan even during the deepest tensions of theColdWar, including theOctober1962CubanMissileCrisis.ThecloserWashingtongottooperationalcapabilityof its Polish and Czech missile defense systems, the greater the chance thatKremlin strategists would see their only hope of surviving in a pre-emptivenuclearstrikeagainstselecttargetsinPolandortheEUbeforeitwastoolatetorespondeffectively.

The debacle in Iraq, or the prospect of a US tactical nuclear preemptivestrike against Iran, were ghastly enough. But they paled in comparison toworldwideUSmilitarybuild-upagainstRussia, itsmost formidable remainingglobalrival.

USmilitarypoliciessincetheendoftheSovietUnionandemergenceoftheRepublicofRussia in1991were inneedof closeexamination in this context.Only then did Putin’s frank remarks on February 10, 2007 at the MunichConferenceonSecuritymakesense.

Putin spoke in Munich in general terms about Washington’s vision of a“unipolar”world,withonecenterofauthority,onecenterofforce,onecenterofdecision-making,callingita“worldinwhichthereisonemaster,onesovereign.And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all thosewithin thissystem,butalsoforthesovereignitselfbecauseitdestroysitselffromwithin.”30

Putin was not, of course, talking about Russia, but about the solesuperpower,theUSA.ThentheRussianPresidentgottotheheartofthematter:

Todaywearewitnessinganalmostuncontainedhyperuseof force–military force – in international relations, force that is plunging theworldintoanabyssofpermanentconflicts.Asaresultwedonothavesufficientstrengthtofindacomprehensivesolutiontoanyoneoftheseconflicts.Findingapoliticalsettlementalsobecomesimpossible.

Weareseeingagreaterandgreaterdisdainforthebasicprinciplesofinternational law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter offact,comingincreasinglyclosertoonestate’slegalsystem.Onestate

and,of course, firstand foremost theUnitedStates,hasoversteppedits national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic,political,culturalandeducationalpoliciesitimposesonothernations.Well,wholikesthis?Whoishappyaboutthis?31

Putin’swordsbegantotouchonwhatRussiahadbeenconcernedaboutinUSforeignandmilitarypolicysincetheendoftheColdWar,citingexplicitmilitarypoliciesthatwereofparticularlyurgentconcern.

Hewarnedofthedestabilizingeffectofspaceweapons:

[I]t is impossible to sanction the appearance of new, destabilisinghigh-techweapons…a new area of confrontation, especially in outerspace.Starwarsisnolongerafantasy–itisareality….InRussia’sopinion, the militarization of outer space could have unpredictableconsequences for the international community, and provoke nothinglessthanthebeginningofanuclearera.

Planstoexpandcertainelementsoftheanti-missiledefencesystemtoEurope cannot help but disturb us.Whoneeds the next step ofwhatwouldbe,inthiscase,aninevitablearmsrace?32

What was he referring to? Few people were aware that the US, at thebeginningof2007,hadannounceditwasbuildingmassiveanti-missiledefenseinstallations in Poland and the Czech Republic. It had surrounded thisannouncementwithbogusclaimsofprotectingtoprotectitselfagainsttheriskof‘rogue state’nuclearmissile attacks from the likesofNorthKoreaorperhaps,oneday,Iran.

Poland? BallisticMissile Defense?What was that all about? In order tograsp theextremelyprovocativeanddangerousnatureofWashington’snuclearpolicy,itwasnecessarytoanalyzeafewverybasicmilitaryconcepts.

‘UsingTheRightHandToReachTheLeftEar’On January 29, 2007USArmyBrigadierGeneral Patrick J.O`Reilly,DeputyDirectorofthePentagon`sMissileDefenseAgency,hadannouncedUSplanstodeployananti-ballisticmissiledefensesysteminEuropeby2011.ThePentagonclaimed that the deployment was aimed at protecting American and NATO

installationsagainstthreatsfromenemiesintheMiddleEast,notfromRussia.Following Putin’s Munich remarks, the US State Department issued a

formal comment noting that the Bush Administration was “puzzled by therepeatedcausticcommentsabouttheenvisagedsystemfromMoscow.”33

OnFebruary28,twoweeksafterPutin’sspeech,theheadoftheUSMissileDefenseAgency,GeneralHenryObering,arrivedinEuropefromWashingtonto‘explain’ thenewUSmissileplansforPolandandEasternEurope.Meeting inBelgium with the 26 ambassadors from NATO’s members and with Russia,Obering insisted that the planned missile system was entirely defensive innature,and that itspurposewas toprovideprotectionagainstapossibleattackfromIran.34

TheargumentthatahypotheticalIranianmissilethreattotheUnitedStatesrequired deployment of US anti-missile defenses in Poland was not quiteconvincing, especially if the imagined targetswere actuallyonUS territoryorcriticalUSinstallationsinEurope.35

SeriousanalystswerewonderingwhyWashingtondidnotaskitslong-timeNATOallyTurkeyiftheUScanplaceitsmissileshieldthere?Wasn’tTurkeyfarclosertoIran?OrmaybeKuwait?Qatar?OrIsrael?’AsPutinpointedoutinhisMunichspeech:

Missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousandkilometresthatreallyposeathreattoEuropedonotexistinanyoftheso-calledproblemcountries.Andinthenearfutureandprospects,thiswill not happen and is not even foreseeable. And any hypotheticallaunchof, for example,aNorthKorean rocket toAmerican territorythroughWesternEuropeobviouslycontradictsthelawsofballistics.AswesayinRussia,itwouldbelikeusingtherighthandtoreachtheleftear.36

SpeakingatNATOheadquartersinMarch2007,GeneralOberingsaidthatWashingtonalsowanted tobaseananti-missileradarsystemsin theCaucasus,most likely in the formerSovietRepublicsofGeorgia andUkraine, neitherofwhichweremembersofNATOatthattime.

