by Devon DB


from GlobalResearch Website






Part 1

Dawn of a New Century
July 2, 2011



The American Empire came into full being after its main rival, the Soviet Union, collapsed.


The U.S. then found itself as the world’s sole military and economic superpower. With this new found position in the world, America could have used its power to help those in need and aid in global security.


However, the events of 9/11 changed all of this and the U.S. went from a once proud, powerful, law-abiding nation, to what it is today:

a declining empire that is virtually bankrupt and has moved from using diplomacy to a “might makes right” mindset (as can be shown from its current engagement in multiple wars across the world in order to maintain its global empire), as well as trying to make sure that new powers, such as China, do not threaten its dominance.

This series is an examination of how this downfall took place, how the U.S. strayed from its original military, economic, and foreign policy plans to become an empire in decline, from the 1990s to the present day, ending with an analysis what may lay in the future for the Empire.







During the Cold War, the U.S. had had troops stationed all over the world, from Europe to Asia.


Its military doctrine consisted of a policy of containing the Soviets and battling the “Communist threat” where ever it was. Battling the “Communist threat” meant (either directly or indirectly) overthrowing leftist governments in Latin America, Asia, and Europe or supporting right-wing death squads, as was seen in Latin America (some of these coups led to the massacre of innocent civilians).


Despite this, it seemed that after the Soviet Union fell, the U.S. was going to change its military doctrine.

Even though the U.S. was now the world’s unrivaled superpower, it still planned to,

“devote the necessary resources to military, diplomatic, intelligence and other efforts” [1] to maintain its global leadership position and also wanted to “shape the international environment through a variety of means, including diplomacy, economic cooperation, international assistance, arms control and nonproliferation, and health initiatives”[2] to establish and keep the new status quo.

In shaping this new world, American planned for diplomacy to play a major role. The thinking was that diplomacy was “essential” to ensuring that U.S. interests were met, sustaining alliances, averting global crises/solving regional conflicts, and ensuring global economic stability.


“Preventive” diplomacy would play a major role in helping to solve potential conflicts before they blew up. The military would only be put into play as a last resort.


Military force would only be used if it would,

“advance U.S. interests,” was “likely to accomplish [its] objectives”, “the costs and risks of their employment [were] commensurate with the interests at stake,” and “other non-military means are incapable of achieving [U.S.] objectives.” [3]

Thus, with the collapse of the Soviets, the U.S. plan was to shape a new world order in which they would lead, yet diplomacy would take the lead in shaping this new order instead of military might.


The reason for this was two-fold. The U.S. had already spent $13 trillion on defense spending during the entirety of the Cold War [4] and using diplomacy on a regional and international level would allow it to cut back on defense expenditures. Also by using diplomacy, it would give nations the illusion that they were on equal footing with the U.S., when in reality, if the diplomacy failed, the U.S. may decide that the conditions had been met for them to use military force in order to “advance U.S. interests.”


It was, in a way, following Theodore Roosevelt’s advice of speaking softly, but carrying a big stick.

America was also changing its nuclear defense policy.


America had “reduced [its] nuclear stockpile, through both the START I cuts and reciprocal unilateral initiatives” [5] as well as did the following under the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiative:

  • Eliminate[d] [its] entire inventory of ground-launched non-strategic nuclear weapons (nuclear artillery and LANCE surface-to-surface missiles)

  • Remove[d] all non-strategic nuclear weapons on a day-to-day basis from surface ships, attack submarines, and land-based naval aircraft bases

  • Remove[d] [its] strategic bombers from alert

  • S[tood] down the Minuteman II ICBMs scheduled for deactivation under START I

  • Terminate[d] the mobile Peacekeeper and mobile Small ICBM programs

  • Terminate[d] the SRAM-II nuclear short-range attack missile [6]

In addition to this, the U.S. took further steps in 1992.


Due to the second Presidential Nuclear Initiative (PNI II), the U.S. was,

“limiting B-2 production to 20 bombers; canceling the entire Small ICBM program; ceasing production of W-88 Trident SLBM warheads; halting purchases of advanced cruise missiles; and stopping new production of Peacekeeper missiles.” [7]

Due to decreasing the number of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon transporters, the U.S. government saved a large amount of money and still ensured that it would have nuclear first-strike capability for quite some time.

Overall, the United States was lowering its guard not only due to the collapse of its main rival, but also due to financial concerns and its plans to reshape the world.



Near the turn of the century, new economic thought was being brought up, namely globalization.


Globalization was only but another step in the transformation of capitalism that would allow corporations to move capital and people on a global scale and therefore cut costs and increase profits. By pushing this new economic thought, governments were able to push the thinking that a more inter-connected society was good not only for corporations, but for people as well, while ignoring the problems globalization would bring.

Globalization was defined as,

“the process of moving toward a world in which we produce, distribute, sell, finance, and invest without regard to national boundaries.” [8]

By disregarding national boundaries, it would allow for corporations to,

“also gain access to new sources of raw materials and intermediate inputs, and to lower-cost locations for assembly operations that use unskilled labor.” [9]

This would allow for U.S. companies to move in and have their way in the third-world without the CIA or the U.S. military having to engage in regime change (either covertly or overtly).


U.S. corporations would also more stability as a corporation that,

“operates in many countries will find that recessions and booms in the many markets in which it operates are likely to be out of sync,” [10] thus they will be able to move people and capital to the locations which are doing well.

However, while this shifting of people and capital across the world would create benefits for corporations, it would bring about problems for workers.

"As with the relocation of manufacturing in the U.S., globalization generates some of its gains by allowing - or sometimes forcing - relocation of production. Not everyone benefits. Just as relocation of manufacturing from Pennsylvania to South Carolina generates losers as well as winners, so does globalization." [11]

Even when globalization was first being discussed, it was acknowledged that it,

“contributed to the decline in real wages of those with few skills and little education.” [12]

What this meant for the U.S. was that it would experience the death of the working class as jobs would be shipped overseas.


When this subject was bought up, proponents of globalization would argue that,

“In the process of shifting resources, some production facilities are abandoned and some workers suffer unemployment. They do not share the gains, at least not immediately.” [13]

As we now know, those who are unemployed due to offshoring/outsourcing rarely, if ever, “share in the gains” of globalization. It was not meant to benefit the working class, but rather corporate greed.

Another factor that was ignored by proponents of globalization is that foreign economic shocks have more of an effect on the U.S. economy.


As Edward G. Boehne, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, said to the World Affairs Council of Greater Valley Forge:

An economic slowdown in Europe or Asia, for example, has a bigger effect on the U.S. economy now than it did when exports and imports were smaller relative to GDP. And greater international financial linkages mean that the U.S. financial sector is more exposed to foreign financial shocks than used to be the case. [14]

The U.S. economy and the global economy at large, would be put more at risk due to there being greater interconnectedness.


However, despite these risks, globalization was endorsed by the U.S. and the effects have been seen in the form of the decimation of the American economy [15] and also the global economy at large was put more at risk, all for the sake of corporate profits.


NATO Alliance

After the Cold War, it seemed that the NATO alliance had lost its reason for existing.


Western Europe was no longer under the threat of Communist takeover, thus NATO’s mission had been a success. However, NATO, instead of disbanding or keeping a stable membership, decided to go on an era of expansion which continues to this day.

After the Soviet Union collapsed, there was some debate for a short while as to what NATO would do, now that it no longer had an enemy, yet in 1990 NATO,

“began its adaptation from a Cold War institution to a modern instrument of North Atlantic and European security, revising strategy and restructuring force posture to reflect the changed European security environment and the disappearance of the Soviet threat.” [16]

This force restructure consisted of maintaining,

“an adequate military capability and clear preparedness to act collectively in the common defence remain central to the Alliance's security objectives.” [17]

NATO also integrated even deeper into Europe.


