by Devon DB
Dawn of a New Century
July 2, 2011
The American Empire came into full being after its main rival, the Soviet
The U.S. then found itself as the world’s sole military and
economic superpower. With this new found position in the world, America
could have used its power to help those in need and aid in global security.
the events of 9/11 changed all of this and the
U.S. went from a once
proud, powerful, law-abiding nation, to what it is today:
a declining empire
that is virtually bankrupt and has moved from using diplomacy to a “might
makes right” mindset (as can be shown from its current engagement in
multiple wars across the world in order to maintain its global empire), as
well as trying to make sure that new powers, such as China, do not threaten
This series is an examination of how this downfall took place, how the
strayed from its original military, economic, and foreign policy plans to
become an empire in decline, from the 1990s to the present day, ending with
an analysis what may lay in the future for the Empire.
DAWN OF A NEW CENTURY
During the Cold War, the U.S. had had troops stationed all over the world,
from Europe to Asia.
Its military doctrine consisted of a policy of
containing the Soviets and battling the “Communist threat” where ever it
was. Battling the “Communist threat” meant (either directly or indirectly)
overthrowing leftist governments in Latin America, Asia, and Europe or
supporting right-wing death squads, as was seen in Latin America (some of
these coups led to the massacre of innocent civilians).
Despite this, it
seemed that after the Soviet Union fell, the U.S. was going to change its
Even though the U.S. was now the world’s unrivaled superpower, it still
“devote the necessary resources to military, diplomatic,
intelligence and other efforts”  to maintain its global leadership
position and also wanted to “shape the international environment through a
variety of means, including diplomacy, economic cooperation, international
assistance, arms control and nonproliferation, and health initiatives” to
establish and keep the new status quo.
In shaping this new world, American planned for diplomacy to play a major
role. The thinking was that diplomacy was “essential” to ensuring that U.S.
interests were met, sustaining alliances, averting global crises/solving
regional conflicts, and ensuring global economic stability.
diplomacy would play a major role in helping to solve potential conflicts
before they blew up. The military would only be put into play as a last
Military force would only be used if it would,
interests,” was “likely to accomplish [its] objectives”, “the costs and
risks of their employment [were] commensurate with the interests at stake,”
and “other non-military means are incapable of achieving [U.S.] objectives.”
Thus, with the collapse of the Soviets, the U.S. plan was to shape a new world
order in which they would lead, yet diplomacy would take the lead in shaping
this new order instead of military might.
The reason for this was two-fold.
The U.S. had already spent $13 trillion on defense spending during the
entirety of the Cold War  and using diplomacy on a regional and
international level would allow it to cut back on defense expenditures. Also
by using diplomacy, it would give nations the illusion that they were on
equal footing with the U.S., when in reality, if the diplomacy failed, the
may decide that the conditions had been met for them to use military force
in order to “advance U.S. interests.”
It was, in a way, following Theodore
Roosevelt’s advice of speaking softly, but carrying a big stick.
America was also changing its nuclear defense policy.
America had “reduced
[its] nuclear stockpile, through both the
START I cuts and reciprocal
unilateral initiatives”  as well as did the following under the 1991
Presidential Nuclear Initiative:
Eliminate[d] [its] entire inventory of
ground-launched non-strategic nuclear weapons (nuclear artillery and
LANCE surface-to-surface missiles)
Remove[d] all non-strategic nuclear
weapons on a day-to-day basis from surface ships, attack submarines,
and land-based naval aircraft bases
Remove[d] [its] strategic bombers from
S[tood] down the Minuteman II ICBMs
scheduled for deactivation under START I
Terminate[d] the mobile Peacekeeper and
mobile Small ICBM programs
Terminate[d] the SRAM-II nuclear
short-range attack missile 
In addition to this, the U.S. took further steps in 1992.
Due to the second
Presidential Nuclear Initiative (PNI II), the
production to 20 bombers; canceling the entire Small ICBM program; ceasing
production of W-88 Trident SLBM warheads; halting purchases of advanced
cruise missiles; and stopping new production of Peacekeeper missiles.” 
Due to decreasing the number of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon
transporters, the U.S. government saved a large amount of money and still
ensured that it would have nuclear first-strike capability for quite some
Overall, the United States was lowering its guard not only due to the
collapse of its main rival, but also due to financial concerns and its plans
to reshape the world.
Near the turn of the century, new economic thought was being brought up,
Globalization was only but another step in the
transformation of capitalism that would allow corporations to move capital
and people on a global scale and therefore cut costs and increase profits.
By pushing this new economic thought, governments were able to push the
thinking that a more inter-connected society was good not only for
corporations, but for people as well, while ignoring the problems
globalization would bring.
Globalization was defined as,
“the process of moving toward a world in which
we produce, distribute, sell, finance, and invest without regard to national
By disregarding national boundaries, it would allow for
“also gain access to new sources of raw materials and
intermediate inputs, and to lower-cost locations for assembly operations
that use unskilled labor.” 
This would allow for U.S. companies to move in
and have their way in the third-world without the CIA or the U.S. military
having to engage in regime change (either covertly or overtly).
corporations would also more stability as a corporation that,
many countries will find that recessions and booms in the many markets in
which it operates are likely to be out of sync,”  thus they will be able
to move people and capital to the locations which are doing well.
However, while this shifting of people and capital across the world would
create benefits for corporations, it would bring about problems for workers.
"As with the relocation of manufacturing in the U.S., globalization
generates some of its gains by allowing - or sometimes forcing - relocation
of production. Not everyone benefits. Just as relocation of manufacturing
from Pennsylvania to South Carolina generates losers as well as winners, so
does globalization." 
Even when globalization was first being discussed, it was acknowledged that
“contributed to the decline in real wages of those with few skills and
little education.” 
What this meant for the U.S. was that it would
experience the death of the working class as jobs would be shipped overseas.
When this subject was bought up, proponents of globalization would argue
“In the process of shifting resources, some production facilities are
abandoned and some workers suffer unemployment. They do not share the gains,
at least not immediately.” 
As we now know, those who
are unemployed due to offshoring/outsourcing rarely, if ever, “share in the
gains” of globalization. It was not meant to benefit the working class, but
rather corporate greed.
Another factor that was ignored by proponents of globalization is that
foreign economic shocks have more of an effect on the U.S. economy.
G. Boehne, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, said to
the World Affairs Council of Greater Valley Forge:
An economic slowdown in Europe or Asia, for example, has a bigger effect on
the U.S. economy now than it did when exports and imports were smaller
relative to GDP. And greater international financial linkages mean that the
U.S. financial sector is more exposed to foreign financial shocks than used
to be the case. 
The U.S. economy and the global economy at large, would be put more at risk
due to there being greater interconnectedness.
However, despite these risks,
globalization was endorsed by the U.S. and the effects have been seen in the
form of the decimation of the American economy  and also the global
economy at large was put more at risk, all for the sake of corporate
After the Cold War, it seemed that the NATO alliance had lost its reason for
Western Europe was no longer under the threat of Communist
takeover, thus NATO’s mission had been a success. However, NATO, instead of
disbanding or keeping a stable membership, decided to go on an era of
expansion which continues to this day.
After the Soviet Union collapsed, there was some debate for a short while as
to what NATO would do, now that it no longer had an enemy, yet in 1990 NATO,
“began its adaptation from a Cold War institution to a modern instrument of
North Atlantic and European security, revising strategy and restructuring
force posture to reflect the changed European security environment and the
disappearance of the Soviet threat.” 