TheOberingdeclarationpromptedan immediateandsharpresponsefromRussian ForeignMinistry spokesman,MikhailKamynin, reported by Itar-Tassnewsagency:

ThisstatementisanotherproofthattheAmericansidewillcontinuetoenlarge itsmissiledefensepotential,whichwill increasingly concerntheRussian security. Russia has repeatedly expressed concern aboutthe US missile defense plans. We think that the scale of USpreparationsisdisproportionatetothedeclaredmissilethreat.TheUSintention to deploy missile defense components, which will becomestrategicmilitary facilities in direct proximity to Russian borders, isthe source of special concern. We will have to bear in mind theprospective facilities in further Russian military-political steps andmilitaryplanning.SuchplanscontradictNATOcommitmenttorestrainthe deployment of forces, which was made in the Russia-NATOFoundingAct.37

Washingtonhad listedmore than20 states that produceballisticmissiles.Aside fromRussia andChina, none of them hadmissiles that could remotelyposeadangerforEuropeortheUnitedStates.And,exceptforNorthKoreaandIran,allofthemeithercooperatedwiththeUS,likeRussiaorIndiaorIsrael,orwerelongstandingUSallieslikeFranceortheUK.Moreover,Iranwasseveralyears from developing long-range missiles tipped with nuclear warheads andNorth Korea’s alleged nuclear potential was essentially hot air and not a realthreat,accordingtoWesternmilitaryexperts.

Pyongyang’sTaepodong-2ballisticmissilehadanestimatedrangeof4,300kilometers. When North Korea tested a long-range missile in July 2006,PresidentBushorderedFortGreelyinAlaskatobeputonhighalert.Intheend,themissilesplashedintothePacificonly40secondsafterliftoff.Itwasuncleareven when North Korea would be able to fit reliable projectiles with nuclearwarheads.

Iran,asofearly2008,hadonlytestedmissileswitharangeofupto1,600kilometers.Eventhecountry’ssupposedlycutting-edgemodelShahab-5,likelyaderivativeofaNorthKoreanTaepodong typemissile,wasestimated tohavearange of only 3,000 kilometers. The radar stations in Eastern Europe wouldtherefore not be detecting any Iranian missiles hurtling towards America forsometimetocome.

According to retiredUSLieutenantGeneralRobertGard, theUSmissiledefenseprogramwasaneffort toprovidesecurityagainst Iranianmissiles thatdidnotyetexist,andthatmighthypotheticallyusewarheadsthatalsodidnotyetexist.Furthermore,headded, the Iranianswere fullyaware that theUSwould

annihilatethemweretheyevertofiremissilesatAmerica.38Washingtonwasclearlynotbeingvery forthcomingabout itsnewmissile

defensestrategy.

MoscowReactsMoscow lost little time in reacting to the announcement of US plans for itsballisticmissiledefense(BMD)systemsinEasternEurope.ThecommanderofRussia’sstrategicbomberforce,Lt.Gen.IgorKhvorov,saidonMarch5,2007thathisforcescouldeasilydisruptordestroyanymissiledefenseinfrastructuresin Poland and the Czech Republic – precisely where the United States ispreparingtoinstallthem.

Two weeks earlier, similar statements by Strategic Rocket Forcescommander Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov left little doubt thatMoscow wouldtargetUSBallisticMissileDefensesiteswithitsnucleararsenal ifWashingtonpushedaheadwithitsplans.39

On March 10, 2007, Russia’s President Putin delivered a speech at amilitaryawardsceremonyintheKremlinwhereheannouncedthatRussiawouldspend$190billionoverthenexteightyears,some5trillionrubles,toequiptheArmyandNavywithmodernweaponsby2015.Putinsaidthe“globalsituation”dictated the need to improve Russia’s military structure. “We cannot fail tonoticetheconstantattemptstoresolveinternationaldisputesbyforce,thethreatof international conflicts, terrorism, the escalation of local conflicts and thespreadofweaponsofmassdestruction,”hesaid.40 ItwasaverbatimrepeatofhisFebruaryremarksinMunichwherehehadreferredtotheUSAbyname.

Putinnotedthataconsiderablepartofthefundswouldbeallocatedtobuystate-of-the-art weapons and hardware, and to develop military science andtechnology. “We are trying to integrate the defense industry with the civiliansector of the economy, primarily with the high tech sectors,” he added. “TheArmedForces once and for allmust resume the [permanent] practice of largescale military exercises, missile launches and remote marine missions,” theRussianPresidentconcluded.41

In clear words, Putin was responding to the escalating WashingtonprovocationsbydeclaringopenlythataNewColdWarwason.ItwasnotanewColdWar initiated by Russia, but one where Russia, out of national survivalconsiderations,wasforcedtorespond.

Theworldwasatthebeginningofanewarmsrace.Bythespringof2007,

some17yearsafterthesupposedendtotheUS-SovietColdWar,anew,nuclear-basedarmsracewasinfullbloom.

OneofthefewWesternleaderstovoicealarmovertheUSannouncementof its plans to build missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic wasformerGermanChancellorGerhardSchroeder.Schroederhadearnedthestatusofdefacto‘enemy’oftheBushAdministrationafterhisvocaloppositiontotheIraqwar in 2003. Speaking inDresden onMarch 11, 2007, several days afterPresident Putin’s Munich remarks, Schroeder declared that the efforts of theUnitedStatestoestablishitsanti-missilesystemsinEasternEuropewerepartofanattempttopursue“aninsaneencirclementpolicyagainstRussia.”Schroederwarnedthatitriskedanewglobalarmsrace.42

USAMissileDefenseActOf1999US policy since 1999 had called for building some form of active missiledefense,despite theendof theColdWarand the lackofanyarticulated threatfrom Soviet or Russian ICBM or other missile launches. The USA NationalMissileDefenseActof1999stipulated:

It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as istechnologicallypossibleaneffectiveNationalMissileDefensesystemcapableofdefendingtheterritoryoftheUnitedStatesagainstlimitedballistic missile attack, whether accidental, unauthorized, ordeliberate, with funding subject to the annual authorization ofappropriations and the annual appropriation of funds for NationalMissileDefense.43

Missile defense was one of Donald Rumsfeld’s obsessions as DefenseSecretary.WasthatanaberrationofanexcessivelymilitaristcliquearoundBushand Cheney? Or, was it part of a far more dangerous strategy for worlddominationbyapowerfulfinancialandpoliticalelitebentonworldhegemony?Theanswerwasburied inpoliciesandprogramswhich,consideredseparately,appearedharmlessenough,butwhenputinthecontextofpoliciesimplementedbyWashingtonsinceSeptember2001,wereanythingbutharmless.