The alliance’s 1999 Strategic Concept stated:

The European Allies have taken decisions to enable them to assume greater responsibilities in the security and defence field in order to enhance the peace and stability of the Euro-Atlantic area and thus the security of all Allies.


On the basis of decisions taken by the Alliance, in Berlin in 1996 and subsequently, the European Security and Defence Identity will continue to be developed within NATO. This process will require close cooperation between NATO, the WEU and, if and when appropriate, the European Union. [18]

This further integration with Europe would greatly serve U.S. interests in the future as it would aid the U.S. in dominating all of Europe and the Mediterranean (currently a nation that wants to join the EU, must first join NATO). [19]


Also, by having the European Security and Defence Identity continue its development within NATO, it would allow the U.S. to make sure that European defense arrangements were subordinate to U.S. interests.

When NATO expansion was bought up there was a battle between the White House and the Pentagon as then-President Bill Clinton was interested in expanding NATO yet the Pentagon was against it, and with good reason as there were several problems with NATO expansion. Clinton was quite interested in NATO serving U.S. interests.


In a letter to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, he stated that,

“Europe has changed dramatically over the past decade and NATO must also adapt if it is to continue to serve our interests in the future as well as it has done in the past.” [20]

In an question and answer session with the Senate, Bill Clinton argued for NATO expansion by making Russia into a bogeyman, saying that expansion would,

“make NATO more effective in meeting its core mission: countering aggression against its member states,” “help guard against non-traditional security threats from outside Europe that threaten NATO members, such as the spread of weapons of mass destruction and long-range delivery systems,” and that NATO “must be prepared for other contingencies, including the possibility that Russia could abandon democracy and return to the threatening behavior of the Soviet period.” [21]

All of the arguments are aimed at Russia, to keep alive the idea of Russian aggression.


However, Russia being a threat was near impossible as they were going through was going through the IMF’s “shock therapy” and the entire nation was hurting. By pushing for the expansion of NATO, the Clinton Administration was also pushing for U.S.-NATO involvement in the religious, ethnic, and other conflicts of central Europe.


When questioned on this, President Clinton responded that NATO,

“will make such disputes less likely and increase the chances that they will be peacefully resolved” [22] as states would have to resolve their disputes before they could join the alliance and that “There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that current Central and East European disputes are more deep-rooted or violent than, say, past disputes between France and Germany.” [23]

However, there was a major difference as the conflicts in central Europe were based on “border, ethnic, nationalist, and religious disputes,” where the populace of states were fractured and stayed within their own groups.


The disputes between France and Germany, on the other hand, were between two states whose people were homogeneous in the sense that they all saw themselves as being French or German.

There were also economic concerns that were bought up.


The Administration reported to Congress in February 1997, that the,

“United States would pay only 15 percent of the direct enlargement costs, with the new members paying 35 percent of the bill, and the current (non-U.S.) members paying 50 percent.” [24]

When the Senate asked if new or current members would pay that amount and would this cost-sharing plan be part of negotiations, Clinton responded that each country would pay the upkeep of its own military, yet enhancements would be 40% nationally-funded and 60% NATO-funded (or “common-funded”).


Of the NATO-funded costs,

“the United States would pay its 24 percent share of the common-funded enhancements (about 15 percent of the total direct enlargement bill, or approximately $1.5-2.0 billion over the 2000-2009 timeframe), averaging between $150 and $200 million per year.” [25]

However, these costs estimates were not accurate, as they varied quite widely.


A 1996 RAND Corporation study predicted costs of $17-$82 billion, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office predicted $21 to $125 billion, and the British Defense Ministry predicted $18-20 billion.


With costs fluctuating all over the place, there was no way to get an accurate cost assessment for expansion.

The Senate also bought up the question of economic competition, stating that,

“By conferring NATO membership on a few nations now, those nations will have a distinct advantage over their neighbors in the competition to attract new business and foreign investment. This type of economic competition and imbalance could well breed friction and instability in Central Europe.” [26]

In his response, Clinton said:

While the role of the EU is critical, there is no reason to insist on a choice between EU enlargement and NATO enlargement. Both are important. Both make independent contributions to European prosperity and security.


EU enlargement alone, however, is not sufficient to secure our nation's security interests in post-Cold War Europe. Unlike NATO, the EU lacks a military capability. Military capability remains the heart of NATO's strength and continues to be needed to preserve European security. [27]

The fact that Clinton said that EU enlargement alone was “not sufficient” to ensure America’s security interests in Europe suggests that he may have thought that the EU and NATO were two sides of the same coin.


The EU would provide the economic stability while NATO would provide the military protection. A final problem with expansion of NATO is that many European countries did not want it, regarding it as a U.S. initiative.


They had,

“stated privately for months that they are not going to raise taxes or cut social programs to pay for Washington's pet scheme. (Indeed, one leader, French president Jacques Chirac, stated publicly that France would not pay a single franc for NATO expansion.)” [28]

Besides the aforementioned problems, the Pentagon did not back the expansion as they no longer wanted to be a part of a larger, more costly NATO.


They preferred to go the route of the,

“Partnership for Peace, which allowed East European nations to join in NATO military exercises but not be full members.” [29]

However, the White House kept pressing the issue and in 1994 senior Defense officials ended up having a shouting match with Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke.


Holbrooke was stated to have yelled,

"The President has made the decision, and you're being insubordinate!” [30]

Eventually the Pentagon fell in line.



Middle East Foreign Policy

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States found itself the region’s most powerful and influential outside player.


America’s main goal was to keep the oil flowing by any means as could be seen by the establishment of the Carter Doctrine which stated the U.S. intended to keep Mideast oil flowing, even if it meant military intervention and created Central Command, which covered the entire Middle East.

Due to the Middle East being of vital importance to the U.S., America sought to contain certain,

“governments or political forces that use violence as a matter of policy to advance a hostile agenda” and to “expand the depth and breadth of [U.S.] partnerships with friendly governments in the region to promote peace, stability, and prosperity.” [31]

In addition to this, the Americans also,

“sought to encourage states in the region that have developed the bad habit of acting outside of international norms to change [their] ways that would permit reintegration into the international community.” [32]

This diplomatic language disguises the true nature of U.S. Middle East policy. What the U.S. means to do is to make sure that pro-U.S. regimes are propped up and to isolate any and every nation that threatens U.S. interests.

The U.S. had major plans for Iraq and Iran. Since U.S. policy had failed in that the Iranian revolution took place and the U.S. went to war with Iraq in 1991, the U.S. decided to contain both nations since they,

“judged that both regional powers, while war-weary and economically weakened, were still militarily ambitious and clearly hostile to the United States and our interests in the region.” [33]

The U.S. wanted to keep tabs on Saddam Hussein and make sure that Iran acquiring or developing WMDs.


With regards to Iran, however, just as today, the American government had no proof whatsoever that Iran was trying to acquire WMDs. While the U.S. aimed to contain both Iraq and Iran, there were different strategies for both nations.


With Iraq, the U.S. decided that Iraq could no longer,

“be rehabilitated or reintegrated into the community of nations” and would “work with forces inside and outside Iraq, as well as Iraq's neighbors, to change the regime in Iraq and help its new government rejoin the community of nations.” [34]

This last part may hints at U.S. interest in regime change.


