F. William Engdahl, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order. Baton Rouge, LA: Third Millennium Press, 2009, 256 pages, $24.95.
If you believe that the term “American Empire” refers only to our nation’s illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and our unconditional support for Israeli terrorism against the Palestinians, then you are seriously misinformed concludes F. William Engdahl in his new book entitled Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order. Engdahl convincingly argues that since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the “deliberate and unflinching policy” of the U.S. government has been and still is to “systematically and relentlessly pursue nuclear primacy (unilateral assured destruction) and the capacity for absolute, global military dominance, what the Pentagon calls Full Spectrum Dominance.”
The Pentagon has engineered and implemented an incredible plan to take control of not only the entire planet but the universe as well including land, sea, air, space, outer space and cyberspace. Not content with 1,000 military bases in 153 countries the Pentagon plan includes propaganda and media control, use of NGOs for regime change, Color Revolutions to advance NATO eastwards, and a vast array of psychological and economic warfare techniques.
Strongly influenced by Sir Halford Mackinder, the father of British geopolitics, and Polish-American Cold Warrior Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Pentagon has pursued an obsessive compulsive policy aimed at controlling Russia and China at all cost. Wherever the Pentagon raises its ugly head oil, natural gas, and related pipelines are nearly always an issue. It’s all about the control of global supplies of hydrocarbons, minerals, and other natural resources. Anyone who does not believe in the problem of “peak oil” should examine our foreign policy.
Three nonviolent U.S. led revolutions which proved to be more successful than our ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan were Serbia’s coup, Georgia’s Rose Revolution, and Ukraine’s Orange Revolution. Tibet’s Crimson Revolution, Myanmar’s Saffron Revolution, and the abortive attempt to oust Hugo Chavez in Venezuela were not so successful. The U.S. government has, in effect, perfected a number of sophisticated techniques for “democratically” getting rid of any opponent, “while convincing the world that they were brought down by spontaneous outbursts of freedom.” Truly an insidious weapon.
The 2000 coup in Belgrade which brought down Slobodan Milosevic was the first to make extensive use of the Internet according to Engdahl—“particularly its chat rooms, instant messaging, and blog sites—along with cell phones and text-messaging.” Armed only with this technology, “a handful of trained leaders could rapidly steer rebellious and suggestible ‘Generation X’ youth in and out of mass demonstrations at will.”
Engdahl points out that the principal architect behind much of this madness is 87-year-old defense strategist Andrew Marshall, who sits in the Pentagon and tells others what to do, including people like Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz. “As a group, Andrew Marshall’s protégés formed the most powerful military lobby in the US policy establishment in the first years of the 21st Century. They advocated radical force transformation, deployment of anti-missile defense, unilateral pre-emptive aggression, and militarization of space in order to use the US military to achieve for the United States and its closest allies, total domination of the planet as well as outer space. It was perhaps the most dangerous group of ideologues in United States history.”
“Among Marshall’s pet military projects were various precision weapons, including robotic devices, unmanned vehicles for sky, land, and undersea, as well as smaller devices that could change urban warfare by being able to crawl through buildings. Marshall was also intrigued by pharmaceutical companies that were experimenting with neurological manipulations.”
Other examples of Marshall’s so-called Revolution in Military Affairs are evinced in the unrest fomented in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan, not to mention NATO’s threat to seize China’s oil fields to stop genocide in Darfur. U.S. recognition of the mafia-controlled state of Kosovo is more of the same. And then there is the U.S. Africa Command known as AFRICOM created to limit China’s influence in Africa.
Wherever the U.S. government is engaged in “spontaneous” political change (regime change), a half dozen or so government-backed NGOs are not far behind including the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, Albert Einstein Institution, Soros Open Society Foundations, the National Democratic Institute, and the National Republican Institute.
It does not take much imagination to see the heavy hand of the Revolution in Military Affairs in Honduras when the Chavez-supported President Manual Zelaya was recently overthrown by a military coup or in Tehran where protesters have been calling for the resignation of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Full Spectrum Dominance is one of the scariest, most depressing, most compelling books on geopolitics I have ever read. The political philosophy which it describes was embraced by Presidents Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2. As Engdahl correctly notes, there is little evidence to suggest that President Barack Obama would change anything about this truly evil paradigm other than its manner of presentation. The only change which Obama represents is a change in style—not content.
Like my friend Gerald Celente, Bill Engdahl is one of the best geopolitical economists in the world. His grasp of the complex interdependencies linking the global economy, petroleum, the dollar, gold, and geopolitics is virtually without equal. Yet he leaves his readers suspended in mid air at the end of his book with the rather trivial conclusion that if we are to survive, full spectrum dominance must end. That’s not a terribly useful piece of information. It would have been much more useful to explore the highly probable collapse of the Empire or perhaps its peaceful dissolution.
Although Engdahl has written a brilliant book, it is one of the most poorly edited books I have ever read. One can only hope that the book enjoys sufficient success to attract a commercial publisher who will purchase the rights, edit it, and republish it for an even larger audience.
Thomas H. Naylor
August 1, 2009