This force restructure consisted
“an adequate military capability and clear preparedness to
act collectively in the common defence remain central to the Alliance's
security objectives.” 
NATO also integrated even deeper into Europe.
The alliance’s 1999 Strategic
The European Allies have taken decisions to enable them to assume greater
responsibilities in the security and defence field in order to enhance the
peace and stability of the Euro-Atlantic area and thus the security of all
On the basis of decisions taken by the Alliance, in Berlin in 1996
and subsequently, the European Security and Defence Identity will continue
to be developed within NATO. This process will require close cooperation
between NATO, the WEU and, if and when appropriate, the European Union. 
This further integration with Europe would greatly serve
U.S. interests in the
future as it would aid the U.S. in dominating all of Europe and the
Mediterranean (currently a nation that wants to join the EU, must first join
Also, by having the European Security and Defence Identity
continue its development within NATO, it would allow the U.S. to make sure
that European defense arrangements were subordinate to U.S. interests.
When NATO expansion was bought up there was a battle between the White House
and the Pentagon as then-President
Bill Clinton was interested in expanding
NATO yet the Pentagon was against it, and with good reason as there were
several problems with NATO expansion. Clinton was quite interested in NATO
serving U.S. interests.
In a letter to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, he
“Europe has changed dramatically over the past decade and NATO
must also adapt if it is to continue to serve our interests in the future as
well as it has done in the past.” 
In an question and answer session
with the Senate, Bill Clinton argued for NATO expansion by making Russia
into a bogeyman, saying that expansion would,
“make NATO more effective in
meeting its core mission: countering aggression against its member states,”
“help guard against non-traditional security threats from outside Europe
that threaten NATO members, such as the spread of weapons of mass
destruction and long-range delivery systems,” and that NATO “must be
prepared for other contingencies, including the possibility that Russia
could abandon democracy and return to the threatening behavior of the Soviet
All of the arguments are aimed at Russia, to keep alive the
idea of Russian aggression.
However, Russia being a threat was near
impossible as they were going through was going through the IMF’s “shock
therapy” and the entire nation was hurting.
By pushing for the expansion of NATO, the Clinton Administration was also
pushing for U.S.-NATO involvement in the religious, ethnic, and other
conflicts of central Europe.
When questioned on this, President Clinton
responded that NATO,
“will make such disputes less likely and increase the
chances that they will be peacefully resolved”  as states would have to
resolve their disputes before they could join the alliance and that “There
is nothing in the historical record to suggest that current Central and East
European disputes are more deep-rooted or violent than, say, past disputes
between France and Germany.” 
However, there was a major difference as
the conflicts in central Europe were based on “border, ethnic, nationalist,
and religious disputes,” where the populace of states were fractured and
stayed within their own groups.
The disputes between France and Germany, on
the other hand, were between two states whose people were homogeneous in the
sense that they all saw themselves as being French or German.
There were also economic concerns that were bought up.
reported to Congress in February 1997, that the,
“United States would pay
only 15 percent of the direct enlargement costs, with the new members paying
35 percent of the bill, and the current (non-U.S.) members paying 50
When the Senate asked if new or current members would pay
that amount and would this cost-sharing plan be part of negotiations,
Clinton responded that each country would pay the upkeep of its own
military, yet enhancements would be 40% nationally-funded and 60%
NATO-funded (or “common-funded”).
Of the NATO-funded costs,
States would pay its 24 percent share of the common-funded enhancements
(about 15 percent of the total direct enlargement bill, or approximately
$1.5-2.0 billion over the 2000-2009 timeframe), averaging between $150 and
$200 million per year.” 
However, these costs estimates were not
accurate, as they varied quite widely.
RAND Corporation study
predicted costs of $17-$82 billion, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office
predicted $21 to $125 billion, and the British Defense Ministry predicted
With costs fluctuating all over the place, there was no way
to get an accurate cost assessment for expansion.
The Senate also bought up the question of economic competition, stating that,
“By conferring NATO membership on a few nations now, those nations will have
a distinct advantage over their neighbors in the competition to attract new
business and foreign investment. This type of economic competition and
imbalance could well breed friction and instability in Central Europe.” 
In his response, Clinton said:
While the role of the EU is critical, there is no reason to insist on a
choice between EU enlargement and NATO enlargement. Both are important. Both
make independent contributions to European prosperity and security.
enlargement alone, however, is not sufficient to secure our nation's
security interests in post-Cold War Europe. Unlike NATO, the EU lacks a
military capability. Military capability remains the heart of NATO's
strength and continues to be needed to preserve European security. 
The fact that Clinton said that EU enlargement alone was “not sufficient” to
ensure America’s security interests in Europe suggests that he may have
thought that the EU and NATO were two sides of the same coin.
The EU would
provide the economic stability while NATO would provide the military
A final problem with expansion of NATO is that many European countries did
not want it, regarding it as a U.S. initiative.
“stated privately for
months that they are not going to raise taxes or cut social programs to pay
for Washington's pet scheme. (Indeed, one leader, French president Jacques
Chirac, stated publicly that France would not pay a single franc for NATO
Besides the aforementioned problems, the Pentagon did not back the expansion
as they no longer wanted to be a part of a larger, more costly NATO.
preferred to go the route of the,
“Partnership for Peace, which allowed East
European nations to join in NATO military exercises but not be full
However, the White House kept pressing the issue and in 1994
senior Defense officials ended up having a shouting match with Assistant
Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke.
Holbrooke was stated to have yelled,
"The President has made the decision, and you're being insubordinate!”
Eventually the Pentagon fell in line.
Middle East Foreign Policy
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States found itself the
region’s most powerful and influential outside player.
America’s main goal
was to keep the oil flowing by any means as could be seen by the
establishment of the Carter Doctrine which stated the U.S. intended to keep
Mideast oil flowing, even if it meant military intervention and created
Central Command, which covered the entire Middle East.
Due to the Middle East being of vital importance to the U.S., America sought
to contain certain,
“governments or political forces that use violence as a
matter of policy to advance a hostile agenda” and to “expand the depth and
breadth of [U.S.] partnerships with friendly governments in the region to
promote peace, stability, and prosperity.” 
In addition to this, the
“sought to encourage states in the region that have developed
the bad habit of acting outside of international norms to change [their]
ways that would permit reintegration into the international community.” 
This diplomatic language disguises the true nature of
U.S. Middle East policy.
What the U.S. means to do is to make sure that pro-U.S. regimes are propped up
and to isolate any and every nation that threatens U.S. interests.
The U.S. had major plans for Iraq and Iran. Since U.S. policy had failed in that
the Iranian revolution took place and the U.S. went to war with Iraq in 1991,
the U.S. decided to contain both nations since they,
“judged that both regional
powers, while war-weary and economically weakened, were still militarily
ambitious and clearly hostile to the United States and our interests in the
The U.S. wanted to keep tabs on Saddam Hussein and make sure
that Iran acquiring or developing WMDs.
With regards to Iran, however, just
as today, the American government had no proof whatsoever that Iran was
trying to acquire WMDs.
While the U.S. aimed to contain both Iraq and Iran, there were different
strategies for both nations.
With Iraq, the U.S. decided that Iraq could no
“be rehabilitated or reintegrated into the community of nations” and
would “work with forces inside and outside Iraq, as well as Iraq's
neighbors, to change the regime in Iraq and help its new government rejoin
the community of nations.” 
This last part may hints at U.S. interest in
The U.S. kept UN sanctions on Iraq as to permanently damage its
military and economically decimate the country. It should also be noted when
it came to regime change, the U.S. was willing to support anyone as long as
they were anti-Saddam, as well as wanted to destabilize Iraq.