To implement their long-term strategic agenda tomaintain dominance oftheworldasSoleSuperpower,theleadingcirclesinandaroundtheUSPentagonandStateDepartmentrequireddeploymentofarevolutionarynewtechniqueof

regimechangetoimposeorinstall‘US-friendly’regimesthroughouttheformerSovietUnionandacrossEurasia.TheAmericanstrategistswouldborrowapagefrom the book of the bees—‘swarming’—as a method of covert warfare andregimechange.‘Swarming’wasthetermgivenbytheRANDCorporationtoanew mode of military conflict. Based on the communication patterns andmovementsof insect swarmsapplied tomilitaryconflict, itdependedonusingnetworkedtechnologiesandcommunicationflows.44

Textmessagingandrevolutionarynewinformation technologieswouldbeapplied to the task of advancing Washington’s agenda of Full SpectrumDominance.

Endnotes:

1George F.Kennan, Policy Planning Study, PPS/23:Review ofCurrent Trends inU.S. Foreign Policy,Memorandum by theDirector of the Policy Planning Staff (Kennan)2 to the Secretary of State and theUnderSecretaryofState(Lovett),inForeignRelationsoftheUnitedStates,WashingtonDC,February24,1948,VolumeI,pp.509-529.

2ArnoldL.HorelickandMyronRush,StrategicPowerandSovietForeignPolicy,TheRANDCorporation,SantaMonica,California,R-434-PR,AReportPrepared for theUnitedStatesAirForceProjectRAND,August,1965,pp.202-204.TheUSmissiledeploymentinTurkeywaskepttopsecret,sothattheAmericanpublicwasunawareofhowprovocativeUSpoliciesagainsttheSovietUnionhadbeen.TheUSmissilesinTurkeywerementionedbrieflyinaRANDstudythreeyearsafter,butthefactswereonlydeclassifiedthreedecades later. In theOctober26 InternationalHeraldTribuneof1996, ‘ChiefsUrgedWar in ’62MissileCrisis,’ the article reported details of just-declassified tapes from the John Kennedy White House. Itreported, “MrKennedyworried thatMrKhrushchev’s offer to removeSovietmissiles fromCuba if theUnited States removed its nuclearmissiles from Turkey seemed so reasonable that it would turn worldpublicopiniontotheSovietside.’ThearticlecitedKennedy:‘Ifwedon’ttakeitwe’regoingtobeblamed,andifwedotakeitwe’regoingtobeblamed…”ItthengavethereplyofthePentagon:‘Wedon’thaveanychoicebutmilitaryaction’,GeneralCurtisLemay,AirForceChiefofStaffinsistedOctober19,threedaysbefore the public knew about the crisis. In the end,MrKennedy accepted the (Soviet Turkey for Cubamissile)deal,thoughhemanagedtokeepitasecret.’CitedinInternationalHeraldTribune,October26-27,1996.

3AttheannualG7summitofleadingWesternindustrialnations,meetinginHouston,TexasinJune1990,theBushAdministration demanded that the IMF, an institutionwhichWashington and theUSTreasurycontrolledsince1944,wouldbethesoledictatoroftheeconomictransformationofthestatesoftheformerSovietUnion. Itwas to prove a colossal blunder and onewhichmade the emergingRussia increasinglyskepticalofWashington’struemotivesattheendoftheColdWar.InatruesenseIMFshocktherapyanditsforced impositionbyWashingtononRussia laid the first seedsof a newphase in theColdWarback in1990.

4PhilipZelikowandCondoleezzaRice,GermanyUnifiedandEuropeTransformed,Cambridge,HarvardUniversityPress,1995,pp.180-184.USAmbassadortoMoscowatthattime,JackMatlock,confirmedinpersonaldiscussionswithGermanresearcherHannesAdomeitoftheStiftungWissenschaftundPolitikoftheGermanInstituteforInternationalandSecurityAffairsthathehadbeenpresentandnotedinhisdiarythatUSSecretaryofStateJamesBakerIIIhadagreedintalkswithSovietPresidentMikhailGorbachevthat‘AnyextensionofthezoneofNATOisunacceptable.’Curiously,Bakeromittedthepledgeentirelyinhismemoirs.

5DimitriK.Simes,LosingRussia:TheCostsofRenewedConfrontation,ForeignAffairs,Vol.86.no.6,Nov/Dec2007.

6PressSecretary,TheWhiteHouse,ABMTreatyFactSheet,AnnouncementofWithdrawalfromtheABMTreaty, December 13, 2001, accessed in http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011213-2.html.

7 ZbigniewBrzezinski, SecondChance: Three Presidents and theCrisis ofAmerican Superpower,NewYork,BasicBooks,2007,pp.1-2.

8ZbigniewBrzezinksi,TheGrandChessboard:AmericanPrimacyandItsGeostrategicImperatives(NewYork:BasicBooks,1997),passim.

9Brzezinski,SecondChance.

10OlesyaVartanyanandEllenBarry,Ex-DiplomatSaysGeorgiaStartedWarWithRussia,TheNewYorkTimes,November25,2008.FormerGeorgianAmbassadortoMoscow,andonetimecloseallyofPresidentSaakashvili, Erosi Kitsmarishvili, told a special Georgian Parliamentary Commission investigating thebackground to thewar thatGeorgian officials had told him inApril that they planned to start awar inAbkhazia,oneoftwobreakawayregionsatissueinthewar,andhadreceivedagreenlightfromtheUnitedStates government to do so. He said the Georgian government later decided to start the war in SouthOssetia, the other region, and continue into Abkhazia. Two days later, on November 28 at the sameParliamentaryCommission,PresidentSaakashvilihimselfblurtedout,“WedidstartmilitaryactiontotakecontrolofTskhinvaliandotherunrulyareas…TheissueisnotaboutwhyGeorgiastartedmilitaryaction-weadmitwestartedit.Theissueisaboutwhethertherewasanotherchancewhenourcitizenswerebeingkilled?Wetriedtopreventtheinterventionandfoughtonourownterritory.”

