The US military project for the world

Tony Gosling tony at
Fri Sep 8 23:51:53 BST 2017

The Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria 
Zakharova: The US destroys diplomatic relations with Russia

The US military project for the world by Thierry Meyssan
While all experts agree that the events in 
Venezuela are following the same model as those 
in Syria, some writers have contested the article 
by Thierry Meyssan which highlights their 
differences from the interpretation in the 
anti-imperialist camp. Here, our author responds. 
This is not a quarrel between specialists, but an 
important debate about the historic change we are 
experiencing since 11 September 2001, and which is influencing all our lives.



This article is the continuation of
anti-imperialist camp: splintered in thought », 
by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 15 August 2017.

In the first part of this article, I pointed out 
the fact that currently, President Bachar 
el-Assad is the only personality who has adapted 
to the new « grand US strategy » - all the others 
continue to think as if the present conflicts 
were simply a continuation of those we have been 
experiencing since the end of the Second World 
War. They persist in interpreting these events as 
tentatives by the United States to hog natural 
ressources for themselves by organising the 
overthrow of the pertinent governments.

As I intend to demonstrate, I believe that they 
are wrong, and that their error could hasten humanity down the road to hell.
JPEG - 37.9 kb

US strategic thought

For the last 70 years, the obsession of US 
strategists has not been to defend their people, 
but to maintain their military superiority over 
the rest of the world. During the decade between 
the dissolution of the USSR and the terrorist 
attacks of 9/11, they searched for ways to intimidate those who resisted them.

Harlan K. Ullman developed the idea of 
terrorising populations by dealing them a 
horrifying blow to the head (Shock and awe) 
This was the idea behind the use of the atomic 
bomb against the Japanese and the bombing of 
Baghdad with a storm of cruise missiles.

The Straussians (meaning the disciples of 
philosopher Leo Strauss) dreamed of waging and 
winning several wars at once (Full-spectrum 
dominance). This led to the wars in Afghanistan 
and Iraq, placed under a common command 

Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski suggested 
reorganising the armies in order to facilitate 
the treament and sharing of a wealth of data 
simultaneously. In this way, robots would one day 
be able to indicate the best tactics 
As we shall see, the major reforms he initiated 
were soon to produce poisonous fruit.

US neo-imperialist thought

These ideas and fantasies first of all led 
President Bush and the Navy to organise the 
world’s most wide-ranging network for 
international kidnapping and torture, which 
created 80,000 victims. Then President Obama set 
up an assassination programme mainly using 
drones, but also commandos, which operates in 80 
countries, and enjoys an annual budget of 14 
billion dollars 

As from 9/11, Admiral Cebrowski’s assistant, 
Thomas P. M. Barnett, has given numerous 
conferences at the Pentagon and in military 
academies in order to announce the shape of the 
new map of the world according to the Pentagon 
This project was made possible by the structural 
reforms of US armies – these reforms are the 
source of this new vision of the world. At first, 
it seemed so crazy that foreign observers too 
quickly considered it as one more piece of 
rhetoric aimed at striking fear into the people they wanted to dominate.

Barnett declared that in order to maintain their 
hegemony over the world, the United States would 
have to « settle for less », in other words, to 
divide the world in two. On one side, the stable 
states (the members of the G8 and their allies), 
on the other, the rest of the world, considered 
only as a simple reservoir of natural resources. 
Contrary to his predecessors, Barnett no longer 
considered access to these resources as vital for 
Washington, but claimed that they would only be 
accessible to the stable states by transit via 
the services of the US army. From now on, it was 
necessary to systematically destroy all state 
structures in the reservoir of resources, so that 
one day, no-one would be able to oppose the will 
of Washington, nor deal directly with the stable states.

During his State of the Union speech in January 
1980, President Carter announced his doctrine - 
Washington considered that the supply of its 
economy with oil from the Gulf was a question of 
national security 
Following that, the Pentagon created CentCom in 
order to control the region. But today, 
Washington takes less oil from Iraq and Libya 
than it exploited before those wars – and it doesn’t care !

