RW ONLINE: Raymond Lotta: Dissecting the Bush Doctrine\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nDissecting the Bush Doctrine\r\nU.S. Imperialism's Crusade for One World Empire\r\n<\/p>
by Raymond Lotta<\/p>\r\n
Revolutionary Worker #1187, February 16, 2003<\/i>, posted at rwor.org<\/p>\r\n<\/i>
Note: The following article is based on talks and speeches given at antiwar \r\nteach-ins and seminars.<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
Why is the U.S. launching war against Iraq? What is driving the onslaught \r\nagainst this impoverished, decimated country?<\/p>\r\n
Behind the pretexts, lies, and pious rhetoric is cruel logic at work. The war \r\non Iraq is the second phase of what can only be described as America's war on \r\nthe world.<\/p>\r\n
Think of what has happened since the events of 9\/11. The U.S. conducted a \r\nbrutal war against Afghanistan that took more lives than were lost at the World \r\nTrade towers. By early 2002, the U.S. had sent troops into the Philippines, into \r\nYemen, and Somalia. It had set up 13 new military bases in the oil-rich and \r\ngas-rich countries surrounding Afghanistan. And it had embarked on the biggest \r\nmilitary build-up since the cold-war years of the Reagan administration.<\/p>\r\n
U.S. policy planners and strategists have spoken of a \"war without \r\nboundaries.\" They tell us it will be a new kind of war--with new military \r\ndoctrine and tactics. Vice-President Cheney tells us this war may last a \r\ngeneration--an \"endless war.\" The joint chiefs of staff have quietly adopted a \r\n20- to 30-year military plan for waging warfare against different states and \r\narmed groups across the world. In March of 2002, the administration announced \r\nthat it was prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons in first strikes.<\/p>\r\n
This \"permanent war\" has a home front. Again, think about what has happened \r\nsince 9\/11: round-ups and detentions of targeted sections of immigrants, the \r\nvast expansion of police and surveillance powers, the creation of military \r\ntribunals, and a pervasive Big Brother atmosphere.<\/p>\r\n
The government says this is all about preventing new outbreaks of \r\nterrorism--that it's about our security, about democracy, about the preservation \r\nof civilization (as they define it!). But what's really going on is something \r\nelse, and it is further and further removed from the events of 9\/11. What's \r\ngoing on is about the needs of empire--the U.S. empire.<\/p>\r\n
Now when I say that the U.S. is an empire, I mean that the economy of the \r\nU.S. is the \"home base\" of a global network of exploitation and plunder. This \r\nempire is bound together by over $5 trillion in overseas investments. It spreads \r\nits tentacles of influence and control through global institutions like the IMF, \r\nWorld Bank, and WTO that the U.S. dominates. This empire subordinates oppressed \r\nnations of the Third World to its economic needs and strategic interests, and \r\nenforces that subordination through the controlling mechanism of the neocolonial \r\nstate.<\/p>\r\n
This is a capitalist-imperialist empire. It operates according to the \r\nimperatives of economic expansion, the pressures of competition, and the drive \r\namong contending world powers for strategic position and advantage--over \r\nregions, markets, and resources. And this empire rests on military might. U.S. \r\nimperialism has girdled the globe with more than 700 military bases and \r\ninstallations; stations over a half- million troops overseas; and has \r\nconstructed a high-tech military machine that has rained death and destruction \r\non more people of the world than has any other power of the last 60 years. The \r\nrulers of the U.S. empire are now on a predatory offensive.<\/p>\r\n
Bob Avakian, whose insightful analysis of the current situation I am drawing \r\non, describes the Bush administration's strategic perspective this way: \"They \r\nhave ambitions of essentially reshuffling the whole deck, reordering the whole \r\nsituation--beginning with the strategic areas of central and south Asia and the \r\nMiddle East that are more immediately involved now--but, even beyond that, on a \r\nworld scale\" (see \"The New Situation and the Great Challenges\"-- RW \r\n<\/i>special magazine section in RW <\/i>#1143 [March 17, 2002] and at \r\nrwor.org).<\/p>\r\n
