The decision to substantially increase US forces in Iraq is not a makeshift initiative, which emerged in response to the evolving crisis in Iraq. It is part of a carefully formulated NeoCon agenda to increase the size of US forces and reinstate "involuntary" forms of military conscription.
The "surge" in US forces in Iraq has been presented by the Bush administration as a short term necessity to confront "the terrorists":
"So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq." (President Bush's TV address to the Nation, 10 January 2007)
Within days of Bush's announcement, Congress responded by a formally rebuffing the White House's proposal to send more troops:
"The defiant White House stance comes as both the House and Senate, now controlled by Democrats, prepare to vote on resolutions that oppose additional U.S. troops in Iraq. Cheney said those nonbinding votes would not affect Bush's ability to carry out his policies" (AP, Jan 14, 2007)
While differences have emerged between the presidency and the US Congress regarding troop dewployments, real opposition to Bush's "surge" largely emanates from the broader American public, which is putting pressure on its (elected) members of Congress.
The Neo-Conservative Architects of Bush's "Surge"
US troops in Iraq are facing fierce and organized armed resistance.
Occupation forces no longer exercise control over part of Iraqi territory.
The "Green Zone" is threatened.
Despite these developments, the decision to substantially increase US forces in Iraq is not a makeshift initiative, which emerged in response to the evolving crisis in Iraq. It is part of a carefully formulated NeoCon agenda to increase the size of US forces and reinstate "involuntary" forms of military conscription.
The Neo-Conservative Architects of Bush's "Surge"
The decision to substantially increase US forces in Iraq is not a makeshift initiative, which emerged in response to the evolving crisis in Iraq. It is part of a carefully formulated NeoCon agenda to increase the size of US forces and reinstate "involuntary" forms of military conscription.
Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute is credited as being on of the main architects of Bush 's "Surge". Fred Kagan together with General (ret) Jack Keane, argue that "any troop increase must be large and lasting", involving "a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so". (Quoted in the the Financial Times, 2 January 2007).
"Kagan was arguing that while "the high end of estimates" suggested the need for another 80,000 US troops to stage an effective counter-insurgency operation in Iraq, "it is very likely that a surge of 50,000 troops would be sufficient to stabilise the capital". In the event, it seems unlikely that Mr Bush will commit even half that number".(Ibid)
Frederick Kagan is the brother of Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who coincidentally is also on the board of Directors of the Project of the New American Century (PNAC). The latter is a Washington based think tank, with direct ties to the Bush Cabinet, headed by William Kristol,
William Kristol is the son of Irving Kristol, one of the main founding figures of Neoconservatism. Irving Kristol sits on Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). He is also a Senior Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
William Kristol is editor of the influential Washington based Weekly Standard. Robert Kagan is a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard. All of these people are firmly committed to America's "long war", a war without borders, inspired by the teachings of the late Leo Strauss at University of Chicago.
Surge and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
An overall expansion of US forces worldwide is an integral part of mission of the NeoConservatives as contained in the Project of the New American Century's key document entitled " Rebuilding American Defenses"
Bush's "Surge" is essentially derived from this document, which constitutes the PNAC's manifesto.The authors of this report are Donald Kagan, (professor of history at Yale University and father of Frederick and Robert)., Gary Schmitt (Project Coordinator together with Donald Kagan) and Thomas Donnelly (main author), Both Schmitt and donnelly are resident fellows at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and colleagues of Frederick Kagan.
In Part IV of " Rebuilding American Defenses", the PNAC recommends an overall expansion of "active-duty strength" from 475,000 (2000 figure) to 525,000. It also also points to the reinforcement of the Army National Guard as:
"a hedge against the need for a larger-than-anticipated force in combat.... It should not be used primarily to provide combat service support to active Army units engaged in current operations"
The Army National Guard should according to the PNAC "play its essential role in fighting large scale wars", while minimizing its civilian functions.
PNAC Pressures US Congress
Two years ago (28 Jan 2005), the PNAC submitted a Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces, addressed to the Senate and House Majority and Minority leaders. The Letter asserts that "the United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume" and that steps must consequently be taken:
"to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years."