Destroying the state structures is to operate a 
plunge into chaos, a concept borrowed from Leo 
Strauss, but to which Barnett gives new meaning. 
For the Jewish philosopher, the Jewish people can 
no longer trust democracies after the failure of 
the Weimar Republic and the Shoah. The only way 
to protect itself from a new form of Nazism, is 
to establish its own world dictatorship – in the 
name of Good, of course. It would therefore be 
necessary to destroy certain resistant states, 
drag them into chaos and rebuild them according 
to different laws 
This is what Condoleezza Rice said during the 
first days of the 2006 war against Lebanon, when 
Israël still seemed victorious - « I do not see 
the point of diplomacy if it’s purpose is to 
return to the status quo ante between Israël and 
Lebanon. I think that would be a mistake. What we 
are seeing here, in a way, is the beginning, the 
contractions of the birth of a new Middle East, 
and whatever we do, we have to be sure that we 
are pushing towards the new Middle East and that 
we are not returning to the old ». On the 
contrary, for Barnett, not only the few resistant 
people should be forced into chaos, but all those 
who have not attained a certain standard of life 
- and once they are reduced to chaos, they must be kept there.

In fact, the influence of the Straussians has 
diminished at the Pentagon since the death of 
Andrew Marshall, who created the idea of the « 
pivot to Asia » 

One of the great differences between the thinking 
of Barnett and that of his predecessors is that 
war should not be waged against specific states 
for political reason, but against regions of the 
world because they are not integrated into the 
global economic system. Of course, we will start 
with one country or another, but we will favour 
contagion until everything is destroyed, just as 
we are seeing in the Greater Middle East. Today, 
tank warfare is raging in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt 
(Sinaï), Palestine, Lebanon (Ain al-Hilweh and 
Ras Baalbeck), Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (Qatif), 
Bahreïn, Yemen, Turkey (Diyarbak r), and Afghanistan.

This is why Barnett’s neo-imperialist strategy 
will necessarily be based on elements of the 
rhetoric of Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, 
the « war of civilisations » 
Since it is impossible to justify our 
indifference to the fate of the people from the 
reservoir of natural resources, we can always 
persuade ourselves that our civilisations are 
incompatible.According to this map, taken from 
one of Thomas P. M. Barnett’s power point slides, 
presented at a conference held at the Pentagon in 
2003, every state in the pink zone must be 
destroyed. This project has nothing to with the 
struggle between classes at the national level 
nor with exploiting natural resources. Once they 
are done with the expanded Middle East, the US 
strategists are preparing to reduce the North West of Latin America to ruins.

The implementation of US neo-imperialism

This is precisely the policy which has been in 
operation since 9/11. None of the wars which were 
started have yet come to an end. For 16 years, on 
a daily basis, the living conditions of the 
Afghan people have become increasingly more 
terrible and more dangerous. The reconstruction 
of their state, which was touted to be planned on 
the model of Germany and Japan after the Second 
World War, has not yet begun. The presence of 
NATO troops has not improved the life of the 
Afghan people, but on the countrary, has made it 
worse. We are obliged to note the fact that it is 
today the cause of the problem. Despite the 
feel-good speeches on international aid, these 
troops are there only to deepen and maintain the chaos.

Never once, when NATO troops intervened, have the 
official reasons for the war been shown to be 
true - neither against Afghanistan (the 
responsibility of the Taliban in the attacks of 
9/11), nor Iraq (President Hussein’s support for 
the 9/11 terrorists and the preparation of 
weapons of mass destruction to attack the USA), 
nor Libya (the bombing of its own people by the 
army), nor in Syria (the dictatorship of 
President Assad and the Alaouite cult). And never 
once has the overthrow of a government ever put 
an end to these wars. They all continue without 
interruption, no matter who is in power.

The « Arab Springs », which were born of an idea 
from MI6 and directly inspired by the « Arab 
Revolt of 1916 » and the exploits of Lawrence of 
Arabia, were included in the same US strategy. 
Tunisia has become ungovernable. Luckily, Egypt 
was taken back by its army and is today making 
efforts to heal. Libya has become a battlefield, 
not since the Security Council resolution aimed 
at protecting the population, but since the 
assassination of Mouamar Kadhafi and the victory 
of NATO. Syria is an exception, because the state 
never fell into the hanads of the Muslim 
Brotherhood, which prevented them from dragging 
the country into chaos. But numerous jihadist 
groups, born of the Brotherhood, have controlled 
– and still control – parts of the territory, 
where they have indeed sown chaos. Neither the 
Daesh Caliphate, nor Idleb under Al-Qaïda, are 
states where Islam may flourish, but zones of 
terror without schools or hospitals.

It is probable that, thanks to its people, its 
army and its Russian, Lebanese and Iranian 
allies, Syria will manage to escape the destiny 
planned for it by Washington, but the Greater 
Near East will continue to burn until the people 
there understand their enemies’ plans for them. 
We now see that the same process of destruction 
has begun in the North-West of Latin America. The 
Western medias speak with disdain about the 
troubles in Venezuela, but the war that is 
beginning there will not be limited to that 
country – it will spread throughout the whole 
region, although the economic and political 
conditions of the states which compose it are very different.