The U.S. saw the
support of Iraqi exiles as “indispensable” and argued that the,
Iraqi resistance need[ed] a voice, through the Iraqi Opposition living in
freedom, to make clear to all Iraqis and to the world its aims.” 
also gave $8 million in Economic Support Funds to Iraq and used the funds to,
“strengthen the political unity of the opposition, to support the Iraq war
crimes initiative, to support humanitarian programs and the development of
civil society, and for activities inside Iraq.” 
By supporting internal
dissidents, the U.S. made sure that if there was an overthrow (successful or
not) of the Saddam regime, that it would seem as if the entire struggle was
internal and that it represented the will of the Iraqi people, when in
reality, the overthrow would have been backed (and probably planned and
financed) by the U.S. and the new Iraqi regime would be nothing but a puppet
government that followed its orders from Washington.
In regards to Iran, the U.S. strategy was much different. Besides sanctions,
there was a large amount of economic warfare against Iran.
The U.S. opposed
“bilateral debt rescheduling, Paris Club debt treatment for Iran, and the
extension of favorable credit terms by Iran's principal foreign creditors”
 as well as international monetary agencies such as
the IMF and
World Bank loaning Iran money.
Also the U.S. government continued to argue
that Iran was trying to create WMDs.
“Clandestine efforts to procure
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue despite Iran's adherence
to relevant international nonproliferation conventions.” 
In terms of
nuclear weapons, the U.S. had no proof that Iran was trying to gain nuclear
The issue of energy security was also bought up in the formulation of U.S.
Middle East policy.
The U.S. saw
the Middle East as its new main source of
“at the end of 1997, U.S. crude reserves had declined to 29.8
billion barrels” and since the 1970s, the U.S. had “become even more dependent
on [oil] imports and thus theoretically [was] more vulnerable to crude oil
supply distributions”  than ever before.
Seeing the Middle East as
unstable, America wanted to have most of its crude come from Western
sources, however, there were still shortfalls even when the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve was factored in.
This, coupled with the fact that it was
predicted by 2015 that U.S. oil production would have declined to 5-7 million
barrels daily and that,
“baring development of huge new reserves in the
western hemisphere, the U.S. [would] become increasingly dependent on the more
unstable sources of crude oil, such as from the Middle East,” 
...it was in
U.S. interests to make sure that the regimes of Arab nations with large
amounts of oil were under the control of Washington and that the status quo
of American regional dominance was maintained in order to keep the oil
The Chinese Threat
In its plan to create a new global status quo where the U.S. was in charge,
the U.S. government had to make sure that there would be no current threats to
its dominance in the future.
While it may seem that today the U.S. is viewing
China as a major threat, this manner of thinking goes back to the 1990s.
In terms of defense issues, the U.S. thought China’s,
programs and foreign policy objectives could realistically pose a challenge
to U.S. interests and security,”  specifically noting China’s “nuclear
weapons modernization program and her related arms control policies could
pose some possibly severe implications to world peace” and “China’s sale of
nuclear technology.” 
By acquiring modern weaponry China was ensuring
that it would be better able to protect its nation, but from the American
perspective it was a threat because it threatened U.S. military technological
By selling nuclear technology, China was threatening
dominance as more countries would have nuclear weapons and therefore were
less likely to be intimidated by America and less likely to concede to U.S.
demands. In order to combat China’s nuclear program, the U.S. planned to “make
a concerted effort to involve China in any future talks concerning nuclear
proliferation,”  however, these talks would involve China decreasing its
amount of nuclear weapons while America’s nuclear weapons stockpile went
Economically, the U.S. wanted to have a “stable and prosperous China,” but for
its own reasons.
Bill Clinton stated,
A stable, open, prosperous, and strong China
is important to the U.S. and to our friends and allies in the region. A
stable and open China is more likely to work cooperatively with others
and to contribute positively to peace in the region and to respect the
rights and interests of its people. A prosperous China will provide an
expanding market for American goods and services.
We have a profound stake in helping to
ensure that China pursues its modernization in ways that contribute to
the overall security and prosperity of the Asia Pacific region. 
While it may seem by Clinton’s statement that he wants to best for China,
what he is actually doing is passively attacking the Chinese government and
promoting U.S. corporate interests.
By saying that,
“A stable and open China is
more likely to work cooperatively with others and to contribute positively
to peace in the region and to respect the rights and interests of its
...Clinton is implying that certain actions of China (such as
modernizing its military and encouraging economic growth) weren’t in the
interests of its people.
How is modernizing one’s military and nuclear
program not in the interests of the Chinese people?
Also, by saying that,
prosperous China will provide an expanding market for American goods and
...Clinton is backing economic globalization and shows his contempt
for China as it is reminiscent of how in the 19th century, the
U.S. saw China
nothing more than but a place to sell its excess goods to.
In order to get China to bend to its will, America planned on using,
positive applications of the instruments of power (political/diplomatic,
economic, information, and military) rather than their coercive use.” 
By using diplomacy, the U.S. would give China the illusion that both nations
were on par with one another, when in reality they weren’t.
Another reason engagement was chosen was due to speculation that the
containment of China would not work as,
“it would be hard to obtain a
domestic consensus to subordinate other policy goals (including trade and
investment) to dealing with a Chinese threat that is as yet, to say the
least, far from manifest”  and that containment “would require, to be
effective, the whole-hearted cooperation of regional allies and most of the
other advanced industrial countries of the world.” 
There was also speculation as to China’s defense situation by 2015.
It was predicted that by 2015, China could
“as a formidable power, one that might be
labeled a multidimensional regional competitor.” 
It was speculated that as such, China could potentially,
“exercise sea denial with respect to the seas contiguous to China”
aerospace superiority in a sustained way in areas contiguous to China’s
“threaten U.S. operating locations in East Asia with a variety of
long-range nuclear assets”
"challenge U.S. information dominance”
strategic nuclear threat to the United States” 
In order to make sure
that these predictions did not come true, as well as get markets for U.S.
corporations and attempt to curb China’s rise, the U.S. may have decided to
Rise of the
The group that played a major role in American defense and foreign policy in
the 21st century were the neoconservatives.
They were a new breed of
conservatives that favored laissez faire economics and a strong, robust
military. Several neoconservatives came together to form the Project for the
New American Century (PNAC). This think tank was to become extremely
the Bush Administration.
PNAC and other neoconservatives shared a disdain for and criticized average
Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton
Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within
their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic
vision of America's role in the world.
They have not set forth guiding
principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over
tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they
have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security
and advance American interests in the new century. 
It initially seemed that this new group was not that dangerous as the goal
of neoconservatives was to promote and sustain American global leadership.
“a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and
future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes
American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United
States' global responsibilities.” 
They were extremely dedicated to the
idea of America leading the world and were near-fanatical in pushing for the
U.S. to have global dominance, saying that America,
“cannot safely avoid the
responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with
its exercise” and that “America has a vital role in maintaining peace and
security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.” 
This was not the
language of people who want to just stick to the plans that were already
outlined, it sounded more like the language of people who want to take the
already laid-out plans to their extremes and in many cases change them
In PNAC’s document
Rebuilding America’s Defenses - Strategy, Forces and
Resources For a New Century, PNAC outlines its main goal which is to see the
entire world dominated by American global military might.
outline four main goals for the U.S. military which were to,
American homeland; fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major
theater wars; perform the ‘constabulary’ duties associated with shaping the
security environment in critical regions; [and to] transform U.S. forces to
exploit the ‘revolution in military affairs.’” 
