Extending The Axis Of Evil? (admin hawk warns of more preemption)

[Rose Siding]

Some democrats on the Hill claim that they are worried a second Bush Administration may prove more militarily aggressive than the first. One reason: a Democratic official tells TIME that a leading Pentagon hawk recently hinted that the doctrine of pre-emptive war could soon apply to potential new targets. During a private Aug. 19 conference call with Capitol Hill aides from both parties, sources say, senior Pentagon policy official William Luti said there are at least five or six foreign countries with traits that "no responsible leader can allow." An outspoken proponent of the Iraq war, Luti had declared at an October 2002 conference that the U.S. has "the right to ... hold accountable nations that harbor terrorists." In his recent call, Luti did not name the nations he had in mind but said they are led by dictators with weapons-of-mass-destruction programs and close ties to terrorists. His remarks suggest that the Administration is looking well beyond the current "axis of evil," which includes Iran, Iraq and North Korea; this might put countries like Syria in the spotlight. A Pentagon spokesman declined to release a transcript of the call, saying Luti was stating "well-established official policy," not advocating pre-emptive strikes. The U.S., he added, has many other policy options at its disposal. They would presumably include measures like supporting opposition groups in suspect states.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040913-692871,00.html

On his blog, Matt Yglesias asks "Luti and what army?"

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

1. Our military's stretched to the limit as it is.

Could a draft be far behind?

[bemildred]

5. They will need more than a draft.

All those warm bodies have to be trained and supplied.

We have shortages up the wazoo as it is, and all this high-tech
shit cannot be pumped out in large quantities on short notice.
If we are short of bullets, how do you think we are doing on
fancy stuff?

While Iraq and Afghanistan are still hot it will be hard to do
much else. Assuming the money printing presses don't break down
or something.

We are already cannibalizing force commitments elsewhere in the
World and some of the other global commands (e.g. SouthCom) are
feeling lonely and left out.

[Scooter24]

12. News of the draft has hit colleges as well.

I've read somewhere a few weeks ago that there is a sharp decrease in enrollment in Middle Eastern language and culture classes. Obviously, students don't want to be known as that 21 year-old that knows Arabic or Farsi. It was referencing the news reports of the "special skills" draft.

[bemildred]

15. That is another question I have no answer for.

If they institute a draft, what level of resistance will
happen? Draft resistance was one of the things that ended
VietNam. How it would play out this time is hard to tell.
It would look really tacky politically if large numbers
started leaving or going to jail rather than fight the
governments stupid little wars. If the government has to
devote large resources to enforcement, it will do not good,
in the end the draft as the income tax require voluntary
compliance to work.

[Oggy]

20. Over here in the UK

The courses that have been affected downwards are American Studies, for similar reasons. Middle Eastern history and cultural courses are now more favoured. See this article from the Independent,

<snip>

The growth in popularity of Middle Eastern studies comes after it was revealed that many universities still had vacancies on American studies courses as people shied away from courses that might label them pro-US in the wake of the war in Iraq.

Last week, 28 universities still had American studies places unfilled, according to a report. They included places at Essex, Keele, Kent and Swansea.

<more>

http://education.independent.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=556772

[Rose Siding]

14. There will have to be another attack

As Goebbels taught, the people never want to go to war but can always be conned into it if they're convinced they are under attack.

[bemildred]

16. Well, certainly. But that isn't enough.

If Iran staged an attack it would not somehow enable them
to invade and conquer the USA. You have the have the means.
Our means are finite. This is not to say these morons might
not order it to be done, insulated power elites do amazing things.
I'm just saying that, as in Iraq, they will say all sorts of things
and then be shown to have their head up their asses.

[Eloriel]

29. Bemildred, you forget about our nuclear arsenal

That's my fear. Of COURSE our troops are stretched to the limit. BUt yet the PNACers continue on their merry imperialistic way, with George Bush&TheGang in tow. They know they've got a draft planned, but is that enough? Not for the whole wide world. Which brings up Missile Defense, of course -- controlling the world from space.