The U.S. kept UN sanctions on Iraq as to permanently damage its military and economically decimate the country. It should also be noted when it came to regime change, the U.S. was willing to support anyone as long as they were anti-Saddam, as well as wanted to destabilize Iraq.


The U.S. saw the support of Iraqi exiles as “indispensable” and argued that the,

“internal Iraqi resistance need[ed] a voice, through the Iraqi Opposition living in freedom, to make clear to all Iraqis and to the world its aims.” [35]

The U.S. also gave $8 million in Economic Support Funds to Iraq and used the funds to,

“strengthen the political unity of the opposition, to support the Iraq war crimes initiative, to support humanitarian programs and the development of civil society, and for activities inside Iraq.” [36]

By supporting internal dissidents, the U.S. made sure that if there was an overthrow (successful or not) of the Saddam regime, that it would seem as if the entire struggle was internal and that it represented the will of the Iraqi people, when in reality, the overthrow would have been backed (and probably planned and financed) by the U.S. and the new Iraqi regime would be nothing but a puppet government that followed its orders from Washington.

In regards to Iran, the U.S. strategy was much different. Besides sanctions, there was a large amount of economic warfare against Iran.


The U.S. opposed “bilateral debt rescheduling, Paris Club debt treatment for Iran, and the extension of favorable credit terms by Iran's principal foreign creditors” [37] as well as international monetary agencies such as the IMF and the World Bank loaning Iran money.


Also the U.S. government continued to argue that Iran was trying to create WMDs.

“Clandestine efforts to procure nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue despite Iran's adherence to relevant international nonproliferation conventions.” [38]

In terms of nuclear weapons, the U.S. had no proof that Iran was trying to gain nuclear weapons. The issue of energy security was also bought up in the formulation of U.S. Middle East policy.


The U.S. saw the Middle East as its new main source of energy since,

“at the end of 1997, U.S. crude reserves had declined to 29.8 billion barrels” and since the 1970s, the U.S. had “become even more dependent on [oil] imports and thus theoretically [was] more vulnerable to crude oil supply distributions” [39] than ever before.

Seeing the Middle East as unstable, America wanted to have most of its crude come from Western sources, however, there were still shortfalls even when the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was factored in.


This, coupled with the fact that it was predicted by 2015 that U.S. oil production would have declined to 5-7 million barrels daily and that,

“baring development of huge new reserves in the western hemisphere, the U.S. [would] become increasingly dependent on the more unstable sources of crude oil, such as from the Middle East,” [40] was in U.S. interests to make sure that the regimes of Arab nations with large amounts of oil were under the control of Washington and that the status quo of American regional dominance was maintained in order to keep the oil flowing.


The Chinese Threat

In its plan to create a new global status quo where the U.S. was in charge, the U.S. government had to make sure that there would be no current threats to its dominance in the future.


While it may seem that today the U.S. is viewing China as a major threat, this manner of thinking goes back to the 1990s.

In terms of defense issues, the U.S. thought China’s,

“defense modernization programs and foreign policy objectives could realistically pose a challenge to U.S. interests and security,” [41] specifically noting China’s “nuclear weapons modernization program and her related arms control policies could pose some possibly severe implications to world peace” and “China’s sale of nuclear technology.” [42]

By acquiring modern weaponry China was ensuring that it would be better able to protect its nation, but from the American perspective it was a threat because it threatened U.S. military technological dominance.


By selling nuclear technology, China was threatening U.S. nuclear dominance as more countries would have nuclear weapons and therefore were less likely to be intimidated by America and less likely to concede to U.S. demands. In order to combat China’s nuclear program, the U.S. planned to “make a concerted effort to involve China in any future talks concerning nuclear proliferation,” [43] however, these talks would involve China decreasing its amount of nuclear weapons while America’s nuclear weapons stockpile went untouched.

Economically, the U.S. wanted to have a “stable and prosperous China,” but for its own reasons.


Bill Clinton stated,

A stable, open, prosperous, and strong China is important to the U.S. and to our friends and allies in the region. A stable and open China is more likely to work cooperatively with others and to contribute positively to peace in the region and to respect the rights and interests of its people. A prosperous China will provide an expanding market for American goods and services.


We have a profound stake in helping to ensure that China pursues its modernization in ways that contribute to the overall security and prosperity of the Asia Pacific region. [44]

While it may seem by Clinton’s statement that he wants to best for China, what he is actually doing is passively attacking the Chinese government and promoting U.S. corporate interests.


By saying that,

“A stable and open China is more likely to work cooperatively with others and to contribute positively to peace in the region and to respect the rights and interests of its people,”

...Clinton is implying that certain actions of China (such as modernizing its military and encouraging economic growth) weren’t in the interests of its people.

How is modernizing one’s military and nuclear program not in the interests of the Chinese people?


Also, by saying that,

“A prosperous China will provide an expanding market for American goods and services,”

...Clinton is backing economic globalization and shows his contempt for China as it is reminiscent of how in the 19th century, the U.S. saw China nothing more than but a place to sell its excess goods to.

In order to get China to bend to its will, America planned on using,

“the positive applications of the instruments of power (political/diplomatic, economic, information, and military) rather than their coercive use.” [45]

By using diplomacy, the U.S. would give China the illusion that both nations were on par with one another, when in reality they weren’t.

Another reason engagement was chosen was due to speculation that the containment of China would not work as,

“it would be hard to obtain a domestic consensus to subordinate other policy goals (including trade and investment) to dealing with a Chinese threat that is as yet, to say the least, far from manifest” [46] and that containment “would require, to be effective, the whole-hearted cooperation of regional allies and most of the other advanced industrial countries of the world.” [47]

There was also speculation as to China’s defense situation by 2015.


It was predicted that by 2015, China could emerge,

“as a formidable power, one that might be labeled a multidimensional regional competitor.” [48]

It was speculated that as such, China could potentially,

  • “exercise sea denial with respect to the seas contiguous to China”

  • “contest aerospace superiority in a sustained way in areas contiguous to China’s borders”

  • “threaten U.S. operating locations in East Asia with a variety of long-range nuclear assets”

  • "challenge U.S. information dominance”

  • “pose a strategic nuclear threat to the United States” [49]

In order to make sure that these predictions did not come true, as well as get markets for U.S. corporations and attempt to curb China’s rise, the U.S. may have decided to engage China.


Rise of the Neoconservatives

The group that played a major role in American defense and foreign policy in the 21st century were the neoconservatives.


They were a new breed of conservatives that favored laissez faire economics and a strong, robust military. Several neoconservatives came together to form the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). This think tank was to become extremely influential in the Bush Administration.

PNAC and other neoconservatives shared a disdain for and criticized average Republicans, saying:

Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world.


They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century. [50]

It initially seemed that this new group was not that dangerous as the goal of neoconservatives was to promote and sustain American global leadership.


They wanted,

“a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.” [51]

They were extremely dedicated to the idea of America leading the world and were near-fanatical in pushing for the U.S. to have global dominance, saying that America,

“cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise” and that “America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.” [52]

This was not the language of people who want to just stick to the plans that were already outlined, it sounded more like the language of people who want to take the already laid-out plans to their extremes and in many cases change them entirely.

In PNAC’s document Rebuilding America’s Defenses - Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, PNAC outlines its main goal which is to see the entire world dominated by American global military might.


The document outline four main goals for the U.S. military which were to,

“defend the American homeland; fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars; perform the ‘constabulary’ duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions; [and to] transform U.S. forces to exploit the ‘revolution in military affairs.’” [53]

It can be seen here that PNAC was already planning for there to be a major shift in America’s foreign affairs and that they had a war-mongering agenda. This militaristic agenda was going to be felt throughout the world.


