PNAC and Pearl Harbor....get the facts straight
Well lets look at PNAC and this Pearl Harbor business.
Opening of Ch. 5.
To preserve American military
preeminence in the coming decades, the
Department of Defense must move more
aggressively to experiment with new
technologies and operational concepts, and
seek to exploit the emerging revolution in
military affairs.
So in order for the U.S. military to be the most superior fighting force in the world, they have to experiment with new technologies. As we all know this requires increased spending. As the spending now is huge to keep us on 'top' then it follows that increase in spending will be needed for this new research. They go on to state how this would change the face of war, etc.
Apparently this transformation is taking a long time as it was begun in the 80's and we showed it off in the Gulf War. You know, stealth technology and the money behind that.
Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by
limited budgets and pressing current
missions, has seen funding for experi-
mentation and transformation crowded out
in recent years. Spending on military
research and development has been reduced
dramatically over the past decade.
Uh oh! Not enough money and lots of missions are keeping the coffers from performing their function of financing this transformation. And that dam Clinton and his cutbacks for the social 'stuff' is slowing that transformation process as well. Get that guy a blow job, quickly!
Department was in the midst of the Reagan
buildup which was primarily an effort to
expand existing forces and field traditional
weapons systems, research spending
represented 20 percent of total Pentagon
budgets.
So the Pentagon spends 20% of the budget on building more tanks, ships, and planes, and then putting some high tech gadgets on them and the toys they already have. I love laser guided stuff with cameras! It makes for such awesome briefings to the press corp.
That is fine of course, it keeps the contractors happy, the Brass happy, and the troops happy, but we aren't spending enough on the really really high tech stuff, dang it! More money for R&D so we can make the really really cool stuff. Like Xwing fighters, laser blasters, hover tanks,...you know all the stuff in the movies!
Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of
U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts.
Now as far as this high tech transformation goes, we can't cut back funding on other areas, we can't reduce our missions, we can't reduce our presence around the world, because American's love to see their young men and women die for other peoples freedoms.
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.
Now this whole high tech revolution that has been going on since the 80's is going to take a really long time. Why is it going to take a really long time? Budget constraints based upon Congress and current National Security issues.
So a surprise attack by a foreign country on American soil near water that kills upwards of 3000+ people is going to speed up this transformation. How do you speed up the transformation? Throw more money at the transformation. This of course requires an increase in defense budgets by Congress. And who wouldn't want to throw more money to the Defense Department after a surprise attack? Because God knows the money they had already failed its purpose, so send more money to speed up the transformation!
9/11 was even better than Pearl Harbor in this instance, because it started a war on a concept not a country, and as we all know, you can't defeat a concept! See War on Drugs, War on Poverty, etc, etc.
Perpetual war, gentlemen, with an enemy that can't be defeated.
Defense contractors, stockholders, the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex in general just love perpetual war. Not so good for public education, health care, infrastructure, you know all the things that could be improved if we weren't dumping billions into a war on a concept. I like Ike and he was right! Along the way we can throw in a couple of conventional wars along the way to get rid of some old equipment, prove we need new equipment, pick some oil, build some strategic bases, etc.
In general, to maintain American military preeminence that is consistent with the requirements of a strategy of American global leadership, tomorrow’s U.S. armed forces must meet three new missions.
So in order for the U.S. military to be the best in the world and maintain the President and CEO of the NWO,they have to complete the following missions:
1. Global Missile Defense. Check. More money headed that way.
2. Control of space and cyberspace. Check. More money headed that way.
3. Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces.
Check. More money headed that way to update with new gadgets, and R&D to make sure the tax payers are safe from a concept.
The plan of transformation doesn't rely on the "Pearl Harbor". The plan's funding and speed rely on the "Pearl Harbor". And whatever your thoughts on that 9/11 issue, the plan's funding and speed benefited from 9/11.
If the funding benefits, then military contractors, i.e. corporations benefited and social programs suffer. Eisenhower was indeed correct.
From Foreign Policy in Focus:
Key Points
* In the wake of September 11, President Bush requested the largest increase in defense spending in two decades.
* The potential for an open-ended war poses great opportunities for weapons makers and great challenges for those who seek to curb wasteful military spending.
* Major defense contractors are figuring out new ways to tap into the homeland defense market.
Remind me again who benefited from 9/11?