The essence of what is happening is this: under the cloak of the war on \r\nterrorism, U.S. imperialism is seeking to achieve world domination on a whole \r\nnew level <\/i>. This is the \"dirty little secret\" of the \"war on terrorism.\" \r\nThis \"war on terrorism\" is being used as a blank check to attack any opponent \r\nthe U.S. imperialists choose, including genuine revolutionary movements such as \r\nthe Maoist people's wars in Nepal and the Philippines. The \"war on terrorism\" is \r\na political-military-ideological offensive to accomplish many different things \r\nin pursuit of empire. It is extreme and dangerous in its methods and \r\ngoals.<\/p>\r\n<\/b>
A GRAND STRATEGY FOR EMPIRE<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
In this article, I want to explore the nature and underlying objectives of \r\nthe Bush Doctrine. These are some of the main points I will be making:<\/p>\r\n
1) The moves the U.S. is making in the world flow from a \"grand strategy.\" \r\nThis grand strategy (the Bush Doctrine) is an attempt by U.S. imperialism to \r\nrestructure international power relations and geopolitical realities in key \r\nregions of the world to its long-term advantage.<\/p>\r\n
2) To understand this grand strategy, we have to go back to the collapse of \r\nthe Soviet Union and the effect this had on world politics and world \r\neconomics.<\/p>\r\n
3) There are four interconnected elements to this grand strategy.<\/p>\r\n
A) U.S. imperialism is seeking to make permanent its \r\nmilitary-political-economic superiority over potential rivals; to prevent any \r\npotential rival or adversary from building up forces to match or surpass those \r\nof the U.S.; and to reassert its global dominance in relation to other \r\nimperialisms and regional powers.<\/p>\r\n
B) U.S. imperialism is operating according to a new military doctrine of \r\npreemption: of launching attacks and waging wars before there is any provocation \r\nor threat to it.<\/p>\r\n
C) U.S. imperialism is seeking to impose new forms of control and governance \r\nin the Third World.<\/p>\r\n
D) U.S. imperialism is breaking out of the restraints of international laws, \r\ninstitutions, and alliances.<\/p>\r\n
4) Right now Iraq is a major focus and stepping stone of this grand strategy. \r\nIn Iraq, there is a coming together of regional and international interests of \r\nempire.<\/p>\r\n
5) U.S. imperialism is on a roll. But the Bush doctrine and what the U.S. is \r\nsetting in motion are fraught with contradictions and uncertainties. The people \r\nmust act to bring about a different political alignment, one that can stop this \r\njuggernaut.<\/p>\r\n<\/b>
BACKDROP: THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET UNION AND THE EMERGENCE OF THE U.S. AS \r\nSOLE SUPERPOWER IN THE WORLD<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
To understand what is going on, we have to go back a decade or so. The \r\ncollapse of the Soviet Union in 1990-91 marked a sea-change in international \r\nrelations.<\/p>\r\n
From the mid-1970s until 1991, world politics was deeply shaped by the \r\nrivalry between the U.S.-led and Soviet-led imperialist blocs. The Soviet Union \r\nhad been a socialist society. But in the mid-1950s a new bourgeois class came to \r\npower and restored capitalism and set out to build an empire. The Soviet Union \r\nemerged as a superpower competitor, with comparable military capability, to the \r\nU.S. The global rivalry between the two superpowers was leading towards war in \r\nthe 1980s.<\/p>\r\n
But with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. was now the sole \r\nsuperpower in the world. The U.S. pummeling of Iraq in 1990-91, and their \r\ndisplay of raw power in the region, was a factor in the collapse of the Soviet \r\nEmpire. No other imperial power could match the combined military, economic, and \r\npolitical strength of the U.S. No other power was in a position to mount a \r\nsustained global challenge to U.S. imperialism. Never before in history has \r\nmilitary power been so disproportionately concentrated in the hands of one \r\nstate.<\/p>\r\n
This was the situation as the first Bush presidency was ending and the \r\nClinton team was taking over. Now during the Clinton years, various ruling class \r\n\"think-tanks\" and policy planners were arguing that U.S. imperialism under \r\nClinton was not capitalizing on the new situation.<\/p>\r\n