It can be seen here that PNAC was already planning for there to be a major shift in America’s foreign
affairs and that they had a war-mongering agenda.
militaristic agenda was going to be felt throughout the world.
the fact that they wanted the U.S. military to,
“fight and decisively win
multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” PNAC also pushed for having
America’s nuclear deterrent based “upon a global, nuclear net assessment
that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the
U.S.-Russia balance” and for the U.S. to “develop and deploy global missile
defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide
a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.” 
“current and emerging threats” in reality means any nation that is currently
or in the future will threaten U.S. global dominance, such as China and
This notion is further proven by the fact that PNAC wanted the
“permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast
Asia” and to change “naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S.
strategic concerns in East Asia.” 
Doing this would ensure that America
would always be able to keep an eye on its rivals and quickly counter any
military moves that they made.
In addition to wanting to assure American dominance on Earth, PNAC also
wanted to move the American military into space.
The group advocated for
“control [of] the new ‘international commons’ of space and
‘cyberspace’” and for America to “pave the way for the creation of a new
military service - U.S. Space Forces - with the mission of space control.”
In advocating for U.S. control of space, PNAC was also arguing for the
destruction of the long-term tradition that space was meant to be used for
peaceful purposes, as can be shown in the Resolution Preventing Arms Race in
Outer Space which was passed by the UN General Assembly in 2007 which
1967 Outer Space Treaty, which in itself affirmed that space
should remain demilitarized.
It was this group of militaristic, war-mongering Americans that would lead
America to try and dominant the world in the 21st century by
taking the original plans and twisting them to facilitate a foreign policy
based on a “might makes right” mentality, which would lead America to
becomes the world’s first truly global empire.
The Rise and
Decline of The American Empire
September 7, 2011
The America -An Empire In Decline series examines the rise and
decline of the American Empire.
In Part 1 above, Dawn Of A New Century, I
analyzed America’s original plans for the 21st century, immediately after
the end of the Cold War, which imagined a world where the U.S. would be the
sole superpower and preventive diplomacy would be used to ensure no
However, with the rise of the neoconservatives, first with the
the New American Century think tank and then later in the form of,
members in the
Bush administration, a vision that saw the fall of the Soviet
Union as an opportunity for the United States to become a full-fledged
empire became deeply rooted in the American political and military psyche.
They envisioned a world in which America would be the dominant economic,
political, and military power and whose enemies and potential rivals would
be kept in check. All they needed was an incident to make this possible and
attacks on 9/11 provided an excuse for the
U.S. to God the
Onset of Imperial Decline, I examined America’s actions both at home and
abroad. Domestically, the rights of citizens were being curbed in the name
War on Terror due to the Patriot Act which allowed for the government
to illegally spy on its citizens without a warrant.
Abroad, America used
9/11 as a casus belli to launch an attack on Afghanistan, even though it was
later revealed that the U.S. had already been planning to invade Afghanistan
prior to the attacks. It was also revealed that on 9/11, once notified of
the attacks, Donald Rumsfeld ordered his aides to find a link between the
Saddam Hussein as to create a pretext to invade Iraq.
the invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. failed in an attempt to covertly
overthrow Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, started its campaign of lies and deceit
about Iran’s nuclear facilities, and engineered several pseudo-democratic
uprising in eastern Europe to ensure a pro-Western encirclement was kept
around Russia. The U.S. then turned its attention to the continent of Africa,
establishing a continental wide command there as to combat the influence of
rival nations such as China.
However, at home, due to the incompetence of
Washington and the greed of Wall Street bankers, the U.S. experienced
massive recession which led to ripple effects around the world.
In this final installment of the series, an examination of America’s recent
foreign policy and military adventures will take place, concluding with a
prediction of what may lay in the future for the Empire.
Afghanistan, False Drawdown In Iraq
Soon after being elected into office on the idea of hope and change,
Obama truly showed how much change he wanted when he stated at
West Point that it was in America’s,
“vital national interest to send an
additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.” 
He also announced,
strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in
Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan.” 
did allow for Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda members safe haven near the
Pakistan-Afghanistan border, by including Pakistan in the strategy to succeed
in Afghanistan, Obama effectively made the mission even more difficult since
now the U.S. would have to deal with the Afghan and Pakistani Talibans, as
well as with the corruption and general incompetence of the Pakistani
government, as they would often make deals with the militants instead of
crushing them as Washington wanted.
Escalating the war in Afghanistan brings out the irony of President Obama
having received the Nobel Peace Prize.
How is a man who controls the most
powerful military force in history, increases military spending to historic
levels, and escalates a then-eight (now ten) year old war, a man of peace?
This can only occur when, as Michel Chossudovsky said,
“war becomes peace,”
“a global military agenda is heralded as a humanitarian endeavor,” and most
importantly, “when [a] lie becomes the truth.” 
In addition to escalating the war in Afghanistan, Obama oversaw a false
drawdown in Iraq.
While it was true that all combat forces had left, it was
“that as many as 50,000 Marines and soldiers would remain until the
end of 2011” and that the “pace of the drawdown [would] be left to
commanders and determined by events on the ground as well as politics in
Officially, the remaining 50,000 troops,
“would remain in
Iraq after Aug. 31, 2010, to train, equip and advise Iraqi forces, help
protect withdrawing forces and work on counter-terrorism.” 
these soldiers were not entirely trainers, as in September alone U.S. troops,
“waged a gun battle with a suicide squad in Baghdad, dropped bombs on armed
militants in Baquba and assisted Iraqi soldiers in a raid in Falluja.” 
U.S. troops are still fighting in Iraq, although now it is under the guise of
training Iraqi forces.
U.S. forces may very well stay permanently in Iraq as
it has been reported that the U.S. government has worked out a deal with Iraq
to allow U.S. troops to stay until 2012, yet the Iraqi government denies it.
The U.S. has been doing drone strikes for quite some time, yet in recent years
they have been escalated and the number of targets increased.
In addition to
targeting terrorists in Pakistan, the strikes were expanded to Yemen and
Somalia as well as several other countries.
This year, it was reported that the CIA is preparing to initiate a secret
program to kill Al Qaeda militants in Yemen.
“would give the U.S.
greater latitude than the current military campaign [against AQ militants]”
and is a shift from previous tactics as “Now, the spy agency will carry out
aggressive drone strikes itself alongside the military campaign.” 
the Americans may think that this is a good idea, it may cause even more
instability in Yemen and push a new government away from the U.S..
Major revelations about America’s campaign against drone strikes have come
to light due to the UK-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism study on the
drone strikes which resulted in a,
“fundamental reassessment of the covert U.S.
campaign [and] involved a complete re-examination of all that is known about
each U.S. drone strike.” 
The study revealed that,
“many more CIA attacks on
alleged militant targets than previously reported. At least 291 U.S. drone
strikes are now known to have taken place since 2004”  and that 1,100
people had been injured in drone strikes.
This study has worried the
Establishment to the point where
the CIA is,
“attempting to link the Bureau’s
‘suspect’ work to unsubstantiated allegations that one of its many sources
is a Pakistani spy” and “directly challenging the data itself.” 
However, these drone strikes can end up creating more enemies for America.
One such example being in Somalia, where Dr. Omar Ahmed, an academic and
Somali politician argues that U.S. helicopter and drone attacks only help Al-Shabaab:
“There is no reason for the western countries to use airstrikes against al-Shabaab.