[bemildred]

32. Nukes will not do the job.

There are at least three problems with nukes:

1.) They cannot take and hold territory, they can only interdict it.
2.) They make a really big mess.
3.) The US provides a far richer field of suitable targets for
Nuclear strikes than Iraq or most any other nation, and we are
safely on the other side of the ocean. It would be utter folly to
motivate other nuclear capable nations to consider whether we need
to be removed. All those cargo containers, etc. Finding the nuke
once it's in the harbor is no help, see? There is essentially no
way to stop it short of blowing up anything that comes within a
few hundred miles of the shore, and that will not stop the radiation.
Once you use a nuke there is no going back.

---

Nukes are essentially a terror weapon, good only for blackmail or
deterrence. To nuke Iraq to suppress the resistance (aside from
the psychotic aspects) is swatting flies with a sledgehammer, a
confession of weakness, and stupid on the order of the guy that
shoots his wife and kids and then himself because she is leaving him.

Nukes are incompatible with conventional arms, it would be hard to
protect our people if we nuked Iraq, not to mention all that
radioactive oil.

You cannot achieve any of the objectives of the war via nukes. If
you could, we would have seen them used much more prominently the
last 60 years.

[bemildred]

34. Big explosions.

This issue comes up now and then WRT MOAB and other initiatives
to make really big explosions. There is a basic stupidity about
these things. It has long since ceased to be the problem in these
little wars that we cannot make a big enough explosion, that is not
the problem, we can turn it all into rubble, and bounce the rubble
around, and the resistance will still be there in the rubble waiting
for us. You cannot successfully defeat an unconventional enemy using
conventional arms. It's like using a hammer to remove a screw. You
would think these *&^^%$ would get it by now.

[atreides1]

36. Pre-Emption isn't only usable by the US

They already have targets not that far away, it's a good guess that Iranian SSM's are already targeted at US positions in Iraq. Think about it, in one attack they can take out almost all of the forces on the ground in Iraq. And does anyone doubt that the Iranians don't already know the positions of the navy ships in the Gulf, and let's not forget that the HQ of the US 5th Fleet is just down the road in Bahrain, and CENTCOM is located in Qatar.

The Iranians are reported to have a professional military, and have been making purchases of arms and equipment from the Russians. And the Iranians have stated that a pre-emptive attack is not the sole right of the US.

How long would it take to rebuild ground forces, if the troops on the ground in Iraq are destroyed. And this would allow the insurgents in Iraq to rise up and take out the rest.

And if the US attacks Iran, don't count on the coalition of the willing to tag along, none of them signed up for WWIII.

The US will have no allies left, no one will turn on the US, but they won't be helping either. They will all sit on the side and watch
as we allow the neo-cons to destroy the US.

[bemildred]

37. I used Iran as an example, a poor choice I now see.

I was pointing out that we lack the means to fight a war with
Iran, Syria, etc., so we agree, I believe. I think Iran could
give a rather good account of itself. But why should they intervene
when we are attriting ourselves at no cost to them? "Let Uncle Sugar
wrestle that tarbaby as long as he wants to", I would be thinking if
I was them.

[SOS]

49. Your correct analysis won't impact their decision to attack Iran....

From New York Times 9/6/04

" The Pentagon civilians, led by Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, and Douglas J. Feith, the undersecretary for policy, were among the first in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks to urge military action to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, an approach favored by Aipac and Israel.
The group has also advocated that the Bush administration adopt a more aggressive policy toward Iran, and some of its members have quietly begun to argue for regime change in Tehran.
To Israel, Iran represents a grave threat to its national security. Pushing the United States to adopt a tougher line on Tehran is one of its major foreign policy objectives, and Aipac has lobbied the Bush administration to support Israel's policies."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/06/politics/06spy.html

[Zorra]

21. But the PNAC says that cost in blood and money is not a consideration.

The entire object of the Bu$h administration is to accomplish PNAC goals of using the US as a worldwide police force in order to protect transnational corporate holdings throughout the globe and to insure that no sovereign state refuses to submit to the dictates of the "New World Order" which will be characterized by central global corporate governance.

