From the October 2003 Idaho Observer:


Emerging U.S. plans for a “new American way of war”

FOX News war analyst and U.S. Department of Defense military advisor Col. Bob Maginnis (ret.) delivered a powerfully disconcerting message to some 400 predominantly European people in attendance at the MZE conference in Feldkirch, Austria last Sept. 6. Maginnis, a West Point graduate (class of 66) opened his presentation by describing his credentials and his "insider" relationship with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his assistant Paul Wolfowitz. He then described what the Bush administration prefers the world understand as the intent of U.S. military activities worldwide. Quoting primarily from what he cited as the "Emerging American Way of War" by Arthur Cebrowski and Thomas Barnett (Proceedings, January 1, 2003), Maginnis, to the shocked horror of his audience, outlined the global U.S. military mission for the foreseeable future. This reality is "...no longer science fiction. The U.S. is prepared for any acts of war and is exhaustive in its contingency planning," Maginnis stated.

Compare what you are about to read to the economic realities described by F. William Engdahl (also posted to The IO site this month). What you will see, aside from what the Bush administration tells you and regardless who the next president will be, is the blueprint for the world as drafted by globalists who are using the U.S. military to enforce their corporate interests at the expense of peace, justice and human dignity. The new American way of war is to overwhelm any real or perceived threat with superior technology, personnel and firepower.

Compiled by Don Harkins

In Feb., 2003, Drs. Thomas Barnett and Henry Gaffney, Jr., published a report entitled, "The Top 100 Rules of the New American Way of War." The report was drafted by two U.S. military strategy insiders in cooperation with the Office of Force Transformation (see story below) and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

"The United States wages war on states or nonstate actors that attack U.S. military forces or other instruments of government; because the United States is the de facto global cop, any such attack is perceived as an attack on global stability itself" (Rule 5).

Mut zur Ethik organizer Matthias Erne of Switzerland observed that, "...the U.S. is the world's only superpower....we must live under the influence of its military policies."

Based upon that foundation of universally presumed U.S. military and political supremacy, the report proceeds as if the U.S. has the authority to conduct any type of military operation it deems necessary to protect itself and its economic interests. The U.S. also believes it can justify the use of force to persuade foreign nations to adopt "democratic" forms of government.

Where the U.S. will fight wars

Beginning at Rule 4, the report lists all the regions of the world where its war machine may be sent. The U.S. will protect NATO countries and Europe, Israel and other Gulf states, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, any country in the western hemisphere and southwest Asia. "Beyond these cases, the United States is ready to go anywhere to combat terrorist groups that are part of a global organization and plot."

"If all other measures fail, the United States reserves the right to bring war preemptively to states or nonstate actors that actively seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction for use against the United States or any of its allies" (Rule 6).

Rule 17 admits that, "The United States pursues covert operations as part of the global war on terrorism in accordance with presidential findings."

U.S. goals in war

Barnett and Gaffney claim that the purpose of U.S. aggression is to "preserve or restore national security," sustain "global norms against the aggressive use of force" and that, "U.S. actions are limited to those states or actors that transgress these rule sets."

They further claim the U.S. wages war to insure the rule of law, and protect the global economy and free trade. The U.S. hopes to minimize casualties and collateral destruction "so as not to damage the American public's support" for the war and long term-commitment to nation rebuilding and "to limit foreign resentment concerning the use of U.S. military force."

From whom the U.S. seeks help in times of war

The U.S. seeks the help, cooperation and approval of the international community for any conflict to which it responds or initiates. It also seeks the approval of the UN and NATO, "...but reserves the right to act unilaterally..." (Rule 24).

In the absence of UN or NATO support, the U.S. also reserves the right to organize a "coalition of the willing" -- like it did for Gulf War II.

What the U.S. brings to a war

The section of the report discussing U.S. military assets begins with Rule 32. "Any war the United States wages involves all elements of national power, meaning the United States works to defeat its enemy in every way possible."

The U.S. brings enough airplanes to command the skies, enough ships to command the seas, uses its global and space-based communications assets to secure information dominance before hostilities begin. The U.S. also uses its intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to bring as much on-the-ground firepower to bear on the enemy with as much precision as is technologically and humanly possible. "To preserve personnel, the United States mobilizes the world's preeminent combat medical system" ( Rule 36).

"The U.S. seeks to overwhelm the opponent with joint firepower" (Rule 43).

How the U.S. gets to war

Since the U.S. is the only nation to have a navy with bases all over the world, most U.S. war forces, equipment and supplies can go safely by sea. However, if speed is necessary, the U.S. has prepositioned supplies in strategic locations throughout the world and can conduct rapid deployment of personnel by airplane. It has even established military bases "in remote areas of hostile territories" (Rule 40).

How the U.S. fights

Rule 47 states that the U.S. prefers to fight "away games" -- a sports term that means "over there" and not at home.