It will only increase the generations supporting al-Shabaab,” he said.
example, when the Americans killed Aden Eyrow, the capability of al-Shabaab
was very low. From that day forward, the militia increased in size
day-after-day. They recruited many youths, persuading them that infidels
attacked their country and want to capture it.” 
Even though the U.S. strategy is not working, the Americans still continue it
due to the political and military elite having fooled themselves to such a
point where they think that the drone strikes are working, when in reality
they increase anti-American sentiment and actually help the very people
America is trying to defeat.
While things were already dismal on the domestic front due to the Patriot
Act and the horrid economic crisis, things were to get worse as President
Obama was given the power to assassinate American citizens.
Last year, the Obama Administration authorized the assassination of,
radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from
encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them.”
Awlaki was an American citizen who was born in New Mexico and had been
an imam in the United States, before going to Yemen. American officials
stated that he had joined Al Qaeda and became a recruiter.
While this may seem like a new precedent, in reality it isn’t as after 9/11,
“Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens
abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in
organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or
U.S. interests.” 
Thus, the entire illegal act of
assassinating U.S. citizens had been on the board since 2001 and therefore was
nothing but Obama continuing the draconian practices of the previous
The entire idea of assassinating U.S. citizens is not only wrong, but illegal
under U.S. law.
Executive Order 12333, put into place by
Ronald Reagan, states that,
“No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States
Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” 
However, it goes even further for all U.S. intelligence agencies, stating that
no one in the intelligence apparatus should participate in any activities
that are forbidden under Order 12333, which includes assassinations.
The continued policy of assassinating U.S. citizens only shows the continued
moral decline of the Empire and the continued concentration of power in the
While the U.S. was waging war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and other
locations, the Americans turned their attention to cyberspace and with the
Cyber Command (CyCom), effectively turned cyberspace into a
In 2010, the U.S. created CyCom whose mission, among other things, was to,
“conduct full-spectrum military cyberspace operations in order to enable
actions in all domains, ensure U.S./Allied freedom of action in cyberspace and
deny the same to our adversaries.” 
By stating that the U.S. would ensure
its “freedom of action in cyberspace,” the Americans clearly implied that
they may attack other nations via the internet.
The U.S. went even further with turning CyCom into a weapon of war when the
“that computer sabotage coming from another country can
constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door
for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force,” with a U.S.
military official stating “‘If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will
put a missile down one of your smokestacks.’” 
without a doubt, the U.S. was planning to use cyberspace as a way to increase
its military might.
Iranian Green Movement
In June 2009, there began mass protests in Iran due to suspicions of
election fraud, with reports of the government blocking communications and
alleged vote rigging.
While the protest movement was no doubt organic, there
may very well have been U.S. involvement as they had been launching covert
operations within recent years.
In 2007, the CIA received a,
“secret presidential approval to mount a covert
‘black’ operation to
destabilize the Iranian government.” 
itself was designed to pressure Iran to end its nuclear enrichment program
It was also reported that the U.S. was,
“secretly funding militant ethnic
separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic
regime to give up its nuclear program.” 
CIA officials were working with
known terrorists, such as the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, to overthrow the Iranian
The Americans may have been hopeful that something might occur
which would allow them to militarily intervene, seeing as how they
positioned a second aircraft carrier near Iran’s coastal waters and,
moved six heavy bombers from a British base on the Pacific island of Diego
Garcia to the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.” 
In 2008, things went even further when it was reported that the
government had decided,
“to fund a major escalation of covert operations
against Iran” which were “designed to destabilize the country’s religious
If Ayatollah Khamenei, the country’s highest ranking
political and religious figure, was overthrown or assassinated, it would
cause massive political turmoil in Iran, which would turn provide the
Americans with an excuse to intervene in Iran or allow for U.S. puppets to
take control of the nation.
It is interesting to note that at this time the U.S. ramped up its rhetoric
against Iran, reviving,
charges that the Iranian leadership ha[d] been involved in the killing of
American soldiers in Iraq: both directly, by dispatching commando units into
Iraq, and indirectly, by supplying materials used for roadside bombs and
other lethal goods. 
This occurred around the time when,
“a National Intelligence Estimate, [which
had been] released in December, [concluded] that Iran had halted its work on
nuclear weapons in 2003.” 
Aiding terrorist attacks in Iran may very well have helped to create an
atmosphere where ordinary Iranians felt that the current regime was not
protecting them and thus had to challenge the regime, though not knowing
they were being used as a way to fulfill American interests.
Not soon after the Iranian elections had died down, the U.S. turned its
attention to North Korea and China.
In March of 2010, it was reported that
South Korea’s ship, the Cheonan, had
sunk in waters near the border with North Korea. The ship went down due to
an unexplained explosion.
Initially, South Korea,
“suspected the North Korean
hand in the mishap but without convincing proof, it did not charge North
Korea of this act.” 
Thus a Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group
(JIG) was established to investigate the incident.
Preliminary investigations established the fact that the explosion was
external and the JIG speculated that,
“the Cheonan was hit by a torpedo or a
floating mine and that the blast impact originated from outside the vessel.”
After collaborating several reports from sailors aboard the Cheonan and
simulations, the JIG,
“collected propulsion parts, including propulsion motor
with propellers and a steering section from the site of the sinking to
corroborate with the fact that it was a torpedo attack”  and found that
the markings on one propulsion section were consistent with the marking of a
North Korean torpedo that had been obtained prior to the Cheonan incident.
This convinced the JIG that “the recovered parts were made in North Korea
and therefore established Pyongyang’s complicity. The JIP, therefore,
eliminated other plausible factors such as grounding, fatigue failure,
mines, collision and internal explosion.” 
In addition to the South Korean JIG, there was also an international
investigatory committee known was the Multinational Combined Intelligence
Task force, which was made up of five states,
“including the U.S., Australia,
Canada and the UK”, 
...and the findings of this group also
pointed the finger at North Korea.
This is quite serious as not only did South Korea ignore other plausible
factors that may have led to the sinking of the Cheonan, but they also
trusted a group that was overwhelmingly under the influence of Western
nations who are known to be hostile to North Korea.
It is possible that
South Korea was looking to blame the North, seeing as how they stopped
immediately after they could even plausibly establish a link to North Korea.
In response to the attacks, the U.S. and South Korea held joint war games in
which the United States sent its supercarrier, the USS George Washington.
The war games were to be held in the Yellow Sea, which is in China’s
exclusive economic zone.
Once news that the war games were going to be held
in the Yellow Sea came out, China stated that it,
“opposes any military acts
in its exclusive economic zone without permission.” 
The Americans and
South Koreans had to have done this on purpose, seeing as how launching war
games would not ease tensions, but rather escalate them. One must also
factor in the notion that the U.S. had been considering China a potential
threat to its dominance of the Asia-Pacific region since the 1990s.
Not only were the South Korean war games a threat to China, but also no
sooner after the U.S. had concluded those war games,
“the U.S. [begin] a
week-long exercise with Japan off the second nation’s islands near the South
Korean coast.” 
The entire point of these war games with both South
Korea and Japan was to send a message to China, saying that the U.S. was still
in control of the Asia-Pacific region.
In the midst of this, an organization that was and continues to change the
world was going to blow the lid on the Empire, showing their true foreign
In 2010, a then fairly unknown organization called
WikiLeaks released a
video now known as
Collateral Murder which shows an Apache helicopter firing
on reporters from Reuters and blatantly murdering Iraqi civilians.
the U.S. government so worried that they conducted a counterintelligence
investigation into WikiLeaks, saying that the organization,
potential force protection, counterintelligence, operational security (OPSEC),
and information security (INFOSEC) threat to the U.S. Army.” 