Clinton, it should be noted, was doing nothing other than advancing the \r\nglobal interests of U.S. imperialism. But in the eyes of a certain grouping \r\nwithin the U.S. ruling class, things were not right. Bob Avakian characterizes \r\ntheir thinking this way: \"`Look, we had this great victory in the Cold War. Then \r\nwe had this whole period when we had Clinton in there, and we didn't really take \r\nadvantage of the victory in the Cold War. We didn't `roll up' the whole world \r\nthe way we could have, and should have. We let things drift, and it's time to \r\nget in there and follow up the victory of the Cold War with this whole new world \r\nrealignment that we're going to bludgeon into being.' \" ( The <\/i>New \r\nSituation and the Great Challenges <\/i>)<\/p>\r\n
As these ruling-class forces read the situation, and their thinking was first \r\nformulated in a 1992 briefing paper titled the Defense Planning Guidance draft, \r\nthe U.S. should have pursued a more aggressive post-Cold War strategy. It should \r\nbe using its military, political, and economic strengths to reshape the world in \r\nways that would entrench the U.S. as the dominant world power through the 21st \r\ncentury.<\/p>\r\n
The ruling-class forces that have been pushing for a new post-Cold War \r\nstrategy are now in command. They are the heart of the Bush foreign policy \r\nteam--people like Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and \r\nCondoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser. Secretary of State Colin Powell \r\nis a key architect of the U.S. \"bully on the block\" strategy. And they have \r\nforged a certain consensus within the U.S. ruling class around an aggressive \r\ncourse of global action.<\/p>\r\n
Listen to Condoleezza Rice: \"The international system has been in flux since \r\nthe collapse of Soviet power. Now it is possible--indeed probable--that that \r\ntransition is coming to an end. If that is right, then this is a period not just \r\nof grave danger, but of enormous opportunity.\" These ruling class forces see \r\nopportunity in the current balance of world power, which gives the U.S. more \r\nfreedom to impose its will. They see an opening to radically change the \r\npolitical landscape in the Middle East, now that the Soviet Union is out of the \r\npicture.<\/p>\r\n
But these ruling class forces also believe that the U.S. must act \r\ndecisively--because this favorable moment may pass.<\/p>\r\n
9\/11 created a new mix of necessity and opportunity for U.S. imperialism. The \r\nattack may have been a case of \"blowback.\" The U.S. had organized, financed, and \r\narmed reactionary fundamentalist forces as part of its efforts to oust the \r\nSoviets from Afghanistan and weaken it elsewhere. But angered by the Persian \r\nGulf war and the U.S. presence in the Middle East, these forces have turned on \r\ntheir U.S. sponsors.<\/p>\r\n
9\/11 presented U.S. imperialism with a certain necessity. As the world's \r\ndominant power, it had to hit back, and hit with a vengeance--to let the world \r\nknow that the U.S. would not tolerate any such acts against it, especially on \r\nits home soil. At the same time, the events of 9\/11 presented the ruling class \r\nwith a political-ideological opening: they would cast their quest for global \r\ndominance as a \"war on terrorism.\"<\/p>\r\n<\/b>
A NEW HEGEMONISM* IN PURSUIT OF EMPIRE<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
*When I speak of hegemony, what I am referring to is the dominant position \r\nand the leading-directing role of an imperialist state in the world imperialist \r\nsystem. This dominance is exercised over the world market, the international \r\nstate system, and the military order. The U.S. ruling class is seeking to \r\nenforce a new hegemonism over the world system.<\/p>\r\n
The U.S. imperialists are setting out to restructure international relations. \r\nWhat is this restructuring about? It's about the balance of power among the \r\nimperialists, spheres of influence, the restructuring of military alliances, \r\ntrade relations, and forms of control in the Third World. The U.S. imperialists \r\nare operating according to a global calculus and agenda. Their aim is to impose \r\na new world order that will secure U.S. dominance through the 21st century--a \r\nnew world order that will even more starkly serve the interests of the U.S. \r\nempire. We can identify four key elements of this \"grand strategy.\"<\/p>\r\n
First, this grand strategy's starting point is an overriding commitment to \r\nmake permanent U.S. military and economic superiority over potential rivals and \r\nto reassert U.S. hegemony and dominance in the world imperialist system<\/i>.<\/p>\r\n