Basically, Bu$h and the PNAC intend, (somewhatlike Hitler tried to do), to establish a fascist totalitarian global empire through the use of pre-emptive military aggression.

The cost of global dominance to Americans and the rest of the people in the world, in blood and money, is irrelevant to Bu$h and the PNAC, as they place no value on human life, or the comfort, liberty, or security of individual human beings. Our lives, our bodies, our labor, and our resources are, to the PNAC, tools to be used to achieve their goal of protecting their own wealth. That's why they don't care how many people they kill, or how deeply our nation goes into debt.

They consider us their slaves, to be used as they see fit.

PNAC Statement of Principles - June 3, 1997
snip-------
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

[bemildred]

23. Correct. But Hitler got pounded flat.

Maybe that is a hint for us.

[TheFarseer]

2. Due up next

Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Indonesia am I missing any? Remember only countries with oil.

Almost forgot Libya

[lastknowngood]

4. Venezuela!

n/t

[bemildred]

7. Equatorial Guinea and vicinity. nt

[Smarmie Doofus]

11. Add Cuba because...

the far right has never gotten over Castro and invading and reimposing caudillo-style capitalism has been a geopolitical wet dream of their's for decades.

Who and what is going to stop them?


Paul

[clydefrand]

3. I believe he will do anything!!!

We will be at war if he is reinstated.

[Yavin4]

6. Bush Will Have To Go To War

because the economy will completely collapse under a Bush second term, and the only way that he'll be able to hold onto power in the congress is to go to war again.

[DulceDecorum]

13. Read up on Thomas Barnett

Barnett’s lexicon is laden with pop culture terms, not the acronyms common at the Pentagon. In his view of the world, the bad guys are in “the Gap,” and the good guys belong to “the Core.”
<snip>
At the Pentagon, Barnett laid out his view of the post-Cold War world: The biggest threats against the United States come from developing countries left behind by globalization — which he calls the Gap.
<snip>
The post-attack Pentagon was much more receptive to his ideas, said Barnett, who spent two years as assistant for strategic futures in the Office of Force Transformation before returning to the Naval War College last year. In fact, Barnett says, his Core-Gap ideas help explain what the Pentagon is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Echoes of Barnett’s ideas can be heard when Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld says terrorists don’t have armies, navies or air forces or when his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, says a democratic Iraq will serve as an example for the rest of the Middle East.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5014127/

In other words,
Barnett wants the US to attack developing nations for the sheer heck of it.

"America now has, for all practical purposes, a Department of War and a Department of Everything Else," writes Barnett. In his view, the US leviathan needs to be ready to strike into the gap with overwhelming force (as in Iraq) and lead a multinational process of rebuilding that creates opportunities for the affected country to join the core. This latter role, what Barnett calls System Administrator, is the most difficult for the US military to accept.

Barnett's book forces a rethinking of the current debate on the Iraq war. It encourages one to give up convenient but petty ideas that President Bush declared war on Saddam Hussein to settle old scores for his father or that his evangelical Christian views have drawn the US into a foreign policy "quagmire." And it forces one to recognize that preemption and unilateralism are not new in US foreign policy.

America's current action in Iraq is the grandest foreign- aid project since the Marshall Plan - something Democrats had called for over the decades for other parts of the world. Why not in the Middle East? Barnett asks. Anyone looking for a vision of how the new American Empire can be better than its predecessors may well find it here.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0810/p17s01-bogn.html

Foreign aid?
Iraq?
American Empire?
Go read up on Thomas Barnett.

[Eloriel]

30. More about Thomas P. Barnett

He was apparently on C-Span real recently, and a couple of DUers fell for his shit.

I found somebody more evil than Cheney. Thomas Barnett........
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2312822

Here's a link to his Esquire article (also linked to in the above thread), which I couldn't read much of, but the first few grafs say enough:
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm

And here's his weblog:
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/

Anybody feel like looking up if he's a PNACer?

[DulceDecorum]

8. The Rapture

can only be achieved
after MILLIONS have died in the streets
and the house
that Solomon reputedly built with the assistance of demons,
is raised up again
so that the blood sacrifices may begin.

[Nimrod]

9. This stuff scares the living hell out of me

I am no longer finding the prospect of WWIII completely improbable. I'm seriously starting to think that we're purposefully heading in that direction. Right now my anxiety closet is crammed full of New World Orders and Global Corporate Empires created under the pretense of spreading democracy.

Chances are good I'm too old and fat for the draft. But if were looking at the third BIG one and/or a state of emergency is declared, who the hell knows?

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. This is an UTTERLY realistic possibility and...

the obvious response is that Kerry should call Bush on this. Whether or not the US should go into Iran, Venezuela, etc. is something that should be debated NOW. That's what presidential campaigns are supposed to be about: public debate about what direction the citizenry want to see the gov't take.

If the Bush administration felt confident enough to launch a war of aggression in term 1... without even a plurality of the popular vote.. think of what they will do in term two, when and if, they have dispensed with Mr. Kerry.

I can't see this as a bad issue for Kerry as even the "udecideds" are unenthusiastic about the Iraq war. Stands to reason that they will be even less enthusiastic about further expansionism.

Also, bringing it up now... the prospect of further Republican "preemptive" wars in term 2.... might have the effect of hamstringing implementation of these plans in terms 2 since Bush, et al will probably have to at least go on the record as denying them.

Makes it somewhat more difficult to implement in term 2; not IMPOSSIBLE, but more difficult.


Paul

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

17. Why do I get the feeling that WWIII is on the way?

Except it would probably be us against everyone else this time, given that we've pissed off most of our allies

[Bonobo]

18. Policy of "Pre-emption" is exactly where Kerry campaign should strike!

Even the common man is frightened with this idea. Commercials should slam Shrub hard for this ahistorical policy. I think it would work.

[Eloriel]

35. Oh, c'mon. You don't hear ANY Democrats saying that our

policy of pre-emption is wrong. Not a one. They all VOTED for that policy when they voted for the Iraq War Resolution.

I was actually thinking earlier to day about this problem. Where are the Dems on this pivotal, critical issue? Silent, as always.

So anyway, dream on, but you won't hear Kerry dissing pre-emption. :shrug:

[coalition_unwilling]

52. Words like "pre-emption" mean nothing anymore, I'm afraid

When the Bush administration says it favors a policy of 'pre-emptive war', it does so because pre-emptive war is allowed under international law under certain circumstances, e.g. the nation facing the threat of imminent attack from another nation.

What the Bush administration means when it says it favors a policy of 'pre-emptive war' is actually 'preventative war', i.e., going to war against a nation before it can develop the potential to attack us. This was the rationale used by Hitler and decisively rejected by the Nuremburg Tribunal. In other words, what Bush calls "pre-emptive war" is actually "preventative war" and thereby a war crime.

Do you really expect to see John "I'd still vote to give him autohority knowing what I know now" Kerry come out and accuse Bush of war crimes?

[Nordic]

19. Hm, General Clark said this a year ago

and the media's acting like this is new news.

"four more wars" is NOT a joke

[Snellius]

22. You and what army?

There is no American army left. They're calling up the Guard to run shotgun on truck convoys. They're putting highly trained specialists on guard duty in Baghdad. We're helpless without either universal conscription or a retreat from Iraq.

[Hornito]

24. This is not new. It's all part of the PNAC/neocon/Israeli fascist

plan. Luti one of the neonazicons, right along with Perle, Feith, Abrams, Libby, Wolfowitz, et al. All are dual-loyalist traitors, and as fascist as can be. Unless we get these people out of the Pentagon, our nation will be constantly at war. It's all about Israel, and oil.

If this country were a truly functioning democracy, this group would be quickly rounded up, charged with treason, tried, convicted, and dispatched at the earliest opportunity.