In its extreme worry, the investigatory committee may have become slightly
paranoid as they did not rule out the possibility that,
“current employees or
moles within DoD or elsewhere in the U.S. government are providing sensitive
or classified information to WikiLeaks.org 'could not be ruled out and that'
former U.S. government employees leak[ing] sensitive and classified
information is highly suspect.” 
However, the chance that former U.S.
government employees would leak classified information is slim, seeing as
how most are loyal to the government.
However, the WikiLeaks situation would get extremely serious later when they
released 250,000 documents detailing America’s true foreign policy.
documents revealed that America had been,
“running a secret intelligence
campaign targeted at the leadership of the United Nations, including the
secretary general, Ban Ki-moon and the permanent security council
representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK.” 
In July 2009,
U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton ordered U.S. diplomats to gather,
“forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN
officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private
and commercial networks for official communications” as well as “credit card
numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even
frequent-flyer account numbers for UN figures and ‘biographic and biometric
information on UN Security Council permanent representatives.’” 
entire operation seems to be involved in aiding
the CIA and
Security Agency for the purposes of building biographical profiles, data
mining, and surveillance operations.
Due to the massive dump, some became so enraged that they called for
Julian Assange’s head.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner, a columnist in the Washington Times,
stated that Julian Assange,
poses a clear and present danger to American national security. The
WikiLeaks founder is more than a reckless provocateur. He is aiding and
abetting terrorists in their war against America. The administration must
take care of the problem - effectively and permanently. 
However, what Kuhner and other people who wanted Assange dead were truly
enraged about was that U.S. foreign policy was exposed for what it truly is:
the U.S. government working hard to fulfill its interests by any means
necessary, with complete and total disregard for the sovereignty of other
nations, as can be shown by the fact that the U.S. government intimidated
Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero into ending his criticism of the Iraq war.
The U.S. media as well as others jumped on the story when Julian Assange was
accused of rape and began spreading it everywhere. Yet, they were quite
incorrect as Assange was accused of violating a Swedish law against sex
without a condom.
It was reported that Sweden’s Public Prosecutor’s Office,
“leaked to the media that it was seeking to arrest Assange for rape, then on
the same day withdrew the arrest warrant because in its own words there was
‘no evidence.’” 
Even though the media did their best to smear Assange’s
name, Wikileaks was going play a role in lighting a spark that would take
the Arab world by storm.
In 2011, the United States had its dominance of the Middle East seriously
threatened due to massive peaceful protests that were sweeping the Arab
No longer were people going to put up with
corrupt and oppressive regimes that were backed by Washington. No longer
would they put up with horrid dictatorships in which the only freedom they
had was to obey.
In 2011 protests in Tunisia began what would
become known as
the Arab Spring.
The spark that launched the Arab Spring began on December 17th, 2010.
Mohammed Bouazizi was selling fruit without a license and when the
authorities confiscated his scale, he became enraged, confronted the
police, and was slapped in the face. This led him to plead his case in
the town’s government office, but when it was rebuffed, he went outside
and lit himself aflame.
This small act became noticed by the populace at
large and the anger,
“spread to other towns in the interior of the
country, where unemployment among university graduates was approaching
50 percent.” 
Mass protests soon began with calls to end dictator
Ben Ali’s rule and democratic elections, however, Ali turned to the
police and the slaughtering of protesters began in earnest.
The organization WikiLeaks also played a role in starting up the
protests, as files were released just days before Bouazizi lit himself
aflame, which confirmed suspicions that many Tunisians already had:
Ben Ali was a corrupt dictator, that his family was extremely corrupt,
and that life was incredibly difficult for the Tunisian poor and
When this occurred, the U.S. was deeply worried as Tunisia had significant
military ties to the U.S.
“in NATO’s Operation Active
Endeavor, which provides counter-terrorism surveillance in the
Mediterranean,” participated in NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue, “and allow[ed] NATO ships to make port calls at Tunis.”
Every now and
then the U.S. would criticize Tunisia for its record on political rights
and freedom of expression, ,
“In parallel with these expressions of
concern, the United States continued to provide military and economic
assistance to the Tunisian government.” 
Thus, the U.S. began to play
About two weeks after Ben Ali had fled the nation, America
sent their top Middle East envoy to Tunisia and tried,
“to press its
advantage to push for democratic reforms in the country and further
While it may have appeared that the U.S. was quickly trying
to position itself on Tunisia’s good side, they may have had a hand in
Ali’s ousting as,
“According to some rumors in Tunis, the country's army
chief consulted with Washington before withdrawing his support from Ben
Ali - a move which sealed the ousted president's fate.” 
Almost as soon as the U.S. was finished in Tunisia, they had even bigger
problems on their hands with the protests in Egypt.
Due to being inspired by the success of the Tunisian protests, the
Egyptian people launched their own protest movement, calling for the
overthrow of U.S. puppet Hosni Mubarak. However, the U.S. was busy co-opting
the protest movement.
The U.S. used the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED) as a cover to
help co-opt the protest movement. Ironically, the NED is not used for
the spreading of democracy, rather it was established by the Reagan
administration to aid in the overthrow of foreign governments, after the
CIA’s covert operations were revealed.
The NED was supported,
bipartisan endowment, with participation from the two major parties, as
well as the AFL-CIO and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the NED took over the
financing of foreign overthrow movements, but overtly and under the
rubric of ‘democracy promotion.’” 
Thus, the U.S. supported both
Mubarak and the protesters, in a bid to make sure that no matter what
occurred, America would still get its way.
Washington already had influence in Egyptian pro-democracy circles as in
May 2009 many Egyptian activists that would eventually organize protests
calling for the end of the dictator Mubarak's reign,
spent a week in Washington receiving training in advocacy and getting an
inside look at the way U.S. democracy works. After their training, the
fellows were matched with civil society organizations throughout the
country where they shared experiences with U.S. counterparts.
activists [wrapped] up their program this week by visiting U.S.
government officials, members of Congress, media outlets and think
Thus, due to the U.S. aiding the activists, the Americans ensured that the
protesters owed them a debt and that U.S. interests would be secure even
if Mubarak was ousted.
The Egyptian military also played a role in U.S. plans. While they
originally had protected protesters and refused to fire upon them, the
Egyptian military showed just how supportive they were of a democratic
Egypt when they began arresting and trying them before military courts,
dissolved parliament, and suspended the constitution. In reality, the
military junta that now controls Egypt is no different than the Mubarak
regime when it controlled Egypt.
While the Egyptian military is currently in control until elections, no
matter what occurs, America will still have its way.
began taking place in Bahrain.
The people were tired of a
“failed to abide by their own constitution, refused to
investigate the crimes of torture and continued to expropriate more than
half of the land of the country.” 
The Bahrani government was
controlled by the
Al Khalifa family, which has ruled Bahrain for over
300 years and has created an economy where there is a powerful and
wealthy Sunni minority while the Shiite majority constantly faces
discrimination in jobs and education, has little political
representation, and are barred from many government and military
The U.S. was deeply troubled because of the protests as the Al Khalifa
regime allowed for the Americans to station their Fifth Fleet in the
country, which allows the U.S. to patrol,
“the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea,
the Arabian Sea, and the east coast of Africa”
“keep an eye on - and,
if necessary, rattle sabers - close to oil shipping lanes, Iran, and the
increasing activity of pirates”
“ [provide] basing and overflight
clearances for U.S. aircraft engaged in Afghanistan and [help] cut off
money supplies to suspected Islamic terrorists.” 