The U.S. is taking more aggressive measures to preserve its position as an \r\nunrivalled superpower. It wants to prevent any imperial power--Western Europe, \r\nRussia, Japan--or possible coalition of imperial powers and regional powers, \r\nlike China, from challenging its interests in strategic regions of the world and \r\nfrom gaining the ability to challenge its position as the dominant power of the \r\nworld capitalist system. It aims to prevent the emergence of what is called a \r\n\"peer competitor.\"<\/p>\r\n
In pursuit of this goal, the U.S. is seeking to widen its military-technology \r\nlead. It is committing to a permanent arms race in order to prevent any power \r\nfrom building up forces to match it, and to threaten potential rivals and to \r\ncrush any forces that it regards as hostile to its global interests.<\/p>\r\n
At the same time, the U.S. is seeking to keep other imperialist powers in \r\nmore subordinate and restricted junior-partner positions: a coalition of the \r\ncoerced. Here we can look at Western Europe and Japan.<\/p>\r\n
The U.S.-led political-military alliance with Western Europe is under strain. \r\nEconomic rivalries and economic tensions between the U.S. and Western Europe are \r\ngrowing. And there has been a trend of these other powers to go more their own \r\nway. The U.S. is using the \"war on terrorism\" to reshape NATO (the U.S.-Western \r\nEuropean military alliance that the U.S. leads) and the whole U.S.-led military- \r\nsecurity framework that these imperialisms have operated in.<\/p>\r\n
The U.S. is both strong-arming and cajoling other imperialisms. We see this \r\nat work in how the U.S. has been pressuring France and Germany into supporting \r\nthe assault on Iraq--making it clear that they will be cut out of the spoils of \r\nwar in Iraq, especially any post-Saddam oil deals, if they do not endorse and \r\njoin in action.<\/p>\r\n
The U.S. is also reasserting its great power interests in East Asia. East \r\nAsia is the most rapidly developing source of superexploitable labor in the \r\nworld and the center of world manufacturing. There are large oil reserves in the \r\nSouth China Sea. The United States, Japan, Russia, and China are jockeying for \r\nposition in this region. Japan in particular has been seeking to forge an \r\neconomic bloc in East Asia under its leadership. China, even though it is \r\ndominated by imperialism, has become a major East Asian regional power with \r\ngrowing influence.<\/p>\r\n
The threats to North Korea and its inclusion in Bush's \"axis of evil\" have to \r\nbe seen in this light. On the one hand, the U.S. threatening North Korea, \r\ntelling it that the U.S. is calling the shots on the Korean peninsula and that \r\nno regime can defy American power and dictates. But the U.S. is also sending an \r\nindirect warning to Japanese imperialism about who's on top in the region, and \r\ntelling China that it must keep within the U.S. orbit.<\/p>\r\n
Second, this \"grand strategy\" calls for the preemptive use of force to \r\nforge a new world order.<\/i><\/p>\r\n<\/i>
In Bush's speech at West Point in June of 2002 and in the National \r\nSecurity Strategy document released in October, the administration announced a \r\nnew doctrine of preemption.<\/p>\r\n
Preemption means you strike first, to beat someone to the punch who is \r\nplanning to strike you. But the U.S. is taking this to a new level. It is giving \r\nitself the right to attack countries and forces before any hostile actions have \r\nbeen taken, before any threats have been made, before any threats have presented \r\nthemselves as major problems. All the U.S. has to do is to allege that a country \r\nharbors terrorists or that it might possess, or want to possess, weapons of mass \r\ndestruction--and these are grounds for preemptive attack. The U.S. will \r\ndetermine what the potential threats might be and how they will be dealt \r\nwith.<\/p>\r\n
Now throughout its history, the United States has invaded and attacked other \r\ncountries when it saw fit. But what's new is this: the U.S. is threatening \r\npreemption on a global scale and declaring that preemption will be a norm of \r\nU.S. conduct. The U.S. is saying that it has the right to attack and destroy \r\nanywhere on this planet it wills--without even the pretext of a provocation.<\/p>\r\n