11LieutenantGeneralHenryA.“Trey”OberingIII,DirectorMissileDefenseAgency,briefinginBrussels,Belgium, March 1, 2007, United States Mission to NATO, accessed inhttp://nato.usmission.gov/News/Obering_030107.htm.

12 George W. Bush, Presidential Letter, September 19, 2003, accessed inhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030919-1.html.

13 Vladimir Putin, Rede des russischen Präsidenten Wladimir Putin auf der 43. Münchner,Sicherheitskonferenz,’München,10.2.2007.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011213-2.htmlhttp://nato.usmission.gov/News/Obering_030107.htmhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030919-1.html

14GeorgeF.Kennan,Op.Cit.

15PeterGrose,ContinuingtheInquiry:TheCouncilonForeignRelationsfrom1921to1996,NewYork,CouncilonForeignRelationsPress,1996,pp.23-26.

16Ibid.ThisofficialCouncilonForeignRelationsaccountdescribesthethen-secret1939-1942CFRWar&PeaceStudiesproject.Oneoftheprojectleaders,JohnsHopkinsUniversityPresidentIsaiahBowman,ageographerandstudentofBritishgeopoliticianHalfordMackinder,oncereferredtohimselfas‘America’sHaushofer,’ a reference toHitler’s geopolitical adviser, until he realized that it playedpoorly among theAmerican public that was being mobilized to war against Nazi Germany. Describing theWar & PeaceStudies,Bowmanwrote,‘Thematterisstrictlyconfidentialbecausethewholeplanwouldbe‘ditched’ifitbecamegenerallyknownthattheStateDepartmentwasworkingincollaborationwithanyoutsidegroup.’Bowmanwas being disingenuous. It was working not just with ‘any’ outside group, but with themostpowerfulgroupoftheAmericanpowerestablishment,theCFR.TheCFRprojectwasdirectlyfinancedbyasignificantcontributionof$350,000fromtheRockefellerFoundation.Theproject’sleadingmemberswerequietlysenttoseniorpositionsinsidetheStateDepartmenttoimplementtheCFRpostwaragendaforaPaxAmericanaorUSglobalempire.TheBowmangroupexplicitlyrejectedusingtheterm“empire”inordertodeceivetherestoftheworldaswellasthenaïveAmericanpublicthatAmericawas‘somethingdifferent.’TheideaoftheUnitedNationswasacenterpieceoftheirpostwardesign.

17MichioKakuandDanielAxelrod,ToWinaNuclearWar:ThePentagon’sSecretWarPlans,Boston,SouthEndPress,1987,pp.30-31.

18Theplan,calledJIC329/1,envisionedanuclearattackontheSovietUnionwith20to30atomic-bombs.It earmarked 20 Soviet cities for obliteration in a first strike: Moscow, Gorki, Kuibyshev, Sverdlovsk,Novosibirsk,Omsk,Saratov,Kazan,Leningrad,Baku,Tashkent,Chelyabinsk,NizhniTagil,Magnitogorsk,Molotov,Tbilisi,Stalinsk,Grozny,Irkutsk,andJaroslavl.”DetailedinMichioKakuandDanielAxelrod,ToWinaNuclearWar:ThePentagon’sSecretWarPlans,Boston,SouthEndPress,1987,pp.30-31.ThesecretPentagon strategy since the end of the Cold War to use modernization of its nuclear strike force anddeployment ofmissile defense technology is but amodern update of a policy established in 1945—FullSpectrum Dominance of the world, via the destruction of the only power capable of resisting thatdominance—Russia.

19SirHalfordJ.Mackinder,TheGeographicalPivotofHistory,inDemocraticIdealsandReality,pp.241-42,255,257-58,262-64.

20Ibid.

21BrooksAdams,TheNewEmpire,NewYork,MacMillanCo,1900.

22WilliamApplemanWilliams,TheFrontierThesis andAmericanForeignPolicy, inHenryW.Berger(ed.),AWilliamApplemanWilliamsReader,Chicago,IvanR.Dee,1992,pp.90-96.

23Brzezinski,TheGrandChessboard,p.40..

24HalfordJ.Mackinder,TheRoundWorldandtheWinningofthePeace,ForeignAffairs,NewYork,Vol.21,No.4,July1943,pp.597-605.

25Halford J.Mackinder,Democratic Ideals andReality:A study in the politics of reconstruction,NewYork,HenryHolt&Co.,1919,p.150.

26ZbigniewBrzezinski,Op.Cit.,pp.38-39.

27ValentinM.Falin,RussiaWouldHaveFacedWorldWarIIIHaditNotStormedBerlin,NovostiRussianInformationAgency,March28,2005,inen.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?.

28MichioKakuandDanielAxelrod,Op.Cit.,p.30.

29 Inderjeet Parmar, To Relate Knowledge and Action: The Impact of the Rockefeller Foundation onForeign Policy Thinking During America’s Rise to Globalism 1939-1945, Minerva, Vol.40, KluwerAcademicPublishers,2002.

30 Vladimir Putin, Rede des russischen Präsidenten Wladimir Putin auf der 43. Münchner,Sicherheitskonferenz,’München,February10,2007.

31Ibid.

32Ibid.

33DavidGollust,USReiteratesMissile-DefensePlanNotDirectedatRussia,USStateDepartment,VoiceofAmerica,15February2007

34DerSpiegel,EuropeDividedoverUSMissileDefensePlan,March5,2007,SpiegelOnline,Englishinwww.spiegel.de.

3535RichardL.Garwin,BallisticMissileDefenseDeploymenttoPolandandtheCzechRepublic,ATalktotheEriceInternationalSeminars,38thSession,August21,2007,inwww.fas.org/RLG/.Garwin,aseniorUSdefensescientistdemonstratedthefraudulentnatureoftheUSGovernment’smotivationforitsmissilepolicy,p.17.Garwinasked,‘AretherealternativestotheCzech-Polishdeployment?Yes…AnAegiscruiserdeployed in theBalticSea andanother in theMediterranean could thusprovide equivalentprotectionofEuropeagainst Iranianmissiles.’Garwin,aswell, reached thesameconclusionasPutin: theUSmissileswerebeingaimeddirectlyatRussia.