Besides the fact that they wanted the U.S. military to,

“fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” PNAC also pushed for having America’s nuclear deterrent based “upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance” and for the U.S. to “develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.” [54]

The phrase “current and emerging threats” in reality means any nation that is currently or in the future will threaten U.S. global dominance, such as China and Russia.


This notion is further proven by the fact that PNAC wanted the U.S. to reposition U.S.,

“permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia” and to change “naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.” [55]

Doing this would ensure that America would always be able to keep an eye on its rivals and quickly counter any military moves that they made. In addition to wanting to assure American dominance on Earth, PNAC also wanted to move the American military into space.


The group advocated for American,

“control [of] the new ‘international commons’ of space and ‘cyberspace’” and for America to “pave the way for the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces - with the mission of space control.” [56]

In advocating for U.S. control of space, PNAC was also arguing for the destruction of the long-term tradition that space was meant to be used for peaceful purposes, as can be shown in the Resolution Preventing Arms Race in Outer Space which was passed by the UN General Assembly in 2007 which reaffirmed the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which in itself affirmed that space should remain demilitarized.

It was this group of militaristic, war-mongering Americans that would lead America to try and dominant the world in the 21st century by taking the original plans and twisting them to facilitate a foreign policy based on a “might makes right” mentality, which would lead America to becomes the world’s first truly global empire.






  2. Ibid

  3. Ibid



  6. Ibid

  7. Ibid


  9. Ibid

  10. Ibid

  11. Ibid

  12. Ibid

  13. Ibid

  14. Ibid




  18. Ibid



  21. Ibid

  22. Ibid

  23. Ibid

  24. Ibid

  25. Ibid

  26. Ibid

  27. Ibid



  30. Ibid


  32. Ibid

  33. Ibid

  34. Ibid

  35. Ibid

  36. Ibid

  37. Ibid

  38. Ibid


  40. Ibid


  42. Ibid

  43. Ibid

  44. Ibid

  45. Ibid


  47. Ibid

  48. Ibid

  49. Ibid


  51. Ibid

  52. Ibid


  54. Ibid

  55. Ibid

  56. Ibid











Part II

The Rise and Decline of The American Empire

September 7, 2011



The America -An Empire In Decline series examines the rise and decline of the American Empire.


In Part 1 above, Dawn Of A New Century, I analyzed America’s original plans for the 21st century, immediately after the end of the Cold War, which imagined a world where the U.S. would be the sole superpower and preventive diplomacy would be used to ensure no flare-ups occurred.

However, with the rise of the neoconservatives, first with the Project for the New American Century think tank and then later in the form of,

  • Donald Rumsfeld

  • Dick Cheney

  • Paul Wolfowitz

  • Condoleeza Rice, Cabinet members in the Bush administration, a vision that saw the fall of the Soviet Union as an opportunity for the United States to become a full-fledged empire became deeply rooted in the American political and military psyche.


They envisioned a world in which America would be the dominant economic, political, and military power and whose enemies and potential rivals would be kept in check. All they needed was an incident to make this possible and the devastating attacks on 9/11 provided an excuse for the U.S. to God the globe.

In Onset of Imperial Decline, I examined America’s actions both at home and abroad. Domestically, the rights of citizens were being curbed in the name of the War on Terror due to the Patriot Act which allowed for the government to illegally spy on its citizens without a warrant.


Abroad, America used 9/11 as a casus belli to launch an attack on Afghanistan, even though it was later revealed that the U.S. had already been planning to invade Afghanistan prior to the attacks. It was also revealed that on 9/11, once notified of the attacks, Donald Rumsfeld ordered his aides to find a link between the attacks and Saddam Hussein as to create a pretext to invade Iraq.


Soon after the invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. failed in an attempt to covertly overthrow Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, started its campaign of lies and deceit about Iran’s nuclear facilities, and engineered several pseudo-democratic uprising in eastern Europe to ensure a pro-Western encirclement was kept around Russia. The U.S. then turned its attention to the continent of Africa, establishing a continental wide command there as to combat the influence of rival nations such as China.


However, at home, due to the incompetence of Washington and the greed of Wall Street bankers, the U.S. experienced a massive recession which led to ripple effects around the world.

In this final installment of the series, an examination of America’s recent foreign policy and military adventures will take place, concluding with a prediction of what may lay in the future for the Empire.


Escalation In Afghanistan, False Drawdown In Iraq

Soon after being elected into office on the idea of hope and change, President Obama truly showed how much change he wanted when he stated at West Point that it was in America’s,

“vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.” [1]

He also announced,

“a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan.” [2]

While Pakistan did allow for Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda members safe haven near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, by including Pakistan in the strategy to succeed in Afghanistan, Obama effectively made the mission even more difficult since now the U.S. would have to deal with the Afghan and Pakistani Talibans, as well as with the corruption and general incompetence of the Pakistani government, as they would often make deals with the militants instead of crushing them as Washington wanted.

Escalating the war in Afghanistan brings out the irony of President Obama having received the Nobel Peace Prize.


How is a man who controls the most powerful military force in history, increases military spending to historic levels, and escalates a then-eight (now ten) year old war, a man of peace?


This can only occur when, as Michel Chossudovsky said,

“war becomes peace,” “a global military agenda is heralded as a humanitarian endeavor,” and most importantly, “when [a] lie becomes the truth.” [3]

In addition to escalating the war in Afghanistan, Obama oversaw a false drawdown in Iraq.


While it was true that all combat forces had left, it was reported,

“that as many as 50,000 Marines and soldiers would remain until the end of 2011” and that the “pace of the drawdown [would] be left to commanders and determined by events on the ground as well as politics in Washington.” [4]

Officially, the remaining 50,000 troops,

“would remain in Iraq after Aug. 31, 2010, to train, equip and advise Iraqi forces, help protect withdrawing forces and work on counter-terrorism.” [5]

However, these soldiers were not entirely trainers, as in September alone U.S. troops,

“waged a gun battle with a suicide squad in Baghdad, dropped bombs on armed militants in Baquba and assisted Iraqi soldiers in a raid in Falluja.” [6]

U.S. troops are still fighting in Iraq, although now it is under the guise of training Iraqi forces.


U.S. forces may very well stay permanently in Iraq as it has been reported that the U.S. government has worked out a deal with Iraq to allow U.S. troops to stay until 2012, yet the Iraqi government denies it. [7]


Drone Strikes

The U.S. has been doing drone strikes for quite some time, yet in recent years they have been escalated and the number of targets increased.


In addition to targeting terrorists in Pakistan, the strikes were expanded to Yemen and Somalia as well as several other countries. This year, it was reported that the CIA is preparing to initiate a secret program to kill Al Qaeda militants in Yemen.


The plan,

“would give the U.S. greater latitude than the current military campaign [against AQ militants]” and is a shift from previous tactics as “Now, the spy agency will carry out aggressive drone strikes itself alongside the military campaign.” [8]

While the Americans may think that this is a good idea, it may cause even more instability in Yemen and push a new government away from the U.S..

Major revelations about America’s campaign against drone strikes have come to light due to the UK-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism study on the drone strikes which resulted in a,

“fundamental reassessment of the covert U.S. campaign [and] involved a complete re-examination of all that is known about each U.S. drone strike.” [9]

The study revealed that,

“many more CIA attacks on alleged militant targets than previously reported. At least 291 U.S. drone strikes are now known to have taken place since 2004” [10] and that 1,100 people had been injured in drone strikes.