The authors of the Letter, which describe themselves as "a bipartisan group with diverse policy views" include (among others) the key NeoConservatives ideologues and protagonists of Bush's "surge", namely William Kristol, Frederick and Robert Kagan, Gary Schmitt and Thomas Donnelly. Other prominent members include former CIA director James Woolsley, John Hopkins Professor Eliot Cohen, who has acted as an adviser to Paul Wolfowitz and has participated in PNAC activities, former CIA specialist Reul Gerecht, Senior PNAC fellow, associated with the AEI and the Weekly Standard, Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, etc. .
In this regard, there is a consistent NeoConservative thread characterized by a working relationship between Washington think tanks (CFR, AEI, PNAC, Carnegie, etc) as well as complex net of personal and family ties between the various NeoCon protagonists.
The "Surge" is De Facto
Bush's "Surge" has de facto already been put in place in the form of what Mahdi Nazemroaya describes as "a concealed military draft":
"[T]he U.S. Marines have started recalling or legally summoning thousands of ‘inactive servicemen’ to serve in Iraq and the Middle East, where the number of U.S. troops and contracted security personal are dropping towards hap-hazardous levels. ... The U.S. Army too, undermined by shortfalls in manpower, has ordered over a reported 14,000 ‘inactive servicemen’ back to fight" (Mahdi D. Nazemroaya, Global Research, August 2007)
Similarly, the Bush administration has taken measures to increase the recruitment of private mercenary-soldiers, who constitute a significant and growing force in both Iraq and Afghanistan (Ibid)
"Many young men from within the United States and around the world seeking American citizenships or green cards have also been lured into the circuits of the U.S. military and mercenary groups." (Ibid)
The Universal National Service Act of 2007
Barely noticed, in early 2006, Congressman Charles Rangel, a Democrat (NY), introduced a bill in the US Congress which requires:
"all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a [two year] period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."
Ironically, Rangel's initiative to restore the draft was described as "an anti-war tactic" directed against the Bush adminstration:
"Rangel opposes war with Iraq and seeks to make the point that many soldiers are volunteers from low-income and minority families. Political leaders, his reasoning goes, would think twice about sending into war the sons and daughters of a more complete cross-section of America. But whether or not one agrees with Rangel's rationale, many Americans would agree that universal service can be a great leveler and a unifying force in society."
The 2006 version of the bill (which followed earlier versions) was referred to the House Armed Services Committee and its Subcommittee on Military Personnel. There have been no actions taken at the committee or subcommittee levels since it was introduced in February of last year.( See Library of Congress)
However, following the victory of the Democrats in the November 7, 2006 elections, Rep. Rangel reaffirmed his commitment to "bringing back the draft" as part of the House of Representatives' Democratic agenda.
On January 10th 2007, Rep. Rangel reintroduced his bill, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2007 (HR.393). Was this a coincidence? It was introduced on exactly the same day as Bush's announcement regarding the "Surge", in a nationally televised address where the president confirmed that he was going to "surge" an additional 21,500 troops and that this decision would be implemented without seeking the authorization of the U.S. Congress. (See Francis Boyle, January 2007)
Meanwhile Rangel's bill HR 393 has been referred to the Arms Services Committee, which is standard procedure.
What are the implications of Rangel's timely January 10 proposed Universal National Service Act?
Although Rep Charles Rangel is firmly opposed to sending more troops to Iraq, this reintroduction of his bill directly serves the interests of the Bush administration, which can now confront the Democrats for attempting to reintroduce compulsory conscription. While Bill HR 393, which is opposed by ranking democrats, has little chance of being adopted, it could indeed be used in an opportune fashion to manufacture a shaky bipartisan legitimacy on Bush's proposed "Surge" in troops. .
Given the dynamics and hidden agenda behind these various initiatives, a combination of the NeoCon Surge on the one hand and the "Universal Service Act" proposed by a leading Democrat on the other, might ultimately serve the interests of military escalation, leading to some form of bipartisan "consensus" on "involuntary" conscription.
The decision and discussions would be reached behind closed doors in the Armed Services committees of the House and the Senate. There are many formal mechanisms which could be applied outside the formal reintroduction of the Draft, which could be applied.
This form of bipartisan dialogue would serve to deflect attention from the more fundamental issue of military escalation, which is being implemented without Congressional approval.
