Dominance And Its Dilemmas* By Chomsky

Posted on Saturday, December 20 at 01:54 by N Say
Similar plans had been outlined in a May 2002 Pentagon planning document, partially leaked, which called for a strategy of "forward deterrence" in which missiles launched from space platforms would be able to carry out almost instant "unwarned attacks." Military analyst William Arkin comments that "no target on the planet or in space would be immune to American attack. The US could strike without warning whenever and wherever a threat was perceived, and it would be protected by missile defenses." Hypersonic drones would monitor and disrupt targets. Surveillance systems are to provide the ability "to track, record and analyze the movement of every vehicle in a foreign city." The world is to be left at mercy of US attack at will, without warning or credible pretext. The plans have no remote historical parallel. Even more fanciful ones are under development.

These moves reflect the disdain of the administration for international law and institutions, or arms control measures, dismissed with barely a word in the National Security Strategy; and its commitment to an extremist version of long-standing doctrine.

In accord with these principles, Washington informed the UN that it can be "relevant" by endorsing Washington's plans for invading Iraq, or it can be a debating society. The US has the "sovereign right to take military action," Colin Powell informed the January 2003 Davos meeting of the World Economic Forum, which also strenuously opposed Washington's war plans. "When we feel strongly about something we will lead," Powell informed them, even if no one is following us.

Bush and Blair underscored their contempt for international law and institutions at their Azores Summit on the eve of the invasion. They issued an ultimatum - not to Iraq, but to the Security Council: capitulate, or we will invade without your meaningless seal of approval. And we will do so whether or not Saddam Hussein and his family leave the country. The crucial principle is that the US must effectively rule Iraq.... (end of excerpt)

excerpt from ZMag (pronounced "ZED-mag", not "zee-mag :p ): [at least in Canada!-Ed]§ionID=40'

& another version, this one has his sources:

[another comment: he mentioned US bases causing local antagonism. The USA still has military bases in Japan & South Korea left over from WWII & the Korean War; after Afghanistan, the US left permanent bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia and perhaps elsewhere in the region; after Yugoslavia they left with bases in Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia; after Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Not very subtle is it? Would anyone think that's covert? source: Bill Blum's site @ It probably costs a lot to maintain all those bases, the National Missile "Defence" makes good economic sense also. :-) ]


Contributed By


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 



    You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.

    Latest Editorials

    more articles »

    Your Voice

    To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

    canadian bloggers | canadian news