This study has worried the Establishment to the point where the CIA is,

“attempting to link the Bureau’s ‘suspect’ work to unsubstantiated allegations that one of its many sources is a Pakistani spy” and “directly challenging the data itself.” [11]

However, these drone strikes can end up creating more enemies for America.


One such example being in Somalia, where Dr. Omar Ahmed, an academic and Somali politician argues that U.S. helicopter and drone attacks only help Al-Shabaab:

“There is no reason for the western countries to use airstrikes against al-Shabaab. It will only increase the generations supporting al-Shabaab,” he said.


“For example, when the Americans killed Aden Eyrow, the capability of al-Shabaab was very low. From that day forward, the militia increased in size day-after-day. They recruited many youths, persuading them that infidels attacked their country and want to capture it.” [12]

Even though the U.S. strategy is not working, the Americans still continue it due to the political and military elite having fooled themselves to such a point where they think that the drone strikes are working, when in reality they increase anti-American sentiment and actually help the very people America is trying to defeat.



While things were already dismal on the domestic front due to the Patriot Act and the horrid economic crisis, things were to get worse as President Obama was given the power to assassinate American citizens.

Last year, the Obama Administration authorized the assassination of,

“the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them.” [13]

Awlaki was an American citizen who was born in New Mexico and had been an imam in the United States, before going to Yemen. American officials stated that he had joined Al Qaeda and became a recruiter.

While this may seem like a new precedent, in reality it isn’t as after 9/11,

“Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests.” [14]

Thus, the entire illegal act of assassinating U.S. citizens had been on the board since 2001 and therefore was nothing but Obama continuing the draconian practices of the previous administration.

The entire idea of assassinating U.S. citizens is not only wrong, but illegal under U.S. law.


Executive Order 12333, put into place by Ronald Reagan, states that,

“No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” [15]

However, it goes even further for all U.S. intelligence agencies, stating that no one in the intelligence apparatus should participate in any activities that are forbidden under Order 12333, which includes assassinations.

The continued policy of assassinating U.S. citizens only shows the continued moral decline of the Empire and the continued concentration of power in the Executive Branch.


Cyber Command

While the U.S. was waging war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and other locations, the Americans turned their attention to cyberspace and with the creation of Cyber Command (CyCom), effectively turned cyberspace into a battle-zone.

In 2010, the U.S. created CyCom whose mission, among other things, was to,

“conduct full-spectrum military cyberspace operations in order to enable actions in all domains, ensure U.S./Allied freedom of action in cyberspace and deny the same to our adversaries.” [16]

By stating that the U.S. would ensure its “freedom of action in cyberspace,” the Americans clearly implied that they may attack other nations via the internet.

The U.S. went even further with turning CyCom into a weapon of war when the Pentagon announced,

“that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force,” with a U.S. military official stating “‘If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks.’” [17]

Thus, without a doubt, the U.S. was planning to use cyberspace as a way to increase its military might.


Iranian Green Movement

In June 2009, there began mass protests in Iran due to suspicions of election fraud, with reports of the government blocking communications and alleged vote rigging.


While the protest movement was no doubt organic, there may very well have been U.S. involvement as they had been launching covert operations within recent years.

In 2007, the CIA received a,

“secret presidential approval to mount a covert ‘black’ operation to destabilize the Iranian government.” [18]

The operation itself was designed to pressure Iran to end its nuclear enrichment program


It was also reported that the U.S. was,

“secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear program.” [19]

CIA officials were working with known terrorists, such as the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, to overthrow the Iranian government.


The Americans may have been hopeful that something might occur which would allow them to militarily intervene, seeing as how they positioned a second aircraft carrier near Iran’s coastal waters and,

“also moved six heavy bombers from a British base on the Pacific island of Diego Garcia to the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.” [20]

In 2008, things went even further when it was reported that the U.S. government had decided,

“to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran” which were “designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.” [21]

If Ayatollah Khamenei, the country’s highest ranking political and religious figure, was overthrown or assassinated, it would cause massive political turmoil in Iran, which would turn provide the Americans with an excuse to intervene in Iran or allow for U.S. puppets to take control of the nation.

It is interesting to note that at this time the U.S. ramped up its rhetoric against Iran, reviving,

charges that the Iranian leadership ha[d] been involved in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq: both directly, by dispatching commando units into Iraq, and indirectly, by supplying materials used for roadside bombs and other lethal goods. [22]

This occurred around the time when,

“a National Intelligence Estimate, [which had been] released in December, [concluded] that Iran had halted its work on nuclear weapons in 2003.” [23]

Aiding terrorist attacks in Iran may very well have helped to create an atmosphere where ordinary Iranians felt that the current regime was not protecting them and thus had to challenge the regime, though not knowing they were being used as a way to fulfill American interests.

Not soon after the Iranian elections had died down, the U.S. turned its attention to North Korea and China.


Cheonan Incident

In March of 2010, it was reported that South Korea’s ship, the Cheonan, had sunk in waters near the border with North Korea. The ship went down due to an unexplained explosion.


Initially, South Korea,

“suspected the North Korean hand in the mishap but without convincing proof, it did not charge North Korea of this act.” [24]

Thus a Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group (JIG) was established to investigate the incident.

Preliminary investigations established the fact that the explosion was external and the JIG speculated that,

“the Cheonan was hit by a torpedo or a floating mine and that the blast impact originated from outside the vessel.” [25]

After collaborating several reports from sailors aboard the Cheonan and simulations, the JIG,

“collected propulsion parts, including propulsion motor with propellers and a steering section from the site of the sinking to corroborate with the fact that it was a torpedo attack” [26] and found that the markings on one propulsion section were consistent with the marking of a North Korean torpedo that had been obtained prior to the Cheonan incident.


This convinced the JIG that “the recovered parts were made in North Korea and therefore established Pyongyang’s complicity. The JIP, therefore, eliminated other plausible factors such as grounding, fatigue failure, mines, collision and internal explosion.” [27]

In addition to the South Korean JIG, there was also an international investigatory committee known was the Multinational Combined Intelligence Task force, which was made up of five states,

“including the U.S., Australia, Canada and the UK”, [28]

...and the findings of this group also pointed the finger at North Korea.


This is quite serious as not only did South Korea ignore other plausible factors that may have led to the sinking of the Cheonan, but they also trusted a group that was overwhelmingly under the influence of Western nations who are known to be hostile to North Korea.


It is possible that South Korea was looking to blame the North, seeing as how they stopped immediately after they could even plausibly establish a link to North Korea.

In response to the attacks, the U.S. and South Korea held joint war games in which the United States sent its supercarrier, the USS George Washington. The war games were to be held in the Yellow Sea, which is in China’s exclusive economic zone.


Once news that the war games were going to be held in the Yellow Sea came out, China stated that it,

“opposes any military acts in its exclusive economic zone without permission.” [29]

The Americans and South Koreans had to have done this on purpose, seeing as how launching war games would not ease tensions, but rather escalate them. One must also factor in the notion that the U.S. had been considering China a potential threat to its dominance of the Asia-Pacific region since the 1990s.

Not only were the South Korean war games a threat to China, but also no sooner after the U.S. had concluded those war games,

“the U.S. [begin] a week-long exercise with Japan off the second nation’s islands near the South Korean coast.” [30]

The entire point of these war games with both South Korea and Japan was to send a message to China, saying that the U.S. was still in control of the Asia-Pacific region.

In the midst of this, an organization that was and continues to change the world was going to blow the lid on the Empire, showing their true foreign policy.



In 2010, a then fairly unknown organization called WikiLeaks released a video now known as Collateral Murder which shows an Apache helicopter firing on reporters from Reuters and blatantly murdering Iraqi civilians.