If the Bush/Cheney White House refuses to seek authorization from Congress for an increase in troop deployments to Iraq, this could constitute a violation of the United States Constitution. (for further details see Francis Boyle, op. cit)
Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, at www.globalresearch.ca . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His most recent book is entitled: America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.
"So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq." (President Bush's TV address to the Nation, 10 January 2007)
Within days of Bush's announcement, Congress responded by a formally rebuffing the White House's proposal to send more troops:
"The defiant White House stance comes as both the House and Senate, now controlled by Democrats, prepare to vote on resolutions that oppose additional U.S. troops in Iraq. Cheney said those nonbinding votes would not affect Bush's ability to carry out his policies" (AP, Jan 14, 2007)
While differences have emerged between the presidency and the US Congress regarding troop dewployments, real opposition to Bush's "surge" largely emanates from the broader American public, which is putting pressure on its (elected) members of Congress.
The Neo-Conservative Architects of Bush's "Surge"
US troops in Iraq are facing fierce and organized armed resistance.
Occupation forces no longer exercise control over part of Iraqi territory.
The "Green Zone" is threatened.
Despite these developments, the decision to substantially increase US forces in Iraq is not a makeshift initiative, which emerged in response to the evolving crisis in Iraq. It is part of a carefully formulated NeoCon agenda to increase the size of US forces and reinstate "involuntary" forms of military conscription.
The Neo-Conservative Architects of Bush's "Surge"
The decision to substantially increase US forces in Iraq is not a makeshift initiative, which emerged in response to the evolving crisis in Iraq. It is part of a carefully formulated NeoCon agenda to increase the size of US forces and reinstate "involuntary" forms of military conscription.
Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute is credited as being on of the main architects of Bush 's "Surge". Fred Kagan together with General (ret) Jack Keane, argue that "any troop increase must be large and lasting", involving "a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so". (Quoted in the the Financial Times, 2 January 2007).
"Kagan was arguing that while "the high end of estimates" suggested the need for another 80,000 US troops to stage an effective counter-insurgency operation in Iraq, "it is very likely that a surge of 50,000 troops would be sufficient to stabilise the capital". In the event, it seems unlikely that Mr Bush will commit even half that number".(Ibid)
Frederick Kagan is the brother of Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who coincidentally is also on the board of Directors of the Project of the New American Century (PNAC). The latter is a Washington based think tank, with direct ties to the Bush Cabinet, headed by William Kristol,
William Kristol is the son of Irving Kristol, one of the main founding figures of Neoconservatism. Irving Kristol sits on Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). He is also a Senior Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
William Kristol is editor of the influential Washington based Weekly Standard. Robert Kagan is a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard. All of these people are firmly committed to America's "long war", a war without borders, inspired by the teachings of the late Leo Strauss at University of Chicago.
Surge and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
An overall expansion of US forces worldwide is an integral part of mission of the NeoConservatives as contained in the Project of the New American Century's key document entitled " Rebuilding American Defenses"
Bush's "Surge" is essentially derived from this document, which constitutes the PNAC's manifesto.The authors of this report are Donald Kagan, (professor of history at Yale University and father of Frederick and Robert)., Gary Schmitt (Project Coordinator together with Donald Kagan) and Thomas Donnelly (main author), Both Schmitt and donnelly are resident fellows at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and colleagues of Frederick Kagan.
In Part IV of " Rebuilding American Defenses", the PNAC recommends an overall expansion of "active-duty strength" from 475,000 (2000 figure) to 525,000. It also also points to the reinforcement of the Army National Guard as:
"a hedge against the need for a larger-than-anticipated force in combat.... It should not be used primarily to provide combat service support to active Army units engaged in current operations"
The Army National Guard should according to the PNAC "play its essential role in fighting large scale wars", while minimizing its civilian functions.
PNAC Pressures US Congress
Two years ago (28 Jan 2005), the PNAC submitted a Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces, addressed to the Senate and House Majority and Minority leaders. The Letter asserts that "the United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume" and that steps must consequently be taken:
"to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years."
The authors of the Letter, which describe themselves as "a bipartisan group with diverse policy views" include (among others) the key NeoConservatives ideologues and protagonists of Bush's "surge", namely William Kristol, Frederick and Robert Kagan, Gary Schmitt and Thomas Donnelly. Other prominent members include former CIA director James Woolsley, John Hopkins Professor Eliot Cohen, who has acted as an adviser to Paul Wolfowitz and has participated in PNAC activities, former CIA specialist Reul Gerecht, Senior PNAC fellow, associated with the AEI and the Weekly Standard, Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, etc. .