Thus, the Bahraini
regime was of major importance to U.S. regional interests.
The U.S. showed that it would do anything to make sure that its puppet
stayed in power when they backed the Saudi military intervention in
Bahrain. The Saudis intervened on the behalf of the Bahraini government
and began shooting into crowds of Bahraini protesters. 
even though the protesters were being gunned down, they still were
determined to fight for their rights against America’s puppets.
The Arab Spring movement also reached all the way to Libya, however,
things were quite different as instead of having peaceful protests,
opposition forces were picking up arms and fighting the Libyan military.
Due to the then-leader of Libya, Col. Mummar Gaddafi, having never truly
been a Western puppet, America launched a propaganda war to allow the
U.S.-NATO war machine to intervene in Libya on the grounds of
The question that must be first asked is why the West even wanted to
intervene in Libya. The answer is because Libya has Africa’s largest oil
reserves and Western oil companies wanted access to them. However, there
are also larger economic reasons.
Months prior to the intervention,
Gaddafi had called upon African and Muslims nations to adopt a single
currency: the gold dinar. This would have excluded the dollar as the
gold dinar would have been used to purchase goods, thus threatening the
economies of Western nations.
However, the creation of a gold dinar may
empowered the people of Africa, something black activists say the
wants to avoid at all costs.
“The U.S. have denied self-determination to Africans inside the
U.S., so we
are not surprised by anything the U.S. would do to hinder the
self-determination of Africans on the continent,” says Cynthia Ann
McKinney, a former U.S. Congresswoman. 
There was also geopolitics at work as during the war, Gaddafi,
expel Western energy companies from the country and replace them with
oil firms from China, India, and Russia.” 
This would have
effectively excluded the West from ever getting at Libya’s oil.
ousting Gaddafi, the West would be able to have a puppet regime to
counter Chinese and Russian moves in North Africa as well as access to
What many of the media never asked until the conflict was nearing its
end was who exactly were the rebels.
In the Iraq war, most of the
foreign fighters came from Libya and in that,
“almost all of them came
from eastern Libya, the center of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion.” 
A Libyan rebel commander even admitted that some of
soldiers had links to Al Qaeda:
In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi
admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in
eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them,
he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".
Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not
terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good
Muslims and are fighting against the invader". 
Thus, the U.S. and NATO were backing terrorists, yet they may have known
seeing as how a 2007 West Point Study revealed that the Benghazi-Darnah-Tobruk
area was a world leader in Al Qaeda suicide bomber recruitment. 
Due to the U.S. and its NATO allies not wanting to look like the
imperialists they truly were, Obama pressured
the United Nations to pass a
resolution allowing for the establishment of a no fly zone over Libya
and an arms embargo on the nation. However, both were broken quite soon.
The UN resolution clearly allowed all member states,
or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary
measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country,
including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any
form on any part of Libyan territory.” 
However, the imperialists
admitted that they wanted to overthrow Gaddafi in an op-ed piece, when
Cameron, Sarkozy, and Obama stated:
“Our duty and our mandate under U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are
doing that. It is not to remove [G]addafi by force. But it is impossible
to imagine a future for Libya with [G]addafi in power.” 
The U.S. and NATO clearly stated that their main goal was to
The hypocrisy of the West ran deep as they found an excuse to intervene
in Libya, but not in Egypt, Bahrain, Palestine, or any other location
where people were being oppressed by local regimes. However, Western
hypocrisy was shown near the outset of the conflict when it was reported
that Egypt’s military had begun to ship arms to the rebels with
Washington’s knowledge. 
This clearly shows that supposed arms
embargo on Libya was in reality, an embargo on Gaddafi’s forces.
To whip up support for their “intervention,” a massive media propaganda
campaign was conducted against Gaddafi.
The mainstream media were
reporting things such as Gaddafi gave his troops Viagra to rape women,
bombed civilians, and that Libyan troops gunned down civilians. Despite
these claims being false, the mainstream media still reported it.
However, what many people ignored was the fact that the rebel and NATO
“a NATO bombing campaign near the Libyan city
of Zlitan earlier this month reportedly killed almost 100 civilians - more than half of them women and children.”
However, NATO denied
all claims arguing that they had struck legitimate targets.
This is just
one example of many NATO war crimes in Libya, ranging from killing
civilians to bombing the rebels themselves. There were also reports that
Libyan rebels were targeting and killing black Africans.
eastern Libya the rebels,
“and their supporters [were] detaining,
intimidating and frequently beating African immigrants and black
Libyans, accusing them of fighting as mercenaries on behalf of
in some cases “executed suspected mercenaries captured in
battle, according to Human Rights Watch and local Libyans”
“arbitrarily killed some mercenaries and in others cases failed to
distinguish between them and non-combatants” 
Yet, despite these
and other numerous reports, the Libyan rebels excused their war crimes,
saying that they didn’t have the structures in place to deal with
matters such as these.
What was also somewhat ignored was the fact that the rebels were
extremely fractured, only united in their goal to overthrow Gaddafi.
This was clearly seen after the assassination of General Al-Younes and
two top military commanders aides.
“resulted in internal
fighting within the Transitional Council” with “Factional divisions
[developing] within rebel forces.” 
This factional divide may soon
play itself out in the creation of a new Libyan government.
Finally, there was the fact that Western special forces were on the
ground. The initial appearance of Western special forces was when
British SAS troops were captured near Benghazi in March.
However, U.S. CIA
agents were in Libya  and there may have been French and
forces in Libya aiding the rebels.
In a March interview on the O’Reilly
Show, retired Colonel David Hunt of the U.S. Army and Lt. Col. Tony
Shaffer, a former Army intelligence officer were interviewed about the
situation in Libya.
Hunt stated the following when asked about special
forces being in Libya:
Yes, absolutely. You've got British service been in there about three
weeks ago and actually got captured and released. The French GIGN have
been in there and our special forces and our U.S. intelligence
operatives and their assets. We do not conduct operations like this,
large scale air operations, without people on the ground.
They have been
very successful, very good, not a lot of contact with the rebels because
you don't know who to talk to. But, yes, we have got intel gathering and
rescue guys and special operations guys on the ground, have had them for
about 12 days. 
Shaffer agreed, saying:
Yes, I have heard from my sources - I
got a call from one of my key sources on Monday and that's exactly
what's going on. Let's be really clear here. You have got to have
these individuals doing what Dave just said, especially when you are
talking about trying to protect, and the stated goal here, Bill, is
So you don't want to have weapons
hitting the wrong targets. So, Dave is very good on the fact that we
have special operations guys sitting there with laser designators.
Bill, you saw… 
The Americans constantly denied that they had boots on the ground, yet,
as usual, they were lying.
The imperialists already had plans for a post-Gaddafi Libya, which
"proposals for a 10,000-15,000 strong 'Tripoli task force',
resourced and supported by the United Arab Emirates, to take over the
Libyan capital, secure key sites and arrest high-level Gaddafi
However, the plan may be problematic as it is,
reliant on the defection of parts of the Gaddafi security apparatus to
the rebels after his overthrow.” 
There were far reaching economic
consequences as it was reported that the new government would favor
Western oil companies at the expense of Russian, Chinese, and Brazilian
Due to the imperialists succeeding in Libya, many are worried that the
U.S.-NATO war machine may set its sights on a new target: Syria.
Protests in Syria began in earnest in May and have not let up since
While there are calls for intervention into Syria, there is much
at stake for America in terms of Syria’s relationship with Iran.