Preemption requires the ability to strike quickly and anywhere. This doctrine \r\nis served by continuing innovations in war-fighting: expanded air- and sea-lift \r\ncapabilities to rapidly move troops and armor; further advances in satellite and \r\ncomputer-guided bombing and missile systems, and in electronic communications \r\nand reconnaissance; and further development and deployment of special operations \r\nforces. The Bush administration is spending a quarter trillion dollars over the \r\nnext five years to upgrade such capabilities, which are very much targeted for \r\nregions of the Third World.<\/u><\/p>\r\n<\/u>
<\/i><\/u>Third, this \"grand strategy\" involves a global onslaught \r\nagainst the Third World and the imposition of new forms of control \r\n<\/u>.<\/p>\r\n
The U.S. is threatening to carry out \"regime change\" in the Third World. This \r\nis not about democratization--it's about taking out regimes that defy U.S. \r\nauthority, that stand in the way of U.S. designs in strategic regions. Iraq and \r\nIran are singled out because they stand in the way of an even tighter U.S. grip \r\non the Persian Gulf and because the U.S. wants to carry out big changes in the \r\nMiddle East.<\/p>\r\n
At the same time, the U.S. is facing a larger problem of control and \r\ngovernance in the Third World. As a result, the U.S. is not just seeking \"regime \r\nchange\" (putting new folks in charge) but a certain kind of \"regime \r\ntransformation\" as well. Let me explain.<\/p>\r\n
Economically and socially, there is great and growing instability in much of \r\nthe Third World--as imperialist globalization, wrenching turns of the world \r\neconomy, and chaotic urbanization tear at economic structures and the social \r\nfabric.<\/p>\r\n
Politically, there is a growing crisis of the neocolonial state. The \r\nneocolonial state is an instrument of neocolonialism: a form of colonialism in \r\nwhich a country is formally independent but effectively under the economic, \r\npolitical, and military control of imperialism.<\/p>\r\n
The political and military structures of the dependent neocolonial state are \r\nunder great strain. The alliances of local exploiting and privileged classes \r\nthat serve imperialism are under great strain.<\/p>\r\n
In a country like Pakistan, the neocolonial state is highly centralized, with \r\nthe military running things, but this state is driven by competing power \r\ncenters. In Saudi Arabia, the royal family networks and the secret police are \r\nthe glue of power--but the narrow base of rule is fueling anti-Americanism even \r\namong sections of the upper strata of business owners and technocrats. In Latin \r\nAmerica, savage austerity and adjustment programs ordered by the IMF, rampant \r\ncorruption, the flight of capital out of these countries, the economic ruin of \r\nthe middle classes have created problems of governability in many countries. In \r\nmuch of Africa, the end of the Cold War (and with it a \"declining interest\" of \r\nimperialism in aiding client regimes) and economic crisis have produced great \r\ninstability.<\/p>\r\n
Imperialism's mechanisms of control in the Third World have grown shakier and \r\nmore unreliable. Under the signboard of the war on terrorism, the U.S. \r\nimperialists are seeking to restructure neocolonial rule, to tighten their rule. \r\nAnd they are speaking a more openly colonial <\/i>language. They are talking \r\nabout global military action and direct and long-term military occupation to \r\nbring order, stability, and \"civilizing norms\" to \"failed states\" and societies \r\nthat are \"breeding grounds for terrorism.\"<\/p>\r\n
Fourth, this is a strategy of breaking out of the constraints of \r\ninternational treaties institutions.<\/i> <\/u><\/p>\r\n<\/u>
The U.S. does not want to be hemmed in by international laws and \r\nagreements (even those it helped craft!). It does not want its freedom of action \r\nlimited in any way.<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p><\/b>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p><\/b>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"www.rwor.org","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"Why is the U.S. launching war against Iraq? What is driving the onslaught against this impoverished, decimated country? Behind the pretexts, lies, and pious rhetoric is cruel logic at work. The war on Iraq is the second phase of what can only be described as America's war on the world.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2003\/02\/rw_online_raymond_lotta_dissecting_the_bush_doctrine.htm","filesize":"30.2 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2003\/02\/30701.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}