by William F. Jasper
24 May 2012
Pretending to have achieved some kind of victory
in Afghanistan, President
Obama and the NATO leaders have pushed ahead on
the globalist agenda to transform NATO more fully into the global military
arm of the United Nations.
“We’re now unified behind a plan to
responsibly wind down the war in Afghanistan,” declared President Obama,
at the conclusion of the May 20-21 NATO Summit in Chicago.
But don’t pop the champagne corks just yet;
America’s longest war, now over a decade in duration, is not ending any time
What does “responsibly wind down the war” mean?
According to President Obama and the other NATO
leaders, it means NATO “combat troops” will have left Afghanistan by the end
of 2014. Which is another way of spinning the grim fact that they intend to
keep NATO forces (primarily U.S. forces) fighting in Afghanistan for another
And after 2014, an unspecified number of NATO/US
forces will remain for “training” purposes for an indefinite period.
The Afghanistan War, which has already cost half a trillion dollars (and
over 12,000 American casualties), has succeeded in establishing Hamid Karzai
and his clan in a ruling regime that is universally recognized as thoroughly
corrupt and anti-American.
It is also a regime without popular support that
is sure to collapse after our withdrawal - if not before.
And when the country breaks down into a bloody
civil war? Well, in order to prevent that, President Obama says someone must
come up with $4.1 billion per year to finance the equipping and training of
the Afghan army and police force.
The Washington Post
The United States spent $12 billion last
year, 95 percent of the total cost, to train and equip an Afghan army
and police force that is expected to total 352,000 by this fall. With a
gross domestic product of about $17 billion, Afghanistan is incapable of
funding a force that size.
As it looks for a way to cut future costs and assumes an eventual
political solution to the war among the Afghans themselves, the
administration has projected that Afghanistan’s security needs could be
met even if the force were cut by up to one-third.
It estimates the cost
of sustaining the reduced force at about $4.1 billion a year, half of
which the United States would provide.
Afghanistan would pay about
President Obama, always generous with the
taxpayers’ money, offered to cover half the costs of the “transition.”
However, the other NATO partners failed to put any money on the table at
Chicago. France said it was pulling its troops out.
NATO, impressive on paper, with its 28 member states and an additional 22
countries in its Partnership for Peace, is totally dependent on U.S. funding
and U.S. military equipment and manpower.
America’s foreign policy elites, as exemplified
most especially by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), have been
laboring for decades to
empower the United Nations with its own global
military, one that could carry out UN mandates without having to seek ad hoc
military coalitions from often-reluctant member states.
For the past two decades, NATO has increasingly
filled this role in,
The one-worlders at the CFR want to go further.
Anne-Marie Slaughter is a
professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and
a former director of policy planning in the Obama/Clinton State Department
(2009-2011). Besides being a member of the CFR, she has served on its board
She is one of the big guns in the CFR opinion
cartel and can be counted on to push relentlessly for treaties and
arrangements that will ever erode American sovereignty and increasingly
subject the United States to “international law” and international
In her syndicated column of May 19 (timed for
the opening of the NATO Summit the next day) entitled, “Globalizing NATO,”
Professor Slaughter signified that
the globalist dream to arm the UN with
its own military is still alive, and NATO is the vehicle to achieve it.
Even skeptics of NATO expansion and
operations like the intervention in Libya now recognize that joint
operations by member countries, operating under a UN mandate and in
conjunction with regional partners, is likely to be a model for the
As General Brent Scowcroft, National
Security Adviser for President George H.W. Bush, observed recently, the
UN Charter originally envisioned a standing military force to enforce
Security Council resolutions - a vision that the NATO partner model
might ultimately realize.
On May 22, Charles A. Kupchan, the CFR’s Whitney
Shepardson Senior Fellow (and a Professor of International Relations at
wrote in his blog on the CFR web site that:
NATO's Chicago summit went more or less
according to plan. The allies agreed upon a timetable and strategy for
winding down the war in Afghanistan…
And the presence at the summit of
more than thirty non-NATO leaders advanced the alliance's commitment to
developing new partnerships and deepening its global engagement.
Prof. Kupchan did not expound in detail in his
blog about the referenced “new partnerships” and “deepening global
However, in his recent testimony before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for its hearing on “NATO: Chicago and
Beyond,” he asserted that,
“NATO should intensify and expand the numerous
programs it already maintains” and initiate new ones.
Here are some of the details he provided at the
Some of the most important security
institutions of the 21st century are likely to be regional ones - such
the Gulf Cooperation Council
the African Union
the Association of
Southeast Asia States
the Union of South American Nations
NATO should be investing in the efficacy of
these regional bodies.