36Putin,Rededesrussischen,München,February10,2007.

37Today.az,Diplomat:USABMinCaucasuswillaffectRussianrelationswithneighbors,March10,2007,inwww.today.az.

http://www.spiegel.dehttp://www.fas.org/RLG/http://www.today.az

38 Ralf Beste, et al, America’s Controversial Missile Shield: Where Does Germany Stand?[http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,473952,00.html].SPIEGELONLINE,March26,2007.

39 Viktor Lotovkin, ABM: Washington trying to use Europe as a cover, in RAI Novosti,[http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070406/63267224.html],April6,2007.

40Today.az,,Putinsays$190blnfundingformilitaryequipment,March10,2007,inwww.today.az.

41Ibid.

42DerSpiegelOnline,SchrödergeißeltBushsRaketenabwehr,11March2007.www.spiegel.de.

43 US Congress, USA National Missile Defense Act of 1999, 106th Congress, 1st Session, S. 269,Washington D.C., Library of Congress, accessed in http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c106:./temp/~c106f0Hcte.

44JohnArquillaandDavidRonfeldt,SwarmingandtheFutureofConflict,(SantaMonica,CA:RAND,MR-311-OSD,2000).

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,473952,00.htmlhttp://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070406/63267224.htmlhttp://www.today.azhttp://www.spiegel.dehttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c106:./temp/~c106f0Hcte

CHAPTERTWO

ControllingRussiaColorRevolutionsandSwarmingCoups

The operation - engineering democracy through the ballot box and civildisobedience-isnowsoslickthatthemethodshavematuredintoatemplateforwinningotherpeople’selections.–IanTraynor,LondonGuardian,November26,2004

WashingtonPerfectsAMethodForStagingCoupsIntheyear2000,astrangenewpoliticalphenomenonemergedinBelgrade,thecapitalofSerbiaintheformerYugoslavia.Althoughitappearedseeminglyoutof the blue, it signalled a change in the course ofUS covert warfare. On thesurface, it seemed to be a spontaneous and genuine political ‘movement.’ Inreality, it was the product of techniques that had been under study anddevelopment in the US for decades. The RAND Corporation’s militarystrategists had been analyzing the patterns of successful political protestmovementssuchas the1968studentuprisings inParis.Theycharacterized thetechniquesas‘swarming.’becausetheyweredecentralizedbutconnected,likeaswarmofbees.1

InBelgrade, several specificorganizationswerekeyplayers: theNationalEndowment forDemocracy and two of its offshoots, theNational RepublicanInstitute,tiedtotheRepublicanparty,andtheNationalDemocraticInstitute,tiedtotheDemocrats.WhileclaimingtobeprivateNon-GovernmentOrganizations(NGOs),theywere,infact,financedbytheUSCongressandStateDepartment.Armed with millions in US taxpayer dollars, they were moved into place tocreateasyntheticmovementfor‘non-violentchange.’2

WashingtonPostwriter,MichaelDobbs, provided a first-handdescriptionofwhat took place inBelgrade.The beginningswent back to a secret closed-doormeetinginOctober1999,morethanayearearlier:

(Belgrade)—Inasoftlylitconferenceroom,AmericanpollsterDougSchoen

flashed the results of an in-depth opinion poll of 840 Serbian voters onto anoverhead projection screen, sketching a strategy for toppling Europe’s lastremainingcommunist-eraruler.

His message, delivered to leaders of Serbia’s traditionally fractiousopposition,wassimpleandpowerful.SlobodanMilosevic—survivoroffourlostwars,twomajorstreetuprisings,78daysofNATObombingand a decade of international sanctions—was “completelyvulnerable”toawell-organizedelectoralchallenge.Thekey,thepollresultsshowed,wasoppositionunity.

HeldinaluxuryhotelinBudapest,theHungariancapital,inOctober1999, theclosed-doorbriefingbySchoen,aDemocrat, turnedout tobe a seminal event, pointing theway to the electoral revolution thatbrought downMilosevic a year later. It alsomarked the start of anextraordinaryU.S.efforttounseataforeignheadofstate,notthroughcovertactionofthekindtheCIAonceemployedinsuchplacesasIranandGuatemala,butbymodernelectioncampaigntechniques.

While thebroadoutlinesof the$41millionU.S.democracy-buildingcampaign in Serbia are public knowledge, interviewswith dozens ofkeyplayers,bothhereand in theUnitedStates, suggest itwasmuchmoreextensiveandsophisticatedthanpreviouslyreported.

Regarded by many as Eastern Europe’s last great democraticupheaval,Milosevic’s overthrowmay also go down in history as thefirst poll-driven, focus group-tested revolution. Behind the seemingspontaneityof thestreetuprising that forcedMilosevic torespect theresults of a hotly contested presidential election on Sept. 24 was acarefully researched strategy put together by Serbian democracyactivistswithactiveassistanceofWesternadvisersandpollsters.3

DobbsreportedthattheUnitedStatesgovernmenthad‘bought’theremoval

ofMilosevic for $41million. The operationwas run out of the offices ofUSAmbassador Miles, he reported, with specially trained agents coordinatingnetworksofnaïvestudentswhowereconvincedtheywerefightingforabetterworld,the‘Americanwayoflife.’

TheWashingtonPostnoted that“U.S.-fundedconsultantsplayedacrucial

role behind the scenes in virtually every facet of the anti-Milosevic drive,runningtrackingpolls,trainingthousandsofoppositionactivistsandhelpingtoorganize a vitally important parallel vote count. US taxpayers paid for 5,000cansofspraypaintusedbystudentactiviststoscrawlanti-MilosevicgraffitionwallsacrossSerbia..”4Asmanyas2.5millionstickerswith theslogan‘GotovJe’ (‘He’s Finished’) were plastered all over Serbia; ‘Gotov Je’ became therevolution’scatchphrase.ThegroupwascalledOtpor,whichmeans‘resistance.’

This remarkable first-handaccount fromoneofAmerica’smost respectedestablishment newspapers revealedwhat had been atwork in Serbia to toppleMilosevic.Initially,theUSrolehadbeentosupportMilosevicduringtheearly1990s;butlater,USofficialpropagandahaddemonizedMilosevicastheheirtoHitler in terms of atrocities. This complete reversal suggested a hiddenWashingtonagenda.

