Our National Security Strategy seeks to ensure the extension of US corporate influence and security through global military dominance. This is to be achieved with the development and use of satellite weapons, remote control of the battlefield, surveillance of all digital communication and transactions, and the next generation of nuclear weapons. The goal is “Full Spectrum Dominance,” or total awareness and control of the battlefield. And in our present “Global War on Terror,” the world has become our battlefield. The US is positioning itself as a unilateral and preemptive global strike force of unparalleled strength, advancing corporate interests while continuing to disregard international law and human rights.
The public remains critically uninformed about the scope and impact of past and present military strategy. US military history can be characterized as much by loss of life, and consumption of resources, as by the relatively hidden geostratigic interests it has served. Few of our wars have been fought for the reasons we are told, and we rarely hear about the true cost.
We would all certainly like to assume that the money we spend on “defense” actually makes us safer. Yet military contracts send a good deal of our tax dollars toward projects that receive little or no public oversight, generate huge profits for military industry, and in many cases actually undermine our domestic and international security. It’s arguable, for instance, whether the US is any safer for having invaded and occupied Iraq. A great majority of the public do not recognize that our present policy in the Middle East represents an assertion of corporate interest by military force.
The primary reason why the public is uninformed about the nature of our military industry and corporate collusion, is that our mainstream news organizations are directly subservient to the interests of their coportate owners, and our national security establishment. Military and intelligence agencies provide daily briefings to the major mainstream news editors, and these stories are rarely called into question, even when contradictory information is available.
Further, the military’s own documents reveal their intent to violate international law, and yet this receives no attention. We see a great deal of self-censorship, and limited journalistic credibility, as people in our mainstream press “go along to get along,” neglecting their duty to inform the public. As a result, a great deal of what we do know about war comes from whistle-blowers, Freedom of Information Act requests, lawsuits, anonymous leaks, and independent research. Through these channels the public has access to infomation that reveals a concerted effort by industry to control the public’s view of international conflict.
- “The United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next twenty biggest spenders combined, and six times larger than China’s, which places second. Dollar for dollar, the United States and its closest allies are responsible for approximately two-thirds of all military spending on Earth. Military spending accounts for more than half of the United States’ federal discretionary spending, which comprises all of the U.S. government’s money not accounted for by pre-existing obligations.” 1
- “Full Spectrum Dominance will be the key characteristic we seek for our Armed Forces in the 21st century…This vision of future war fighting embodies the improved intelligence and command and control available in the information age and goes on to develop four operational concepts: dominant maneuver, precision engagement, full dimensional protection, and focused logistics…These four new concepts will enable us to dominate the full range of military operations from humanitarian assistance, through peace operations, up to and into the highest intensity conflict.” 2 (PDF)
- “Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” 3