This had the U.S. government so worried that they conducted a counterintelligence investigation into WikiLeaks, saying that the organization,

“represents a potential force protection, counterintelligence, operational security (OPSEC), and information security (INFOSEC) threat to the U.S. Army.” [31]

In its extreme worry, the investigatory committee may have become slightly paranoid as they did not rule out the possibility that,

“current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the U.S. government are providing sensitive or classified information to 'could not be ruled out and that' former U.S. government employees leak[ing] sensitive and classified information is highly suspect.” [32]

However, the chance that former U.S. government employees would leak classified information is slim, seeing as how most are loyal to the government. However, the WikiLeaks situation would get extremely serious later when they released 250,000 documents detailing America’s true foreign policy.


The documents revealed that America had been,

“running a secret intelligence campaign targeted at the leadership of the United Nations, including the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon and the permanent security council representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK.” [33]

In July 2009, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered U.S. diplomats to gather,

“forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications” as well as “credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even frequent-flyer account numbers for UN figures and ‘biographic and biometric information on UN Security Council permanent representatives.’” [34]

The entire operation seems to be involved in aiding the CIA and the National Security Agency for the purposes of building biographical profiles, data mining, and surveillance operations.

Due to the massive dump, some became so enraged that they called for Julian Assange’s head.


Jeffrey T. Kuhner, a columnist in the Washington Times, stated that Julian Assange,

poses a clear and present danger to American national security. The WikiLeaks founder is more than a reckless provocateur. He is aiding and abetting terrorists in their war against America. The administration must take care of the problem - effectively and permanently. [35]

However, what Kuhner and other people who wanted Assange dead were truly enraged about was that U.S. foreign policy was exposed for what it truly is:

the U.S. government working hard to fulfill its interests by any means necessary, with complete and total disregard for the sovereignty of other nations, as can be shown by the fact that the U.S. government intimidated Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero into ending his criticism of the Iraq war.

The U.S. media as well as others jumped on the story when Julian Assange was accused of rape and began spreading it everywhere. Yet, they were quite incorrect as Assange was accused of violating a Swedish law against sex without a condom.


It was reported that Sweden’s Public Prosecutor’s Office,

“leaked to the media that it was seeking to arrest Assange for rape, then on the same day withdrew the arrest warrant because in its own words there was ‘no evidence.’” [36]

Even though the media did their best to smear Assange’s name, Wikileaks was going play a role in lighting a spark that would take the Arab world by storm.


Arab Spring

In 2011, the United States had its dominance of the Middle East seriously threatened due to massive peaceful protests that were sweeping the Arab world.


No longer were people going to put up with corrupt and oppressive regimes that were backed by Washington. No longer would they put up with horrid dictatorships in which the only freedom they had was to obey.


In 2011 protests in Tunisia began what would become known as the Arab Spring.

The spark that launched the Arab Spring began on December 17th, 2010.


Mohammed Bouazizi was selling fruit without a license and when the authorities confiscated his scale, he became enraged, confronted the police, and was slapped in the face. This led him to plead his case in the town’s government office, but when it was rebuffed, he went outside and lit himself aflame.


This small act became noticed by the populace at large and the anger,

“spread to other towns in the interior of the country, where unemployment among university graduates was approaching 50 percent.” [37]

Mass protests soon began with calls to end dictator Ben Ali’s rule and democratic elections, however, Ali turned to the police and the slaughtering of protesters began in earnest.

The organization WikiLeaks also played a role in starting up the protests, as files were released just days before Bouazizi lit himself aflame, which confirmed suspicions that many Tunisians already had:

that Ben Ali was a corrupt dictator, that his family was extremely corrupt, and that life was incredibly difficult for the Tunisian poor and unemployed.

When this occurred, the U.S. was deeply worried as Tunisia had significant military ties to the U.S.


Tunisia cooperated,

“in NATO’s Operation Active Endeavor, which provides counter-terrorism surveillance in the Mediterranean,” participated in NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue, “and allow[ed] NATO ships to make port calls at Tunis.” [38]

Every now and then the U.S. would criticize Tunisia for its record on political rights and freedom of expression, ,

 “In parallel with these expressions of concern, the United States continued to provide military and economic assistance to the Tunisian government.” [39]

Thus, the U.S. began to play both sides.


About two weeks after Ben Ali had fled the nation, America sent their top Middle East envoy to Tunisia and tried,

“to press its advantage to push for democratic reforms in the country and further afield.” [40]

While it may have appeared that the U.S. was quickly trying to position itself on Tunisia’s good side, they may have had a hand in Ali’s ousting as,

“According to some rumors in Tunis, the country's army chief consulted with Washington before withdrawing his support from Ben Ali - a move which sealed the ousted president's fate.” [41]

Almost as soon as the U.S. was finished in Tunisia, they had even bigger problems on their hands with the protests in Egypt.

Due to being inspired by the success of the Tunisian protests, the Egyptian people launched their own protest movement, calling for the overthrow of U.S. puppet Hosni Mubarak. However, the U.S. was busy co-opting the protest movement.

The U.S. used the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) as a cover to help co-opt the protest movement. Ironically, the NED is not used for the spreading of democracy, rather it was established by the Reagan administration to aid in the overthrow of foreign governments, after the CIA’s covert operations were revealed.


The NED was supported,

“As a bipartisan endowment, with participation from the two major parties, as well as the AFL-CIO and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the NED took over the financing of foreign overthrow movements, but overtly and under the rubric of ‘democracy promotion.’” [42]

Thus, the U.S. supported both Mubarak and the protesters, in a bid to make sure that no matter what occurred, America would still get its way.

Washington already had influence in Egyptian pro-democracy circles as in May 2009 many Egyptian activists that would eventually organize protests calling for the end of the dictator Mubarak's reign,

spent a week in Washington receiving training in advocacy and getting an inside look at the way U.S. democracy works. After their training, the fellows were matched with civil society organizations throughout the country where they shared experiences with U.S. counterparts.


The activists [wrapped] up their program this week by visiting U.S. government officials, members of Congress, media outlets and think tanks. [43]

Thus, due to the U.S. aiding the activists, the Americans ensured that the protesters owed them a debt and that U.S. interests would be secure even if Mubarak was ousted.

The Egyptian military also played a role in U.S. plans. While they originally had protected protesters and refused to fire upon them, the Egyptian military showed just how supportive they were of a democratic Egypt when they began arresting and trying them before military courts, dissolved parliament, and suspended the constitution. In reality, the military junta that now controls Egypt is no different than the Mubarak regime when it controlled Egypt.

While the Egyptian military is currently in control until elections, no matter what occurs, America will still have its way.

Protests also began taking place in Bahrain.


The people were tired of a government which,

“failed to abide by their own constitution, refused to investigate the crimes of torture and continued to expropriate more than half of the land of the country.” [44]

The Bahrani government was controlled by the Al Khalifa family, which has ruled Bahrain for over 300 years and has created an economy where there is a powerful and wealthy Sunni minority while the Shiite majority constantly faces discrimination in jobs and education, has little political representation, and are barred from many government and military positions.

The U.S. was deeply troubled because of the protests as the Al Khalifa regime allowed for the Americans to station their Fifth Fleet in the country, which allows the U.S. to patrol,

  • “the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea, and the east coast of Africa”

  • “keep an eye on - and, if necessary, rattle sabers - close to oil shipping lanes, Iran, and the increasing activity of pirates”

  • “ [provide] basing and overflight clearances for U.S. aircraft engaged in Afghanistan and [help] cut off money supplies to suspected Islamic terrorists.” [45]

Thus, the Bahraini regime was of major importance to U.S. regional interests.