BehindOtporhadbeen theUSStateDepartmentwhich, inBelgrade,wasled by US Ambassador to Serbia, Richard Miles. The US Agency forInternational Development (USAID) had channeled the funds throughcommercialcontractorsandthroughtheso-calledNGOs–NED,NDI,andIRI.5

According to Dobbs, the IRI paid for some two dozen Otpor leaders toattendaseminaronnonviolentresistanceattheHiltonHotelinBudapest.Therethe Serbian students received training in such matters as how to organize astrike, how to communicatewith symbols, how to overcome fear, and how toundermine the authority of a dictatorial regime. The principal lecturer wasretired US Army Col. Robert Helvey, former Defense Intelligence Agencyanalyst,whotrainedandthenusedtheOtporactiviststodistribute70,000copiesof a manual on nonviolent resistance. Helvey had worked with Gene Sharp,founder of the controversial Albert Einstein Institution in Boston where thePentagon learned to conceal its coup d’etats under the guise of non-violence.Sharp was described by Helvey as “the Clausewitz of the nonviolencemovement,”referringtotherenownedPrussianmilitarystrategist.6

The non-violent tactics that the Otpor! youth had been trained in werereportedly based on RAND corporation analyses of the warfare methods ofGhengis Kahn upgradedwithmodern networking technologies that connectedpeople like swarming bees.7 UsingGPS satellite images, special agents coulddirect their hand-picked, specially trained leaders on the ground to maneuver‘spontaneous’ hit-and-run protests that always eluded the police or military.Meanwhile,CNNwouldbecarefullyandconvenientlypre-positionedtoprojectimagesaroundtheworldoftheseyouthfulnon-violent‘protestors.’

Whatwasnewin theBelgradecoupagainstMilosevicwas theuseof theInternet–particularlyitschatrooms,instantmessaging,andblogsites—alongwithmobiles or cell phones, including SMS text-messaging.Using these hightech capabilities that hadonly emerged in themid-1990s, a handful of trainedleaders could rapidly steer rebellious and suggestible ‘GenerationX’ youth inandoutofmassdemonstrationsatwill.8

Otpor!,theUShandbehindtheBelgradecoupd’etatof2000,wasthefirstsuccessful civilian application of what would become the hallmark of USDefensepoliciesunderSecretaryDonaldRumsfeldatthePentagon.

Reliance on new communications networking technologies to rapidlydeploysmallgroupswas theciviliancounterpartofRumsfeld’s ‘Revolution inMilitaryAffairs’doctrine—thedeploymentofhighlymobile,weaponizedsmallgroupsdirectedby‘realtime’intelligenceandcommunications.AperceptiveUSanalystoftheprocessdescribedtherelationship:

Squadsofsoldierstakingovercityblockswiththeaidof‘intelligencehelmet’ video screens that give them an instantaneous overview oftheir environment, constitute the military side. Bands of youthconverging on targeted intersections in constant dialogue on cellphones,constitutethedoctrine’scivilianapplication.9

If the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was the violent form of Rumsfeld’smilitarydoctrine, thenSerbia’scoup,followedbyGeorgia’s‘RoseRevolution’andUkraine’s ‘OrangeRevolution,’wereexamplesof thenon-violent, civilianapplicationof thedoctrine.As thedebaclesof IraqandAfghanistandeepened,manyUSstrategistswere increasinglyconvinced that the ‘civilian’ applicationwasfarmoreeffectivethantheovertlymilitary.

Itwasnoaccidentthattherewassuchasimilaritybetweenthecivilianandmilitarymodels for regimechange.AndrewMarshall, formerRANDstrategistand the reclusiveheadof thePentagonOfficeofNetAssessments since1974,hadoverseenthedevelopmentofbothfromhisPentagonoffice.ThroughslickMadison Avenue marketing techniques and careful study of genuine protestmovements, the US Government had, in effect, perfected techniques for‘democratically’ getting rid of any opponent,while convincing theworld theywerebroughtdownbyspontaneousoutburstsforfreedom.Itwasadangerouslyeffectiveweapon.

The Serbian Otpor! revolution had been founded, guided and financed

covertly by the US Government via select NGOs. It marked the modernperfectionof techniqueswhich, according to JonathanMowat,hadbeenunderstudy for years in the Pentagon and its various think-tanks, most notably theSantaMonica,CaliforniaRANDcorporation.10

EarlyCIACrudeMeasuresIntheearlydaysofitsexistence,theCentralIntelligenceAgencydeployedwhatwerecomparativelycrudemeasures to effect regimechangewhenWashingtonwantedsomebodyoutofitsway.ThetopplingofthepopularanddemocraticallyelectedPremierMohammedMossadeghinIranwaspulledoffmainlybycovertCIA agents sent into the country with cash which they doled out to phonyprotesters,supplyingthemwithslogansandbannersinsupportoftheShah.ThisemboldenedtheShah’sreactionarymonarchistoppositionforces.MossadeqwasarrestedandUSoilinterestswereagainprotected.InGuatemala,theCIAactedonbehalfofandattheofrequestoftheUnitedFruitCompanytogetridoftheelectedPresidentArbenez,anationalistwhosemeasuresofeconomicbettermentforGuatemalanpeasantsthreatenedtheprofitsoftheUSbananaproducer.11

In those early years, the pattern of US ‘informal imperialism’ as somecalledit,wasrepeatedfrequently.AllmannerofcoverandillegalinterventionsintothesovereignaffairsofothernationscouldbejustifiedintermsoftheColdWar against the ‘threat’ of communism. American business interests abroadmight be threatened even by non-communist leaders who were popular ordemocratically elected because they favored land reform, stronger unions, andredistribution of wealth. Also threatening to US interests were leaders whonationalized local resources and limited foreign-owned industry, or sought toregulatebusinesstoprotectworkersorconsumers.

OnbehalfofAmericanbusinesses,andoftenwiththeirhelp,theCIAwouldmobilizetheinternalopposition.Firstitwouldidentifyright-winggroupswithinthecountry,usually tied to themilitary,and thenoffer themadeal: ‘We’llputyouinpowerifyoumaintainafavorablebusinessclimateforus.’Typically,togreasetheprocess,hugepayoffsandbribeswereinvolved.