The U.S. first gains air superiority by bombing enemy airfields and its airplanes. It then bombs command and control centers to disrupt enemy communications then directs air strikes against enemy ground forces and artillery.

Ground forces are deployed rapidly "to avoid static 'front lines' turning each engagement into an ambush across a 'noncontiguous' battlefield" (Rule 51).

The U.S. anticipates an enemy resorting to chemical or biological attack. It prepares for such tactics and, "...reserves the right to engage in preemptive strikes against that capability (Rule 53).

U.S. military postwar stabilization strategies

Rule 60 states, "The United States conducts 'psychological operations' to try to win the hearts and minds of the local population toward the goals of its intervention."

Under U.S. occupation, its operatives seek the "capture, processing and confinement" of "suspected war criminals" and "billigerents." It also works with local social and political leaders to "resurrect basic elements of government ane infrastructure" to help "some semblance of normality" return to the people. This may include the U.S. distribution of"humanitarian aid" (Rules 60-63).

When the U.S. leaves

"The United States does not leave until the capital city is under firm control of friendly forces and government" (Rul 64).

Under the new way of war, the U.S. will continue its military occupation of a country until the countryside is no longer "roiling in conflict" and U.S.-supported local authorities have political and police control of the region. The U.S. will also stay until the major players agree to terms and any humanitarian crisis has been turned over to the international community (Rules 64-67).

Left behind

The U.S. may leave Special (and other) forces behind to help train and rebuild military to combat rebels; it may prepostion materials in case it must return to in combat, or; it may enter into signed agreement "for long-term military cooperation or government-financed arms sales to help the country get its military back on its feet" (Rule 70).

Rules 84-97 describe how the U.S. uses its air, sea, ground, unconventional and reserve forces.

Air superiority is the number one objective, as stated earlier and as we have seen, in both campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Because the United States 'owns' the world's oceans, it focuses its naval force combat activities to onto the land -- including strategic targets deep inland -- as part of joint combat operations" (Rule 78).

Marines generally prepare the area for occupation of larger, overwhelming an infantry forces and firepower. The army liberates and occupies a territory until the transition into local civilian rule has been achieved (Rule 89).

Special Forces can be used at any time for covert infiltration and other unconventional operations. The "...United States employs Special Forces with a level of impugnity far beyond previous use U.S. military power in a peacetime environment" (Rule 94).

The reserves are described as providing logistical support for combat units and "...are the backbone of an American hedge force and homeland security" (Rule 95).

Rule 100 states, "Facing no peer competitor and enjoying the lion's share of the earth's surface and space as its operating domain, the United States exploits the exterior position to employ all five services in a network-centric approach that yields their maximum combined combat power."

***

Dr. Barnett is a Naval War College Professor currently serving as assistant for strategic futures, Office of Force Transition (under Vice Admiral Arthur Cebrowski), Office of the Secretary of Defense. Dr. Gaffney is a research manager at the CNA Corporation serving at the Center for Strategic Studies.

***

Transformation trends in the U.S. military

Within the Department of Defense is an Office of Force Transition directed by Vice Admiral Arthur Cebrowski. The purpose of the office is to assess global social, political and economic trends and adjust U.S. military spending and strategy accordingly. Cebrowski identified the origin of the vision of force transformation as coming from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's Quadrennial Defense Review released in Sept., 2001.

"While my title is director of force transformation, the real directors of transformation are the president and the secretary of defense. It is appropriate that they are the directors of transformation because they have elevated transformation to the level of national strategy, national military strategy, corporate strategy and risk management strategy," commented Cebrowski to attendees of the Network Centric Warfare 2003 conference January 22, 2003.

In his speech, Cebrowski noted the military has been focused on state v. state wars for the last 50 years. However, in a changing world, (i.e. the industrial age to the information age) political power is moving upward to the level of international bodies "...while violence is moving downwards to the individual level," Cebrowski observed.

The highest levels of U.S. leadership in the White House and the Pentagon are currently transforming the military to confront the social and political changes in world order. The military is not only focusing its intelligence apparatus on "rogue" states, it is also beginning to target "rogue" individuals. "When we put this all together we see that a new American way of war is emerging," Cebrowski said.

***

Note: There is a department within the armed forces called the "Media Operations Group (MOG)." It was candidly explained by a MOG insider how stories are planted to be picked up in the major print media, then covered as hard news on network TV. The insider explained how story threads are sewn into the fabric of TV war coverage to accomplish several objectives: 1. To make people feel small and powerless; to make them feel that the world is out of control and there is nothing they can do about it. 2. To compel people to watch so they can feel "connected" to the rapidly unfolding world as reported to them through their TV. 3. To demonstrate marketshare as a pretense to justify charging more for advertising. The first two objectives involve MOG's psychoneurolinguistics to mold people's understanding and behavior (mind control). The third objective is pathetic: Network news promotes and sells the human misery of war to a storyline-addicted viewing public to increase advertising revenues.