The Americans are quite interested in the link between Iran and Syria,
noting that there have been several joint ventures between the two
nations in the financial and manufacturing sectors, as it was noted that,
“there have been several reports of increased Iranian investment and
trade with Syria”
“Iran has stated its intention to establish a joint
Iranian-Syrian bank, possibly involving Bank Saderat and the Commercial
Bank of Syria”
“the Iran Khodro Industrial Group has established a
car assembly plant in Syria through a joint venture known as the
Syrian-Iranian Motor Company” 
There are also military links as
Iran supplies weapons to Syria which, from the U.S. perspective, pose a
threat to its ally Israel.
“In June 2010, Iran reportedly sent Syria an
air defense radar system designed to detect Israeli aircraft or possibly
increase the accuracy of Syrian and Hezbollah missile strikes against
Israel in the event of a regional war.” 
Thus, the U.S. was deeply
worried about the link between two anti-American nations and the growing
friendship between them.
Due to these worries, the U.S. became involved in Syria’s protest
movement, using methods that are similar to the ones the Americans used
in the Egyptian revolution and in the Libya conflict...
For the past five to six years, the U.S. policy toward Syria has used what
could be called a two-pronged strategy to push for regime change. The
has supported “civil society” activists or external opposition
organizations. It has also worked to delegitimize, destabilize and
isolate the country through the application of sanctions and various
other measures, which could be applied to exploit vulnerabilities. 
One “civil society” organization that is being used by the U.S. is the
Movement for Justice and Development (MJD), which ,
with the London-based satellite channel Barada TV, which started
broadcasting in April 2009 but ‘ramped up operations to cover the mass
protests in Syria.’” 
The Americans may have wanted to work with MJD
due to the fact that they are a moderate Islamic group which wants to
end the Assad regime via democratic reform.
This democratic reform may
very well play right into America’s hands if the U.S. does intervene in
Syria, they can back the MJD and argue that they are the same as Libya’s
rebels: people who want to end their oppressive regime and replace it
with a democracy.
The U.S. is using U.S. organizations such as,
“Freedom House, American Bar
Association, American University, Internews and work done by MEPI with
the Aspen Strategic Initiative Institute, Democracy Council of
California, Regents of the University of New Mexico and the
International Republican Institute”  to aid in fomenting regime
change in Syria by working with and funding Syrian “civil society”
There have been many reports of the Syrian regime attacking unarmed
protesters, however, one should be quite skeptical of these reports.
U.S. media has reported that there are violent Syrian protesters ,
which should make one question the official narrative that the
protesters are peaceful.
One must also include the fact that there are
absolutely no outside media sources in Syria whatsoever. Journalists
have contacts whom they can get information from, but who says that
these sources are being objective, much less telling the truth? All the
reports that are being shown in the mainstream media may very well be
half-truths, if not outright fabrications.
The U.S. may very well plan to attack Syria if manipulating civil
societies does not work.
The Arab Spring, while an overall movement to overthrow oppressive
regimes, has too many times been co-opted by foreign powers who seek
only their personal gain.
Due to this, the Arab people may never
experience true freedom.
Debt Ceiling and
Once again, while the Empire was busy abroad attempting to impose its will
on other nations, it was having major fiscal problems at home.
In July the
debt ceiling debate began as the Republicans decided to make what should
have been a non-issue into a major problem and almost let the nation default
in the process.
The debt ceiling would have been passed as usual, yet the Tea Parties in the
House decided to refuse to increase the debt ceiling, citing the fact that
the U.S. was already $14 trillion in debt and something needed to be done to
solve the debt crisis before it became a major problem.
Their remedy for the
massive debt was to implement massive austerity measures.
specifically wanted to target Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for
massive cuts. The Democrats barely put up a fight to defend their
constituents, and the debt ceiling agreement ended up being compromised
solely of spending cuts, with a super Congress of 6 Democrats and six
Republicans to come together and decide which group they were going to hurt
While the media ate up the entire story, they didn’t ask any serious
questions such as how did the U.S. end up with such a massive debt in the
first place. The answer is because of the Wall Street bailouts, the quest
for global military domination, tax cuts for the super-rich, and the
increasing costs of healthcare, mainly due to medical insurance companies
jacking up prices.
However, the corporate media, which is in the hands of
the ruling elite, has created a perception that the reason for this debt
crisis is due to social programs even though this is completely false. 
In the debt ceiling debacle, this perception would win out and would bring
about America’s credit downgrade.
Standard & Poor’s downgraded the
U.S. debt rating to AA+ due to its loss of
confidence in the U.S. government and the stock market plunged as people
viewed the downgrade as an indication that the U.S. may very well be in
decline. However, there were already signals prior to the S&P downgrade that
America’s economic situation was not well.
In July, the IMF effectively
pronounced the U.S. bankrupt. 
That same month, Dagong, a Chinese
credit-rating agency, pointed out the problems with increasing the debt
ceiling, stating that,
"Raising the [debt] limit is just a legislative
measure to allow the government to borrow more money, but it does not change
the fact that the U.S. lacks momentum for economic growth” and that “The
fundamental problem is that the U.S.' ability to generate wealth is far from
compensating its increasing debt.” 
“The U.S. government has fought the effects of the financial
market crisis primarily by an increase in government debt” and they “not see
that there is sufficient attention being paid to other measures”  such
as those previously mentioned above.
However, this brings up the larger picture of the role of credit rating
Usually, they can be used as an indicator of the
of a nation, but now it seems that they have undue influence in the economic
and political realms of a nation. In essence, they can hold an entire
country hostage by threatening to downgrade the nation’s credit rating if
the agency’s demands aren’t fulfilled.
The Future of the
The American Empire has is now obviously in decline due to its waging of
wars, tax cuts for the super wealthy, and massive debt.
Thus this brings up
the question that is on the minds of many Americans:
What will happen to
America in the future?
Economically, the U.S. may not fair well as even after the bailout of Wall
Street and $700 billion meant to stimulate the economy, the,
the global financial system, and of the Western financial system in the
first place, returns again to the front of the stage”  in the form of
the U.S. credit downgrade.
U.S. government debt may take a major hit as,
banks are starting to reduce their use of U.S. Treasury Bonds to guarantee
their transactions for fear of the increasing risks weighing on U.S.
government debt” and even U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia are worried about
U.S. debt. 
The dollar is most likely going to decline to,
“something of a
first among equals in a basket of currencies” which very well “may force the
U.S. into difficult tradeoffs between achieving ambitious foreign policy goals
and the high domestic costs of supporting those objectives,”  such as
constant military adventures every decade and massive aid to client states.
With the rise of new powers such as China, U.S. military superiority, while
safe on conventional grounds, may be unshaky in the realm of cyberspace and
the U.S. may have its rule challenged, not only in the Asia-Pacific region by
China, but also in Latin America by Brazil and eastern Europe by Russia.
This could potentially create situation where the Empire will have to choose
between fighting against these new adversaries or work with them. If the
Empire’s attitude today is any indication, they will fight rather than work
with the new powers to create a multipolar international order.
While the American Empire is currently in decline, this could potentially
lead to what has been called “a blossoming of the republic” in which the
United States returns to its democratic and moral roots.
No longer will the
U.S. support dictators and third-world governments, disregard international
and domestic law, and prevent the self-determination of all peoples. Rather,
the new America will respect the rule of law, support organic democratic
uprisings, and reject its past history of militarism and unilateralism.
This is the vision of America that I and many
others around the world wish to see come to fruition.