The U.S. showed that it would do anything to make sure that its puppet stayed in power when they backed the Saudi military intervention in Bahrain. The Saudis intervened on the behalf of the Bahraini government and began shooting into crowds of Bahraini protesters. [46]


However, even though the protesters were being gunned down, they still were determined to fight for their rights against America’s puppets.

The Arab Spring movement also reached all the way to Libya, however, things were quite different as instead of having peaceful protests, opposition forces were picking up arms and fighting the Libyan military.


Due to the then-leader of Libya, Col. Mummar Gaddafi, having never truly been a Western puppet, America launched a propaganda war to allow the U.S.-NATO war machine to intervene in Libya on the grounds of “humanitarian intervention.”

The question that must be first asked is why the West even wanted to intervene in Libya. The answer is because Libya has Africa’s largest oil reserves and Western oil companies wanted access to them. However, there are also larger economic reasons.


Months prior to the intervention, Gaddafi had called upon African and Muslims nations to adopt a single currency: the gold dinar. This would have excluded the dollar as the gold dinar would have been used to purchase goods, thus threatening the economies of Western nations.


However, the creation of a gold dinar may have also, empowered the people of Africa, something black activists say the U.S. wants to avoid at all costs.

“The U.S. have denied self-determination to Africans inside the U.S., so we are not surprised by anything the U.S. would do to hinder the self-determination of Africans on the continent,” says Cynthia Ann McKinney, a former U.S. Congresswoman. [47]

There was also geopolitics at work as during the war, Gaddafi,

“vowed to expel Western energy companies from the country and replace them with oil firms from China, India, and Russia.” [48]

This would have effectively excluded the West from ever getting at Libya’s oil.


By ousting Gaddafi, the West would be able to have a puppet regime to counter Chinese and Russian moves in North Africa as well as access to Libyan oil. What many of the media never asked until the conflict was nearing its end was who exactly were the rebels.


In the Iraq war, most of the foreign fighters came from Libya and in that,

“almost all of them came from eastern Libya, the center of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion.” [49]

A Libyan rebel commander even admitted that some of his soldiers had links to Al Qaeda:

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader". [50]

Thus, the U.S. and NATO were backing terrorists, yet they may have known seeing as how a 2007 West Point Study revealed that the Benghazi-Darnah-Tobruk area was a world leader in Al Qaeda suicide bomber recruitment. [51]

Due to the U.S. and its NATO allies not wanting to look like the imperialists they truly were, Obama pressured the United Nations to pass a resolution allowing for the establishment of a no fly zone over Libya and an arms embargo on the nation. However, both were broken quite soon.


The UN resolution clearly allowed all member states,

“acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.” [52]

However, the imperialists admitted that they wanted to overthrow Gaddafi in an op-ed piece, when Cameron, Sarkozy, and Obama stated:

“Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove [G]addafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with [G]addafi in power.” [53]

The U.S. and NATO clearly stated that their main goal was to overthrow Gaddafi.

The hypocrisy of the West ran deep as they found an excuse to intervene in Libya, but not in Egypt, Bahrain, Palestine, or any other location where people were being oppressed by local regimes. However, Western hypocrisy was shown near the outset of the conflict when it was reported that Egypt’s military had begun to ship arms to the rebels with Washington’s knowledge. [54]


This clearly shows that supposed arms embargo on Libya was in reality, an embargo on Gaddafi’s forces.

To whip up support for their “intervention,” a massive media propaganda campaign was conducted against Gaddafi. The mainstream media were reporting things such as Gaddafi gave his troops Viagra to rape women, bombed civilians, and that Libyan troops gunned down civilians. Despite these claims being false, the mainstream media still reported it.


However, what many people ignored was the fact that the rebel and NATO war crimes.


In mid-August,

“a NATO bombing campaign near the Libyan city of Zlitan earlier this month reportedly killed almost 100 civilians - more than half of them women and children.” [55]

However, NATO denied all claims arguing that they had struck legitimate targets.


This is just one example of many NATO war crimes in Libya, ranging from killing civilians to bombing the rebels themselves. There were also reports that Libyan rebels were targeting and killing black Africans.


All across eastern Libya the rebels,

  • “and their supporters [were] detaining, intimidating and frequently beating African immigrants and black Libyans, accusing them of fighting as mercenaries on behalf of [Gaddafi]”

  • in some cases “executed suspected mercenaries captured in battle, according to Human Rights Watch and local Libyans”

  • “arbitrarily killed some mercenaries and in others cases failed to distinguish between them and non-combatants” [56]

Yet, despite these and other numerous reports, the Libyan rebels excused their war crimes, saying that they didn’t have the structures in place to deal with matters such as these.

What was also somewhat ignored was the fact that the rebels were extremely fractured, only united in their goal to overthrow Gaddafi. This was clearly seen after the assassination of General Al-Younes and two top military commanders aides.


Their deaths,

“resulted in internal fighting within the Transitional Council” with “Factional divisions [developing] within rebel forces.” [57]

This factional divide may soon play itself out in the creation of a new Libyan government.

Finally, there was the fact that Western special forces were on the ground. The initial appearance of Western special forces was when British SAS troops were captured near Benghazi in March.


However, U.S. CIA agents were in Libya [58] and there may have been French and U.S. special forces in Libya aiding the rebels.


In a March interview on the O’Reilly Show, retired Colonel David Hunt of the U.S. Army and Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a former Army intelligence officer were interviewed about the situation in Libya.


Hunt stated the following when asked about special forces being in Libya:

Yes, absolutely. You've got British service been in there about three weeks ago and actually got captured and released. The French GIGN have been in there and our special forces and our U.S. intelligence operatives and their assets. We do not conduct operations like this, large scale air operations, without people on the ground.


They have been very successful, very good, not a lot of contact with the rebels because you don't know who to talk to. But, yes, we have got intel gathering and rescue guys and special operations guys on the ground, have had them for about 12 days. [59]

Shaffer agreed, saying:

Yes, I have heard from my sources - I got a call from one of my key sources on Monday and that's exactly what's going on. Let's be really clear here. You have got to have these individuals doing what Dave just said, especially when you are talking about trying to protect, and the stated goal here, Bill, is humanitarian support.


So you don't want to have weapons hitting the wrong targets. So, Dave is very good on the fact that we have special operations guys sitting there with laser designators. Bill, you saw… [60]

The Americans constantly denied that they had boots on the ground, yet, as usual, they were lying.

The imperialists already had plans for a post-Gaddafi Libya, which consisted of,

"proposals for a 10,000-15,000 strong 'Tripoli task force', resourced and supported by the United Arab Emirates, to take over the Libyan capital, secure key sites and arrest high-level Gaddafi supporters.” [61]

However, the plan may be problematic as it is,

“highly reliant on the defection of parts of the Gaddafi security apparatus to the rebels after his overthrow.” [62]

There were far reaching economic consequences as it was reported that the new government would favor Western oil companies at the expense of Russian, Chinese, and Brazilian firms. [63]

Due to the imperialists succeeding in Libya, many are worried that the U.S.-NATO war machine may set its sights on a new target: Syria.

Protests in Syria began in earnest in May and have not let up since then.


While there are calls for intervention into Syria, there is much at stake for America in terms of Syria’s relationship with Iran.