In this regard, there is a consistent NeoConservative thread characterized by a working relationship between Washington think tanks (CFR, AEI, PNAC, Carnegie, etc) as well as complex net of personal and family ties between the various NeoCon protagonists.
The "Surge" is De Facto
Bush's "Surge" has de facto already been put in place in the form of what Mahdi Nazemroaya describes as "a concealed military draft":
"[T]he U.S. Marines have started recalling or legally summoning thousands of ‘inactive servicemen’ to serve in Iraq and the Middle East, where the number of U.S. troops and contracted security personal are dropping towards hap-hazardous levels. ... The U.S. Army too, undermined by shortfalls in manpower, has ordered over a reported 14,000 ‘inactive servicemen’ back to fight" (Mahdi D. Nazemroaya, Global Research, August 2007)
Similarly, the Bush administration has taken measures to increase the recruitment of private mercenary-soldiers, who constitute a significant and growing force in both Iraq and Afghanistan (Ibid)
"Many young men from within the United States and around the world seeking American citizenships or green cards have also been lured into the circuits of the U.S. military and mercenary groups." (Ibid)
The Universal National Service Act of 2007
Barely noticed, in early 2006, Congressman Charles Rangel, a Democrat (NY), introduced a bill in the US Congress which requires:
"all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a [two year] period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."
Ironically, Rangel's initiative to restore the draft was described as "an anti-war tactic" directed against the Bush adminstration:
"Rangel opposes war with Iraq and seeks to make the point that many soldiers are volunteers from low-income and minority families. Political leaders, his reasoning goes, would think twice about sending into war the sons and daughters of a more complete cross-section of America. But whether or not one agrees with Rangel's rationale, many Americans would agree that universal service can be a great leveler and a unifying force in society."
The 2006 version of the bill (which followed earlier versions) was referred to the House Armed Services Committee and its Subcommittee on Military Personnel. There have been no actions taken at the committee or subcommittee levels since it was introduced in February of last year.( See Library of Congress)
However, following the victory of the Democrats in the November 7, 2006 elections, Rep. Rangel reaffirmed his commitment to "bringing back the draft" as part of the House of Representatives' Democratic agenda.
On January 10th 2007, Rep. Rangel reintroduced his bill, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2007 (HR.393). Was this a coincidence? It was introduced on exactly the same day as Bush's announcement regarding the "Surge", in a nationally televised address where the president confirmed that he was going to "surge" an additional 21,500 troops and that this decision would be implemented without seeking the authorization of the U.S. Congress. (See Francis Boyle, January 2007)
Meanwhile Rangel's bill HR 393 has been referred to the Arms Services Committee, which is standard procedure.
What are the implications of Rangel's timely January 10 proposed Universal National Service Act?
Although Rep Charles Rangel is firmly opposed to sending more troops to Iraq, this reintroduction of his bill directly serves the interests of the Bush administration, which can now confront the Democrats for attempting to reintroduce compulsory conscription. While Bill HR 393, which is opposed by ranking democrats, has little chance of being adopted, it could indeed be used in an opportune fashion to manufacture a shaky bipartisan legitimacy on Bush's proposed "Surge" in troops. .
Given the dynamics and hidden agenda behind these various initiatives, a combination of the NeoCon Surge on the one hand and the "Universal Service Act" proposed by a leading Democrat on the other, might ultimately serve the interests of military escalation, leading to some form of bipartisan "consensus" on "involuntary" conscription.
The decision and discussions would be reached behind closed doors in the Armed Services committees of the House and the Senate. There are many formal mechanisms which could be applied outside the formal reintroduction of the Draft, which could be applied.
This form of bipartisan dialogue would serve to deflect attention from the more fundamental issue of military escalation, which is being implemented without Congressional approval.
If the Bush/Cheney White House refuses to seek authorization from Congress for an increase in troop deployments to Iraq, this could constitute a violation of the United States Constitution. (for further details see Francis Boyle, op. cit)
Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, at www.globalresearch.ca . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His most recent book is entitled: America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.
Homepage:
