Daniel Taylor, May 4, 2008, Old-Thinker News
All of this will likely sound eerily familiar to followers of current events, or for that matter anyone who lived to see the events of September 11th 2001, its resulting wars, and its truly “revolutionary” effects in the reorganization of government and law. The Bush administration’s signature legislation, the Patriot Act, has infringed on multiple sections of the Bill of Rights and Constitution. Posse Comitatus, which has protected Americans from the military engaging in domestic law enforcement since 1807 was reversed when the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 was passed last year.
The Neoconservatives reign in the United States holds striking similarities to the scenario outlined in the 1994 SSI report. Interestingly, the document clearly stated that, “Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or the other Third World caricatures of the Soviet Union are perfect opponents for a RMA-type [Revolution in Military Affairs] military.”
With this in mind, here are some disturbing and revealing excerpts from the Revolution In Military Affairs And Conflict Short Of War document:
The Revolutionaries’ rise to power
“This series of fiascos [terrorist attacks on the United States at home and abroad] led a small number of American political leaders, senior military officers, and national security experts to conclude that a revolution was needed in the way we approached conflict short of war. They held the Vietnam-inspired doctrine of the 1980s and 1990s directly responsible for these disasters. Only radical innovation, they concluded, could renew U.S. strategy and avoid a slide into global irrelevance.”
“The revolutionaries’ first task was to recruit proselytes throughout the government and national security community. Initially the revolutionaries, who called their new strategic concept “Dynamic Defense,” were opposed by isolationists who felt that new technology should be used simply to build an impenetrable electronic and physical barrier around the United States. Eventually the revolutionaries convinced the president-elect following the campaign of 2000 that Dynamic Defense was both feasible and effective–a task made easier by his background as a pioneering entrepreneur in the computer-generated and controlled “perception-molding” systems developed by the advertising industry. The President was thus amenable to the use of the sort of psychotechnology which formed the core of the RMA in conflict short of war.”
“The first step in implementing Dynamic Defense was reshaping the national security organization and its underlying attitudes and values. Technology provided opportunity; only intellectual change could consolidate it. With the full and active support of the President, the revolutionaries reorganized the American national security system to make maximum use of emerging technology and new ideas.
This loosely reflected the earlier revolution in the world of business, and sought to make the U.S. national security organization more flexible and quicker to react to shifts in the global security environment. The old Cold War structures–the Department of Defense, Department of State, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Council, and others–were replaced by two organizations.”
“This integrated the military, civilian law enforcement, the diplomatic corps, and organizations responsible for gathering and analyzing intelligence. Since so many of the conflicts faced by the United States were “gray area” threats falling somewhere in between traditional military problems and traditional law enforcement problems, the organizational division between the two was abolished.”
“One of the turning points of the revolution came when its leaders convinced the President and key members of Congress that traditional American ethics were a major hindrance to the RMA. This was crucial: the revolutionaries and their allies then crafted the appropriate attitudinal vessel for the RMA. Through persistent efforts and very sophisticated domestic “consciousness-raising,” old-fashioned notions of personal privacy and national sovereignty changed.
This was relatively easy since frustration with domestic crime had already begun to alter attitudes and values. In fact, the RMA in conflict short of war was, in many ways, a spin-off of the domestic “war on drugs and crime” of the late 1990s when the military… became heavily involved in support to domestic law enforcement. The changes in American values that accompanied that struggle were easily translated to the national security arena. Once the norms concerning personal privacy changed, law soon followed.”
“With values changed, technology then opened the door to profound innovation. Vast improvements in surveillance systems and information processing made it possible to monitor a large number of enemies (and potential enemies)… As they advanced into the electronic and bioelectronic era, it was necessary to rethink our ethical prohibitions on manipulating the minds of enemies (and potential enemies) both international and domestic. Cutting-edge pharmaceutical technology also provided tools for national security strategists.”
“All of this reorganization and technological development was simply preface for the full flowering of the revolution in military affairs. American leaders popularized a new, more inclusive concept of national security. No distinction–legal or otherwise–was drawn between internal and external threats. In the interdependent 21st century world, such a differentiation was dangerously nostalgic.”
“The actual strategy built on the RMA was divided into three tracks. The first sought to perpetuate the revolution. Its internal dimension institutionalized the organizational and attitudinal changes that made the revolution possible, and pursued future breakthroughs in close conjunction with business, the scientific community, and local law enforcement agencies — the core troika of the 21st century security. The external dimension actively sought to delay or prevent counterresponses by controlling information and through well-orchestrated deception.”
“The second track consisted of offensive action. Our preference was preemption. In a dangerous world, it was preferable to kill terrorists before they could damage the ecology or strike at the United States… When preemption failed, the United States sought either passive containment where strikes (electronic, psychological, or physical) were used to limit the spread of the deleterious effects of a conflict. For opponents with the ability to harm the United States, the military preemptively destroyed their capabilities.”
“By 2010, the RMA accomplished its desired objectives.”
Operation Cerberus, computer generated insurgents and subliminal conditioning
“Probably the finest hour of the new warriors was the Cuba preemption of 2005–Operation Ceberus.”
“Potential or possible supporters of the insurgency around the world were identified using the Comprehensive Interagency Integrated Database. These were categorized as “potential” or “active,” with sophisticated computerized personality simulations used to develop, tailor, and focus psychological campaigns for each.”
“Individuals and organizations with active predilections to support the insurgency were targets of an elaborate global ruse using computer communications networks and appeals by a computer-generated insurgent leader.”
“Psychological operations included traditional propaganda as well as more aggressive steps such as drug assisted subliminal conditioning.”
“Since all Americans in Cuba had been bioelectrically tagged and monitored during the initial stages of the conflict, the NEO went smoothly…”
“The attitude-shaping campaigns aimed at the American public, the global public, and the Cuban people went quite well, including those parts using computer-generated broadcasts by insurgent leaders–”morphing”– in which they were shown as disoriented and psychotic. Subliminal messages surreptitiously integrated with Cuban television transmissions were also helpful.”
“In fact, all of this was so successful that there were only a few instances of covert, stand-off military strikes when insurgent targets arose and government forces seemed on the verge of defeat. U.S. strike forces also attacked neutral targets to support the psychological campaign as computer-generated insurgent leaders claimed credit for the raids. At times, even the raids themselves were computer-invented ‘recreations.’” [emphasis added]
Resistance beginning to emerge as “The Eagle Movement” rises
“Perhaps most important, Americans are beginning to question the economic, human, and ethical costs of our new strategy. A political movement called the “new Humanitarianism” is growing, especially among Americans of Non-European descent, and seems likely to play a major role in the presidential election of 2012. There are even rumblings of discontent within the national security community as the full meaning of the revolution becomes clear. Since the distinction between the military and non-military components of our national security community has eroded, many of those notionally in the military service have come to feel unbound by traditional notions of civil-military relations. This group has founded a new political party – The Eagle Movement – which is beginning to exert great pressure on the traditional political parties for inclusion in national policymaking. The traditional parties are, to put it lightly, intimidated by the Eagle Movement, and seem likely to accept its demands.” [emphasis added]
Does any of this sound familiar? Could it be that the writers of this paper were alluding to a Military Industrial Complex led coup? President Dwight D. Eisenhower prophetically warned us of the grave danger of misplaced power in his farewell speech on January 17, 1961.
Read the entire Revolution In Military Affairs And Conflict Short Of War document by clicking here