TheCIAwouldthenworkwiththemtooverthrowtheexistinggovernment,usually a democracy. It used a vast array of tricks and tactics: propaganda,stuffedballotboxes,boughtelections,extortion,blackmail,sexualintrigue,falsestoriesaboutopponentsinthelocalmedia,transportationstrikes,infiltrationanddisruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture,

intimidation,economicsabotage,deathsquadsandevenassassination.12Theseeffortswouldtypicallyculminateinamilitarycoup,installinga‘pro-

American’right-wingdictator.TheCIAwouldthentrainthedictator’ssecurityapparatustocrackdownonthetraditionalenemiesofbigbusiness,oftenusinginterrogation, torture and murder. The victims were called ‘communists,’ butalmost always were just peasants or liberals, moderates, labor union leaders,students, nationalists, political opponents and advocates of free speech anddemocracy.Widespreadhumanrightsabuses,often involving theuseof ‘deathsquads,’ typically followed.13 The victims often became known as ‘thedisappeared.’

ThebloodyhistoriesofChileandArgentina,andcountlessother‘pro-US’dictatorshipsduringtheColdWar,werecutfromthatcrudemold.

TrumanCreatesThe‘NationalSecurityState’TheearlycareerofWallStreet lawyerandintelligenceoperativeFrankWisnerexemplified the oldmethods. In 1947 PresidentHarryTruman had signed thestatute creating the Central Intelligence Agency as an arm of the ExecutiveBranch, an agency largely immune from Congressional oversight, andcompletelyhiddenfrompublicscrutiny.Thetwowords,‘nationalsecurity’wereusedtocloakeverything.ItwasthebirthofwhatwastobecometheAmericanNational Security State, a world in which every crime imaginable would bejustified in the name of ‘national security’ and the purported threat of ‘globalcommunistsubversion.’

FrankWisnerhadbeenrecruited in1948,at thebirthof theCIA, toheadthedeceptivelynamedOfficeofPolicyCoordination(OPC).Inreality,OPCwasthecovertoperationsarmoftheagency.Underthetermsofitstopsecretcharter,itsresponsibilitieswouldencompass“propaganda,economicwarfare,preventivedirect action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuationprocedures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance tounderground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-communistelementsinthreatenedcountriesofthefreeworld.”14

Inlate1948,WisnerestablishedOperationMockingbird,aprojectdesignedtoillegallyinfluencethedomesticandforeignmedia.In1952,hebecameheadoftheDirectorateofPlanswherehecontrolled75%oftheCIAbudget.HewasthusinstrumentalinbringingaboutthefallofMohammedMossadeqinIranandJacoboArbenzGuzmáninGuatemala.15

In other coup operations theCIA deployed hit-men, crude assassinswithlittlemoresophisticationthanthemob’skillers—eveninsomecases,actuallyusingthemob.16

Theproblemwasthat theCIA’smethodsforeliminatingpopularheadsofstateduringthe1950’sand1960’s,alljustifiedinthenameofthe‘waragainstthe spread of Godless communism,’ were not only inefficient, but they oftenresultedinablowbackagainsttheUnitedStatesthatcostmorethanitgainedforWashington. Invariably,America’s ‘Beacon of Liberty’would be tarnished byexposure of its covert operations, whether by jealous FBI Director J. EdgarHoover,byforeignmedia,orbylocalopponentsinthetargetcountries.

The CIA’s operations were virtually uncontrolled; it went to extremelengthstoadvanceitsversionofanAmericanCentury.Beginninginthe1950s,for example, with covert funding from Nelson Rockefeller’s Department ofHealth Education andWelfare, theCIA engaged in a program given the codename “MK-ULTRA.” Alleged to be necessary in response to claims of‘brainwashing’ of American soldiers by North Korea, the CIA beganexperiments in “mind control.”The allegations ofNorthKoreanbrainwashingwerefabricated,aslaterresearchrevealed,inordertojustifythisprogramafterthefact.Atthetime,therewasnoevidenceofsuchbrainwashing,norhastherebeenanysince.

The CIA’s program involved administering LSD and other drugs toAmericansubjectswithouttheirknowledgeoragainsttheirwill,causingseveraltocommitsuicide.

The MK-ULTRA operation was secretly co-funded by the RockefellerFoundation,17aswellasbyfundsspecificallyearmarkedforMK-ULTRAfrontprojectsbyNelsonRockefeller– thenPresidentEisenhower’sUnderSecretaryforHealth,EducationandWelfare,andlaterhisSpecialAssistantonColdWarStrategy and PsychologicalWarfare. In addition to attempts at ‘mind control’withdrugs,MK-ULTRAinvolvedresearchonmethodsofeffectivepropaganda,brainwashing, public relations, advertising, hypnosis, and other forms ofsuggestion.18

Beginninginthe1960’s,someintheUSintelligencecommunitystartedtoseepossibilitiesforanentirelynewformofcovertregimechange.

FromTavistockToRandIn1967,theheadoftheTavistockInstituteofHumanRelationsinLondonwasa

mannamedDr.FredEmery,anexpertonthe‘hypnoticeffects’oftelevision.Dr.Emerywasparticularly struckbywhatheobservedof crowdbehavior at rockconcerts,whichwerearelativelynewphenomenonatthattime.Emeryreferredtotheaudiencesas‘swarmingadolescents.’Hewasconvincedthatthisbehaviorcould effectively be refined and used to bring down hostile or uncooperativegovernments. Emery wrote an article about this for the Tavistock Institute’sjournal,HumanRelations,whichheconfidentlytitled,“TheNextThirtyYears:Concepts,Methods and Anticipations.” The article detailed ways in which tosafelychannelordirectlymanipulatewhathetermed‘rebellioushysteria.’Thisis precisely what the RAND studies later observed, and manufactured, as‘swarming.’19

Following World War I, the British Military had created the TavistockInstitute to serve as its psychological warfare arm. The Institute received itsnamefromtheDukeofBedford,MarquisofTavistock,whodonatedabuildingtotheInstitutein1921tostudytheeffectofshell-shockonBritishsoldierswhohadsurvivedWorldWarI.Itspurposewasnottohelpthetraumatizedsoldiers,however,but instead toestablish the‘breakingpoint’ofmenunderstress.Theprogramwasunder thedirectionof theBritishArmyBureauofPsychologicalWarfare.ForatimeSigmundFreudworkedwithTavistockonpsychoanalyticalmethodsappliedtoindividualsandlargegroups.