In pursuit of this objective, NATO should intensify and expand the
numerous programs it already maintains to advance these goals,
Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council
and Partnership for Peace: engages 22 European partner countries
in multilateral and bilateral relations with NATO.
Mediterranean Dialogue: engages
Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia
in NATO activities.
Istanbul Cooperation Initiative:
provides training and exchanges with Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and
the United Arab Emirates.
NATO Partners: engages non-NATO
members in NATO operations, including Australia, Japan, South
Korea, New Zealand, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Mongolia.
Support for African Union: provides
NATO assistance to the AU mission in Somalia and to AU
Training Mission in Iraq
(2004-2011): trained Iraq’s armed forces.
In similar vein, CFR Fellow James M. Goldgeier
authored a Special Report for the Council in 2010 entitled,
The Future of NATO.
Goldgeier, who is Dean of the School of International Service at American
University, regularly writes columns favoring greater empowerment of NATO
and the United Nations. He has teamed up in the past with Ivo Daalder (CFR)
co-author some of these columns.
Mr. Daalder now, of course, is President Obama’s
U.S. Permanent Representative on the Council of NATO, a position more
commonly referred to as our “NATO Ambassador.” Before assuming this post,
Daalder was on the staff of Bill Clinton’s National Security Council and
served as an International Affairs Fellow at the CFR.
The internationalists at the Council on Foreign Relations have been pushing
for providing NATO with its own independent, permanent military assets, so
that national politicians responding to war-weary voters will not be able to
stifle the globalist agenda.
That has been partially achieved with adoption
at the Chicago summit of the “smart defense” advocated by Secretary of State
CFR globalists like,
deliriously happy that NATO has gone “out of area,” that is, that it no
longer restricts itself to the North Atlantic (European) area it was formed,
ostensibly, to protect against Soviet aggression.
This is part of NATO’s
“evolution,” of “reinventing itself,” of “finding a new purpose.”
So where does this evolution end? Where does it
Elmo Roper (CFR) explicitly spelled out the globalist vision in a 1960
speech to the Atlantic Union Committee entitled "The Goal is Government of
All the World," which was subsequently published as a pamphlet under the
Roper, who was then treasurer of the AUC,
But the Atlantic Pact (NATO) need not be our
last effort toward greater unity. It can be converted into one more
sound and important step working toward world peace. It can be one of
the most positive moves in the direction of One World.
For it becomes clear that the first step
toward world government cannot be completed until we have advanced on
the four fronts: the economic, the military, the political, and the
Few of the one-worlders speak as candidly as Mr.
Roper did in that speech.
Vice President Joe Biden, however, comes close,
vigorously championing the transformation of NATO’s armed might into the
operational arm of the United Nations.
During the Senate confirmation hearing for
Warren Christopher (CFR), the nominee of President Bill Clinton (CFR) for
Secretary of State, on January 13, 1993, then-Senator Biden
[O]rganizing for collective security - means
strengthening the U.N. by assigning to the Security Council certain
military forces and facilities: a conception unanimously endorsed by
this committee last October. It also means converting NATO into a
military instrument for peacekeeping, and peacemaking, under U.N. or
Sen. Biden went on to invoke Woodrow Wilson and
to endorse Wilson’s radical vision of “world order” under a League of
Nations with its own global army and navy.
Collective security, a multinational
commitment to repel aggression and defend the peace, was the central
precept of Woodrow Wilson's vision. Wilson recognized it as a principle
so essential to world order that he would not yield it in the fight over
the ratification of the Versailles Treaty.
It is the principle that the Senate finally
accepted in 1949 with the advent of NATO, though it took the carnage of
the Second World War to prove Wilson right. And it is that principle we
must now extend, by empowering the U.N. and transforming the Atlantic
Finally, Sen. Biden called for a Wilsonian “new
world order” with “sweeping, visionary change”:
Today we stand at the threshold of this new
world order. I believe the people and governments, in growing numbers
worldwide, recognize what needs to be done.
And I believe the American people are
prepared to see the United States take the lead in engineering sweeping,
As a Senator and as Vice President, Joe Biden
has helped propel that “sweeping, visionary change” forward.
He was visibly elated when NATO went “out of
area” to effect regime change in Libya.
"NATO got it right," he
"In this case, America spent $2 billion and didn't lose a single life. This
is more the prescription for how to deal with the world as we go forward
than it has in the past."
This “prescription” which he enthusiastically endorses (along with President
Obama, Secretary Clinton, and much of the political establishment) is a
prescription for endless illegal wars, fought without the constitutionally
required declaration of war by Congress, that would drain America of her
blood, treasure, and her liberty.