The Americans are quite interested in the link between Iran and Syria, noting that there have been several joint ventures between the two nations in the financial and manufacturing sectors, as it was noted that,

  • “there have been several reports of increased Iranian investment and trade with Syria”

  • “Iran has stated its intention to establish a joint Iranian-Syrian bank, possibly involving Bank Saderat and the Commercial Bank of Syria”

  • “the Iran Khodro Industrial Group has established a car assembly plant in Syria through a joint venture known as the Syrian-Iranian Motor Company” [64]

There are also military links as Iran supplies weapons to Syria which, from the U.S. perspective, pose a threat to its ally Israel.

“In June 2010, Iran reportedly sent Syria an air defense radar system designed to detect Israeli aircraft or possibly increase the accuracy of Syrian and Hezbollah missile strikes against Israel in the event of a regional war.” [65]

Thus, the U.S. was deeply worried about the link between two anti-American nations and the growing friendship between them.

Due to these worries, the U.S. became involved in Syria’s protest movement, using methods that are similar to the ones the Americans used in the Egyptian revolution and in the Libya conflict...

For the past five to six years, the U.S. policy toward Syria has used what could be called a two-pronged strategy to push for regime change. The U.S. has supported “civil society” activists or external opposition organizations. It has also worked to delegitimize, destabilize and isolate the country through the application of sanctions and various other measures, which could be applied to exploit vulnerabilities. [66]

One “civil society” organization that is being used by the U.S. is the Movement for Justice and Development (MJD), which ,

 “closely affiliated with the London-based satellite channel Barada TV, which started broadcasting in April 2009 but ‘ramped up operations to cover the mass protests in Syria.’” [67]

The Americans may have wanted to work with MJD due to the fact that they are a moderate Islamic group which wants to end the Assad regime via democratic reform.


This democratic reform may very well play right into America’s hands if the U.S. does intervene in Syria, they can back the MJD and argue that they are the same as Libya’s rebels: people who want to end their oppressive regime and replace it with a democracy.

The U.S. is using U.S. organizations such as,

“Freedom House, American Bar Association, American University, Internews and work done by MEPI with the Aspen Strategic Initiative Institute, Democracy Council of California, Regents of the University of New Mexico and the International Republican Institute” [68] to aid in fomenting regime change in Syria by working with and funding Syrian “civil society” groups.

There have been many reports of the Syrian regime attacking unarmed protesters, however, one should be quite skeptical of these reports.


The U.S. media has reported that there are violent Syrian protesters [69], which should make one question the official narrative that the protesters are peaceful.


One must also include the fact that there are absolutely no outside media sources in Syria whatsoever. Journalists have contacts whom they can get information from, but who says that these sources are being objective, much less telling the truth? All the reports that are being shown in the mainstream media may very well be half-truths, if not outright fabrications.

The U.S. may very well plan to attack Syria if manipulating civil societies does not work.

The Arab Spring, while an overall movement to overthrow oppressive regimes, has too many times been co-opted by foreign powers who seek only their personal gain.


Due to this, the Arab people may never experience true freedom.

Debt Ceiling and Credit Downgrade

Once again, while the Empire was busy abroad attempting to impose its will on other nations, it was having major fiscal problems at home.


In July the debt ceiling debate began as the Republicans decided to make what should have been a non-issue into a major problem and almost let the nation default in the process.

The debt ceiling would have been passed as usual, yet the Tea Parties in the House decided to refuse to increase the debt ceiling, citing the fact that the U.S. was already $14 trillion in debt and something needed to be done to solve the debt crisis before it became a major problem.


Their remedy for the massive debt was to implement massive austerity measures.


The Republicans specifically wanted to target Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for massive cuts. The Democrats barely put up a fight to defend their constituents, and the debt ceiling agreement ended up being compromised solely of spending cuts, with a super Congress of 6 Democrats and six Republicans to come together and decide which group they were going to hurt the most.

While the media ate up the entire story, they didn’t ask any serious questions such as how did the U.S. end up with such a massive debt in the first place. The answer is because of the Wall Street bailouts, the quest for global military domination, tax cuts for the super-rich, and the increasing costs of healthcare, mainly due to medical insurance companies jacking up prices.


However, the corporate media, which is in the hands of the ruling elite, has created a perception that the reason for this debt crisis is due to social programs even though this is completely false. [70]


In the debt ceiling debacle, this perception would win out and would bring about America’s credit downgrade.

  • Standard & Poor’s downgraded the U.S. debt rating to AA+ due to its loss of confidence in the U.S. government and the stock market plunged as people viewed the downgrade as an indication that the U.S. may very well be in decline. However, there were already signals prior to the S&P downgrade that America’s economic situation was not well.


  • In July, the IMF effectively pronounced the U.S. bankrupt. [71]


  • That same month, Dagong, a Chinese credit-rating agency, pointed out the problems with increasing the debt ceiling, stating that,

"Raising the [debt] limit is just a legislative measure to allow the government to borrow more money, but it does not change the fact that the U.S. lacks momentum for economic growth” and that “The fundamental problem is that the U.S.' ability to generate wealth is far from compensating its increasing debt.” [72]

  • The month before that, German Rating Agency Feri downgraded U.S. bonds from AAA to AA on the grounds that,

“The U.S. government has fought the effects of the financial market crisis primarily by an increase in government debt” and they “not see that there is sufficient attention being paid to other measures” [73] such as those previously mentioned above.

However, this brings up the larger picture of the role of credit rating agencies.


Usually, they can be used as an indicator of the creditworthiness of a nation, but now it seems that they have undue influence in the economic and political realms of a nation. In essence, they can hold an entire country hostage by threatening to downgrade the nation’s credit rating if the agency’s demands aren’t fulfilled.


The Future of the American Empire

The American Empire has is now obviously in decline due to its waging of wars, tax cuts for the super wealthy, and massive debt.


Thus this brings up the question that is on the minds of many Americans:

What will happen to America in the future?

Economically, the U.S. may not fair well as even after the bailout of Wall Street and $700 billion meant to stimulate the economy, the,

“insolvency of the global financial system, and of the Western financial system in the first place, returns again to the front of the stage” [74] in the form of the U.S. credit downgrade.

U.S. government debt may take a major hit as,

“U.S. banks are starting to reduce their use of U.S. Treasury Bonds to guarantee their transactions for fear of the increasing risks weighing on U.S. government debt” and even U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia are worried about U.S. debt. [75]

The dollar is most likely going to decline to,

“something of a first among equals in a basket of currencies” which very well “may force the U.S. into difficult tradeoffs between achieving ambitious foreign policy goals and the high domestic costs of supporting those objectives,” [76] such as constant military adventures every decade and massive aid to client states.

With the rise of new powers such as China, U.S. military superiority, while safe on conventional grounds, may be unshaky in the realm of cyberspace and the U.S. may have its rule challenged, not only in the Asia-Pacific region by China, but also in Latin America by Brazil and eastern Europe by Russia.


This could potentially create situation where the Empire will have to choose between fighting against these new adversaries or work with them. If the Empire’s attitude today is any indication, they will fight rather than work with the new powers to create a multipolar international order.

While the American Empire is currently in decline, this could potentially lead to what has been called “a blossoming of the republic” in which the United States returns to its democratic and moral roots.


No longer will the U.S. support dictators and third-world governments, disregard international and domestic law, and prevent the self-determination of all peoples. Rather, the new America will respect the rule of law, support organic democratic uprisings, and reject its past history of militarism and unilateralism.


This is the vision of America that I and many others around the world wish to see come to fruition.




2: Ibid



5: Ibid





10: Ibid










20: Ibid


22: Ibid

23: Ibid


25: Ibid

26: Ibid

27: Ibid

28: Ibid




32: Ibid







39: Ibid


41: Ibid



















60: Ibid


62: Ibid




65: Ibid


67: Ibid

68: Ibid







75: Ibid