The Divide between Geopolitical Strategy and Public Perception

http://www.salon.com/2007/10/12/wesley_clark/

This news has been out for awhile and it's nothing too shocking but it was noticeably absent from the mainstream media.

Wesley Clark is the retired general who made a run for president back in 2004. I remember when he entered the race, I thought he would probably have a pretty good chance. Kerry being a New Englander would struggle to win over Southern and Midwestern swing voters. Kennedy had to pick Johnson in order to win that block.

Clark was perfect for a run against Bush. He was a moderate Southerner and ex-military. He couldn't be accused of being some kind of ultra-left type. His criticisms of the Iraq policy would have held some weight...but apparently he didn't play his cards right.

Anyway, in recent years he's commented on the War on Terror and what he reveals is worth considering. For years many observers have believed that this was the mechanism the United States was employing to firmly establish the Unipolar System.

After the Cold War and the end of Bi-polarity many believed and hoped the world would naturally revert to its historic Multi-polar paradigm... powerful countries with regional interests etc...

The Cold War was an anomaly and artificial. When this scenario ended the United States quickly embarked to establish the 'New World Order' as George HW Bush put it. Many think of this as some kind of UN-based global government. Quite the contrary. The unipolar order was supposed to be based on the United States.

Within weeks after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Panama was invaded. Old allies were turned on, old wars abandoned. The Gulf War of 1990-91 was as much a geo-political declaration as it was a war...which for the most part it was not.

The US pushed for German reunification and intervened in the Balkans to ensure the whole of Europe was either part of the EU, within NATO or at the very least compliant with the strategic designs of these organizations. Again, these are mechanisms for control. The US can twist the EU's arm if need be and it dominates NATO.

In the following years US policymakers would move to gobble up the remnants of the Warsaw Pact, make alliances in the Caucasus and forge ties with the energy rich '-stans' of Central Asia. This was to check any attempt at Russian revival and to stop the quickly surging Chinese economy. In Russia itself the US moved to ally itself with corrupt Oligarchs and collaborate with the criminal underworld. Only with Vladimir Putin did the American surge begin to slow. He quickly checked America's domestic influence, and sought to counter them in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Ukraine is still caught in the tug-of-war.

The Project for the New American Century lamented the ascension of Bill Clinton. After the Somalia debacle he was reticent to pursue their plans. Ultimately he did move on Bosnia and in his second term would become more active in the pursuit of Iraq, Sudan, and finally after the non-conformist Serbs in Kosovo. The Serbs had to be 'corrected' before Russia would be strong enough to return to its historic role (in the Multi-polar scheme) as protector of Eastern Christendom...the role it is now assuming.

The end of the Cold War meant that (whether true or not) America could declare a victory. But the celebrations would be short lived. Geopolitical strategists need enemies and the US floundered throughout the 1990's declaring war on Drugs and Terrorism but these things didn't stick until 2001.

Then the United States had every justification it needed to 'seal the deal' and pursue its strategic objectives.

These objectives were regime change in: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran

The domination of these states would fulfill the grand plan concerning the securing of resources, the security of Israel and Saudi Arabia, the Red Sea/Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf and place the US nicely with regard to their objectives vis-a-vis the New Russia which was taking shape under Putin.

This was the plan and it had very little (if nothing) to do with Al Qaeda and terrorism. This was sort of a Phase 1 on the road to global dominance.

These military manoeuvres coupled with surging Globalization and the sudden growth in computer technology with regard to logistics and surveillance would secure the world for American Unilateralism or to employ the euphemistic language of the new paradigm...the Hyper-power.

This was the plan and in some ways it has succeeded and in others it has failed miserably. Bush and the people behind him were more than willing to carry this out but they bungled it badly. They misread the Iraq situation so badly that it significantly derailed their plans. By 2006, the plan was collapsing and by the time the financial crisis hit in 2008 it seemed dead. The election of Obama seemed to be the nail in the coffin.

But like Bill Clinton, Obama has completely betrayed his base and while trying to distance himself from Bush's geo-strategic policies, in many ways he has simply expanded them. The game is by no means over.

By the end of the Iraq debacle the world situation had already began to shift and the Arab Spring confirmed this... but also in some ways has bogged America down. Obama has obviously been sold on the next phase of the American Empire project...

It would seem that Absolute Unipolarity is a bit out of reach. To use Hegelian terms we need one more round of dialectic....in this case another round of Bipolarity. The US would rather enter into a second Cold War with China then have the world political scene break up into a multi-polar world where we see the US as merely as a hemispheric power competing with China, India, Turkey, Russia and Europe as other world power bases.

The next decade is make-or-break time for the unipolar dreams of the United States. There are numerous possibilities and scenarios but one thing is clear...the United States we all knew during the post-World War II years is gone and isn't coming back. We've undergone a huge cultural shift akin to what took place after 1945.