[acmavm]

25. Anyone know how many people in the completely screwed up

administration have kids old enough to be in the military? Any names (beside Barbara and Jenna who would only be able to stupid the enemy to death)? Because I damn well want their kids on the front lines with everyone else's when they try to pull any more of this pre-emptive crap. In fact, this (to me) needs to be a big issue. Start with the kids of the bush administration and work you way through the kids of Ken Lay, the Halliburton board's kids, and the rest of them. It it time for these clowns to start sharing the burdens that they expect everyone else to bear for the insane dreams of empire and domination. Democracy doesn't have one damn thing to do with it.

[The Stranger]

26. Can the FBI save the country?

Can the investigation of the Pentagon currently being thwarted save the country?

[Rose Siding]

27. Ashcroft has already intervened to slow it down

We can't know if there is enough rule of law left to get the job done.

[NeoConsSuck]

28. Luti's name turns up on all these sites..

The Israeli-Pentagon Spy Case:
http://www.rense.com/general56/supreb.htm

One of the originators of the 'Weapons of Mass Deception':

Highlights & Quotes

William J. Luti, the controversial deputy undersecretary of defense and die-hard supporter of the war in Iraq, became a nationally known figure in early 2003 after the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh published a story about Luti's intelligence work in the Office of Special Plans (OSP), a secretive Pentagon outfit whose players included Douglas Feith and Abram Shulsky. According to Hersh's expose, Luti and his OSP cohorts were charged with digging up intelligence on Iraq that would support the administration's arguments for going to war.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/luti/luti.php


And at CommonDreams, we have:
Pentagon Office Home to Neo-Con Network
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0807-02.htm

This is one guy I hope makes a trip to Iraq and the insurgents grab him.

[milkyway]

31. Four More Wars!

[TahitiNut]

33. Is "LUTI" short for "LUnaTIc"?

Is he the demon spawn of Dr. Strangelove?

[jayctravis]

38. we're a country...

led by a dictator with weapons of mass-destruction (related production programs) with close ties to terrorists with traits that "no responsible leader" could allow.

Are we going to "pre-emptively strike" ourselves?

No wonder the rest of the world hates us.

[PurityOfEssence]

39. Israel will provide troops to crush Syria, Russia might help with Iran

Venezuela is obviously a tasty morsel, but it's hard to paint that up as anything short of naked oily aggression.

What express pomposity: "...that no responsible leader can allow."

By the good graces of George W. Bush, thou art allowed to exist or not. Peon.

[MisterP]

41. Russia's selling fresh new anti-air systems to Iran

[MisterP]

42. don't worry; they're raving about Castro and naroturrsts and how

he's an al-Qaeda hiding tyrant. Kerry seems to be playing along with the narcoturrst line.

[sweetheart]

40. what is barbarrosa?

Wow, how impressive of the fratboy pukes. A new plan to create a
whole new front to test new weapons and refine their war skills.

[disneyboy]

43. Leaving U.S.

Is finding housing in Vancouver easy? and how is it there?

[sweetheart]

46. so much depends on intent

I'm sure vancouver suits fine (buy a rain coat). :-)

There is housing there, are you ready to make the jump?

(scotland is a bit further afield)

[bemildred]

44. German invasion of Russia, WWII. nt

[sweetheart]

45. Yes, ... a jepardy answer

It was the invasion that broke the 3rd reich... and these new
planned wars are the invasion that will break the 4th.

[bemildred]

47. Not a very obvious analogy, but better than you might think

after one considers it for a while.

[saigon68]

48. kick

[RobinA]

50. I'm Not Buying

more war. The military is busy elsewhere. A draft? Not going to happen. Ma and Pa Boomer sending little Jason off to some preemptive war zone? Unlikely.

The Bushistas may WANT more war, but realty will catch up with them.

[olddad56]

51. more war?

I'm wondering why the Kerry campaign doesn't use the threat of more wars to their advantage. Rather than allowing the focus to be on his service in Vietnam, and Dubya's war in Iraq, why isn't Kerry focusing on what Bush will try to do if he is re-elected. I don't think that the American people want more unjustified preemptive wars that we can't win.