AfterWorldWar II, the Rockefeller Foundationmoved in to finance theTavistockInstituteand,ineffect,toco-optitsprogramsfortheUnitedStatesandits emerging psychological warfare activities.20 The Rockefeller Foundationprovided an infusion of funds for the financially strapped Tavistock, newlyreorganized as the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations. Its Rockefelleragenda was to undertake “under conditions of peace, the kind of socialpsychiatrythathaddevelopedinthearmyunderconditionsofwar.”21

Thatwasafatefulturn.TavistockimmediatelybeganworkintheUnitedStates,sendingitsleading

researcher, the German-born psychologist, Kurt Lewin, to the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology in 1945 to establish the Research Center for GroupDynamics. Lewin was interested in the scientific study of the processes thatinfluenceindividualsingroupsituations,andiswidelycreditedasthefounderof‘socialpsychology.’AfterLewin’sdeath,theCentermovedtotheUniversityofMichiganin1948whereitbecametheInstituteforSocialResearch.22

Tavistock’s work over the next two decades was to co-opt legitimatepsychologicalinsightsintosocialgroupsandsocialdynamicsinordertorefine

techniquesforsocialmanipulation.Then, Fred Emery’s 1967 insights about ‘swarming’ crowds seemed

validatedbymassivestudentuprisingsinParisduringMay1968.Thousandsof‘swarming adolescents’ grew into a movement of millions, destabilizing theFrenchgovernmentandeventuallytopplingPresidentCharlesdeGaulle.23Thatspontaneous outpouring was closely studied by Tavistock and by various USintelligenceagenciesformethods,patternsandtacticsthatwouldbedevelopedand implemented over the ensuing three and a half decades by the USintelligencecommunity.

RockVideosInKatmanduIn late 1989, another piece of the ‘new regime change’ program emerged at aconference at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio. The university’s‘Program for Social Innovations inGlobalManagement’ featuredDr.HowardPerlmutter, Professor of Social Architecture, a curious new academic fieldlocatedattheWhartonSchoolofFinanceinPhiladelphia.Perlmutter,adiscipleofTavistock’sEmery,boldlyannouncedthat“rockvideoinKatmandu”wastheparadigmfordestabilizingtraditionalcultures,enablingpowerfulstatestocreatewhatPerlmuttercalleda“globalcivilization.”24

According toPerlmutter, two thingswerenecessaryforsuchdestabilizingtransformations: “building internationally committed networks of internationaland locally committed organizations” (the equivalent of today’s human rightsorganizations and other NGOs) and “creating global events through thetransformation of a local event into one having virtually instantaneousinternationalimplicationsthroughmassmedia.”25

Perlmutter’s ideacontainedthecoreblueprint for the‘newandimproved’US-maderegimechange,themodernformofUS-stagedcoupd’etat.InCentralEuropeafter2000,thesebecameknownasthe‘ColorRevolutions.’

Perlmutter’scoreblueprintfordestabilizationwassupplementedinthemid-1990’s by more groundbreaking research at the RAND Corporation on theapplicationoftheInformationRevolutiontocovertlyfomentingregimechange.In1997,RAND researchers JohnArquilla andDavidRonfeldt published theirwork on exploiting the information revolution for the USmilitary. By takingadvantageofnetwork-basedorganizationslinkedviaemailandmobilephonestoenhancethepotentialofswarming,ITtechniquescouldbetransformedintokeymethodsofwarfare.26

SwarmingFromSerbiaToGeorgiaThe US success in removing the tenacious Slobodan Milosevic as Serbia’sPresident in 2000 proved to the US State Department and intelligencecommunitythattheirnewmodelforcovertregimechangevianon-violentcoupd’etats worked. It seemed to be the perfect model for eliminating regimesopposed to US policy. It did not matter if a regime had been popular ordemocratically elected. Any regime was vulnerable to the Pentagon’s newmethods of warfare — the ‘swarming’ and ‘color revolution’ techniques ofRAND.

WithinmonthsofhissuccessinoverseeingthecreationoftheSerbOtpor!Revolution,USChiefofMissiontoBelgrade,AmbassadorRichardMiles,wassent to his next assignment, the tiny Republic of Georgia in the CaucasusmountainsofCentralAsia.27

Normally,apostinGeorgia—asmallstateontheBlackSearunbyatight-fistedSovieteraveteran,EdouardShevardnadze—wouldhavebeenconsidereda step down in a typical State Department career path. Not for Miles. Hisassignment was to oversee a repeat of the Belgrade revolution in Tbilisi,Georgia.28 InTbilisi,Mileswas introduced tohis starGeorgianpupil,MikheilSaakashvili,aproductofColumbiaUniversityLawSchool,GeorgeWashingtonUniversityLawSchool,andaUSStateDepartmentFellow.At thetime,2002,Saakashvili was Georgia’s Justice Minister under President EduardShevardnadze;MileswouldcoachSaakashvilionhowtobringdownhisboss.29

MilesgotampleassistancefromUSGovernmentlinkedorfinancedNGOs,includingtheNationalEndowmentforDemocracy,theorganizationthatseemedto be present in every major US coup or regime change operation since the1980’s.30AlsoprominentinGeorgia,accordingtoMowat,wastheOpenSocietyFoundation run by American billionaire, George Soros, and the Washington-based Freedom House which had been set up in the 1940s as a NATOpropagandaorganization and in 2001was headedby formerCIAchief, JamesWoolsey.

TheUSStateDepartmenthadoftenusedNGOsinitscoupmachineryovertheyears: in theoverthrowofPresidentFernandoMarcosof thePhilippines in1986, or in theTiananmenSquaredestabilization in1989, andVaclavHavel’s‘velvetrevolution’inCzechoslovakiain1989.Now,thesomewhatcrudetacticsof previous decades were au