The limits of US neo-imperialism

The US strategists like to compare their power to 
that of the Roman Empire. But that empire brought 
security and opulence to the peoples they 
conquered and integrated. It built monuments and 
rationalised their societies. On the contrary, US 
neo-imperialism does not intend to offer anything 
to the people of the stable states, nor to the 
people of the reservoirs of natural resources. It 
plans to racket the former and to destroy the 
social connections which bind the latter 
together. Above all, it does not want to 
exterminate the people of the reservoirs, but 
needs for them to suffer so that the chaos in 
which they live will prevent the stable states 
from going to them for natural ressources without 
the protection of the US armies.

Until now, the imperialist project ran on the 
principle that « you can’t make an omelette 
without breaking eggs ». It admitted that it had 
committed collateral massacres in order to extend 
its domination. From now on, it is planning 
generalised massacres in order to impose its authority - definitively.

US neo-imperialism supposes that the other states 
of the G8 and their allies will agree to allow 
their overseas interests to be « protected » by 
US armies. That should pose no problem with the 
European Union, which has already been 
emasculated for a long time, but will have to be 
negotiated with the United Kingdom, and will be 
impossible with Russia and China.

Recalling its « special relationship » with 
Washington, London has already asked to be 
associated with the US project for governing the 
world. That was the point of Theresa May’s visit 
to the United States in January 2017, but she has 
so far received no answer 

Apart from that, it is inconceivable that the US 
armies will ensure the security of the « Silk 
Roads » as they do today with their British 
opposite numbers for the sea and air routes. 
Similarly, it is unthinkable for them to force 
Russia to genuflect, which has just been excluded 
from the G8 because of its engagement in Syria and Crimea.


Shock and awe: achieving rapid dominance, Harlan 
K. Ullman & al., ACT Center for Advanced Concepts and Technology, 1996.

Full Spectrum Dominance. U.S. Power in Iraq and 
Beyond, Rahul Mahajan, Seven Stories Press, 2003.

Network Centric Warfare : Developing and 
Leveraging Information Superiority, David S. 
Alberts, John J. Garstka & Frederick P. Stein, CCRP, 1999.

Predator empire : drone warfare and full spectrum 
dominance, Ian G. R. Shaw, University of Minnesota Press, 2016.

The Pentagon’s New Map, Thomas P. M. Barnett, Putnam Publishing Group, 2004.

of the Union Address 1980”, by Jimmy Carter, Voltaire Network, 23 January 1980.

Certain specialists of the political thinking of 
Leo Strauss interpret this in a completely 
different way. As far as I am concerned, I am not 
interested in what the philosopher thought, but 
what is being said by those who, rightly or 
wrongly, speak to the Pentagon in his name. 
Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, Shadia B. Drury, 
Palgrave Macmillan, 1988. Leo Strauss and the 
Politics of American Empire, Anne Norton, Yale 
University Press, 2005. Leo Strauss and the 
conservative movement in America : a critical 
appraisal, Paul Edward Gottfried, Cambridge 
University Press, 2011. Straussophobia: Defending 
Leo Strauss and Straussians Against Shadia Drury 
and Other Accusers, Peter Minowitz, Lexington Books, 2016.

The Last Warrior: Andrew Marshall and the Shaping 
of Modern American Defense Strategy, Chapter 9, 
Andrew F. Krepinevich & Barry D. Watts, Basic Books, 2015.

« The Clash of Civilizations ? » & « The West 
Unique, Not Universal », Foreign Affairs, 1993 & 
1996 ; The Clash of Civilizations and the 
Remaking of World Order, Samuel Huntington, Simon & Schuster, 1996.

May addresses US Republican leaders”, by Theresa 
May, Voltaire Network, 27 January 2017.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/x-ygp-stripped
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
So much emphasis is placed on select Jewish participation in Bormann 
companies that when Adolf Eichmann was seized and taken to Tel Aviv 
to stand trial, it produced a shock wave in the Jewish and German 
communities of Buenos Aires. Jewish leaders informed the Israeli 
authorities in no uncertain terms that this must never happen again 
because a repetition would permanently rupture relations with the 
Germans of Latin America, as well as with the Bormann organization, 
and cut off the flow of Jewish money to Israel. It never happened 
again, and the pursuit of Bormann quieted down at the request of 
these Jewish leaders. He is residing in an Argentinian safe haven, 
protected by the most efficient German infrastructure in history as 
well as by all those whose prosperity depends on his well-being.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Diggers350 mailing list