As you may have noticed, things have not been
going well, recently, for the American Hegemony.
That would be the global hegemony the wonderful folks who call themselves "neo-conservatives"
– having been denied military victory in the Cold War by the internal collapse
of the Soviet Union – have been determined to achieve any way they can.
But the neo-crazies are not totally to blame for the developing debacle. In
Bosnia, North Korea, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
etc. There is plenty of blame to spread around.
Scroll back to the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact in 1989.
Both the Soviet Union and the United States began to withdraw from service
the tens of thousands of nukes that had been specifically developed and deployed
to fight NATO-Warsaw Pact battles.
Two years later, with the Soviet Union on the verge of economic collapse, Russian
officials came to "lobby" the U.S. Congress. By then, the vast majority
of Soviet nukes had been returned to Russia.
The Russian delegation told Senator Sam Nunn et al that they wanted
to dismantle the tens of thousands of Soviet nukes excess to Russian needs,
recover the fissile material (essentially pure U-235 uranium and Pu-239 plutonium)
from those dismantled nukes, and then store it until they could eventually dispose
of it as reactor fuel.
The problem was, the Russians didn’t have the money to do all of that. Would
Rarely has Congress responded so quickly to any request. The "Nunn-Lugar"
Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act was attached to the Conventional Forces
in Europe Treaty Implementation Act of 1991, which just happened to be pending
before the Senate.
Nunn-Lugar began by noting "that Soviet President Gorbachev has requested
Western help in dismantling nuclear weapons and President Bush has proposed
United States co-operation on the storage, transportation, dismantling, and
destruction of Soviet nuclear weapons."
Nunn-Lugar then declared "that it is in the national security interest
of the United States to facilitate on a priority basis the transportation, storage,
safeguarding, and destruction of nuclear and other weapons in the Soviet Union,
its republics, and any successor entities, and to assist in the prevention of
President George H. W. Bush was immediately authorized to "reprogram"
up to $400 million from funds already appropriated for that fiscal year to the
Department of Defense to implement Nunn-Lugar.
Now, back in 1992, Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense and Paul Wolfowitz
was Undersecretary for Policy.
Periodically, the Undersecretary develops for the Secretary a top-secret document
entitled Defense Planning Guidance. The document is supposed to be "threat-driven."
Once developed and approved, the Secretary issues it to the military Departments
and to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It tells them what their "force structure"
needs to be as well as the manpower, weapons, equipment, and logistical support
that will be required to meet the "threat."
So when the New
York Times revealed in 1992 some contents of Wolfowitz’s Defense Planning
Guidance – which "envisioned
a future in which the United States could, and should, prevent any other nation
or alliance from becoming a great power" – there was understandably
quite a flap, here and abroad, in and out of government.
Those kind of statements belong – if anywhere – in National Security Strategy
documents, developed by the National Security Council staff under the direction
of the President’s National Security Advisor. National Security Strategy documents
are supposed to inform Defense Planning Guidance, not the other way around.
But surely Cheney and the neocrazies shared the Bush-Baker and Nunn-Lugar view
that nukes getting into the hands of terrorists was the Number One Threat to
our national security? They were anxious to implement Nunn-Lugar as soon as
possible, weren’t they?
Apparently not. Then or now.
In any event, for the anti-nuclear-everything entourage successor Bill Clinton
brought to power, our national security was not as important as world
peace. For Greenpeace, the thousands of nukes – yea, even the hundreds of nuclear
power plants – in our hands were apparently more of a threat to world peace
than a few "loose" nukes in the hands of terrorists.
So, Clinton made it quite clear that he intended to pursue "a Treaty on
general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control"
as required by Article VI of the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Whereas Cheney’s neocrazies had essentially declined to implement Nunn-Lugar
as intended, Clinton’s Greenpeace entourage actually hijacked Nunn-Lugar, transforming
it from a nuke proliferation prevention program into a nuke disarmament
Also, perversely, taking a page from the Cheney-Wolfowitz 1992 grand strategy,
Clinton began pushing the boundaries of NATO eastward, toward the walls of the
And, at the urging of human-rights activists and the neocrazies, Clinton bashed
the Russians for their efforts to suppress Islamic terrorist activities in Chechnya.
Clinton then angered the Russians by attempting to achieve regime change in
Bosnia and Kosovo from 20,000 feet, imperiling Russia’s Slavic brethren, the
Serbs, on the ground.
Furthermore, in 1998, after declaring he would never allow the Gulf War sanctions
on Iraq to be lifted so long as Saddam Hussein was in power, Clinton sand-bagged
the IAEA – which had certified Iraq to be nuke free – by bombing Saddam’s palaces
in and around Baghdad.
Finally, on Clinton’s "watch," there had been added the Pakistani
"loose" nuke threat. Pakistan had surprised everyone in 1998 by testing
a half-dozen or so fairly sophisticated nukes just days after India – defying
Clinton – had tested several of their own.
The prospect that the next India-Pakistani conflict would involve nukes was
bad enough, but President Bush-II inherited a far worse problem. Nuke-armed
Pakistan openly supported the ruling Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan, and
the Taliban openly provided refuge to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
What to do?
Well, obviously, the first thing for Bush-II to do upon taking office was to
direct the Pentagon to develop plans for, first, invading Iraq and deposing
Saddam Hussein, and, second, invading Iran and deposing the Mullahs.
What about those Pakistani nukes?
Well, General Musharraf can handle that.
But what about all those human-rights activists – whose support was critical
to Bush-II invading Iraq in 2003, and attacking Iran next year – demanding "democracy"
Okay, tell President Musharraf to resign his military position and work out
some sort of power-sharing arrangement with former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
Now, how are those plans for attacking Iran coming along?