Quadrennial Defense Review 2006
There exist already so many articles discussing the new Quadrennial Defense Review Report. So, I will just look at some parts which are very striking.
On page 2 of the 2006 edition of the Quadrennial Defense Review Report it is written that “The Department welcomes other viewpoints and innovative proposals from the Congress, allies, and others that build upon these ideas or provide preferable alternatives.”
Based on this suggestion let us make our viewpoints on some arguments indicated in the Review. The Review points out that the US and its allies “liberated more than 50 million Afghans and Iraqis from despotism, terrorism and dictatorship, permitting the first free elections in the recorded history of either nation.”
It will clearly not stop there as indicated later on in the Review that “With its allies and partners, the United States must be prepared to wage this war in many locations simultaneously and for some years to come.”
If the aim were really democracy and liberation why then it talks about “They [US military] protect and advance U.S. interests and values. They are often asked to be protectors of the peace and providers of relief. They are a force for good.”
I really wander whether they really believe what they say.
But I must admit that the people who prepared the Review must be very funny and/or very old pals. See what they say about terrorists on Page 21: “They exploit the Internet as a cyber-sanctuary, which enables the transfer of funds and the crosstraining of geographically isolated cells. They use cell phones and text messaging to order attacks and detonate car bombs. They send pre-recorded video messages to sympathetic media outlets to distribute their propaganda “free of charge” and to spread their ideology of hate.” What do they expect actually? They should write a letter to each other or better use smog techique like American Indians did? Come on, don’t they realise that even 4 year old kids use ineternet and mobile phones.
O.K. Let’s get a bit serious. Here is a passage from Page 29:
“Internationally, the United States welcomes Russia as a constructive partner but views with increasing concern its sales of disruptive weapons technologies abroad and actions that compromise the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of other states.”
But “U.S. defense firms looked to capitalize on Gulf states’ unabated need for sophisticated new military equipment at the Dubai air show November 22, 2005 with Washington hoping such sales will reinforce strategic alliances.” says an article on DefenseNews website. Did the US military personal go to Dubai to see the new Ski slopes there?
In fact, a better question is why the best customers of the US in terms of Foreign Military Sales are the ones that are not considered free, democratic or by the State Department?
Now, on Page 30 of the QDR2006: “The United States encourages China to take actions to make its intentions clear and clarify its military plans.”
Oh really, our old pals have forgotten that it is in fact the US that has over 130 military bases worldwide and also the largest in terms of military expenditures!
And on the same page another neat paragraph:
“The United States will work to ensure that all major and emerging powers are integrated as constructive actors and stakeholders into the international system. It will also seek to ensure that no foreign power can dictate the terms of regional or global security. It will attempt to dissuade any military competitor from developing disruptive or other capabilities that could enable regional hegemony or hostile action against the United States or other friendly countries, and it will seek to deter aggression or coercion.”
Our old pals also watch a lot of Western Movies. You know guys, John Wayne is dead.
And yes, history repeats itself:
“Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities, support for terrorism, and threatening statements about regional neighbors raise similar concerns about its intentions. Iran is rapidly developing long-range delivery systems and a full nuclear fuel cycle that would enable it to produce nuclear weapons.”
They were saying the similar sentence in which Iran was replaced with Iraq.
The old pals also watched too much “Star Treck” old generation.
“In the event of a conflict, WMD-armed states could use their weapons against the United States or its allies preemptively, during conflict or to slow follow-on stabilization efforts.”
But the old pals have already forgotten the answer to the one dollar question. Who used preemptive strikes in the near and old past?
But I must admit that they like challenges. A fancy title of the chapter on Page 63 reads “RESHAPING THE DEFENSE ENTERPRISE”
Or actualy they really meant DEFENSE EMPIRE?