• Search

The Pit and the Pentagon-The Internet and the End Game By Brian Bogart

The Pit and the Pentagon-The Internet and the End Game By Brian Bogart

The Pit and the Pentagon-The Internet and the End Game By Brian Bogart

What once was the neo-con phenomenon of the late ‘90’s and the millennial election now dominates the White House, the Pentagon, and every sector of federal government and policymaking. During the past five years, countless workers left their jobs at Defense and Intelligence due to the influx of appointees. These new appointees were not mere observers but active proponents of ideology, dedicated to protecting and promoting the corporate-military system and its holy master, the “creative destruction” of American capitalism.

(Capitalism is distinctly separate from market theory, which Adam Smith designed in 1776 for social benefit. In contrast, capitalism uses capital for the few at the expense of the many. Giving the word capitalism a positive connotation was a 20th-century triumph for the elite.)

Thanks to this ultraconservative permeation into all spheres of government, capitalism now motivates the deadliest strategy ever devised by men.

The Quadrennial Defense Review of 2005 (due out soon) may shed further light, but an overview of the Pentagon trilogy (National Security Strategy 2002, National Military Strategy 2004, National Defense Strategy 2005) and its Future Combat Systems (FCS) program clearly points to a seizure or drastic restriction of the Internet, long predicted by experts in neo-con strategy.

The National Defense Strategy of 2005 (NDS) repeatedly states as among its primary first-phase goals: “to secure the global commons (oceans, airspace, cyberspace, outer space) and lines of communication.” People — what they want from government and how they live — are not a concern. Where freedoms are concerned, global “freedom of action” by United States military forces officially stands alone in the NDS.

Pentagon strategy also states that surveillance, civil and international, is crucial and in “mature stages of development to meet all challenges.” The Pentagon may split the Net at first, using its half for asserting phase one, and using the public’s half for surveillance. The public will not know about this if it occurs.

Other possibilities include:

    shutdown of the Net as a result of a Supreme Court decision, as the matter is now before the Court in MGM v Glockster. seizure of the Net for Defense purposes after another “homeland” event such as 9-11. severe restriction and surveillance of the Net, with Defense operations relying on a higher, more secure form of cyberspace communications.

Former CIA head George Tenet told the world this winter that the Internet would soon be vastly different for the sake of security: “(The Internet) represents a potential Achilles heel for our financial stability and physical security if the networks we are creating are not protected.”

The Pentagon’s Future Combat Systems program, the key to the end game, depends on a networked soldier. The end game, projected at 20 to 30 years down the road, is a robot army; literally, robot soldiers everywhere in the world. For the next 20 to 30 years, human soldiers will be enhanced by integrated advanced communication systems via cyberspace. These 18 different systems will increasingly enable “reachback,” which is the core of the strategy. Reachback refers to killing by remote control. (See Eugene’s April 21 2005 Register-Guard, page one, Online Killing, for an example).

The US military as a global police force? Absolutely. This goal is evident in nearly every page of the NDS. To maintain the American system of capitalism globally, the Pentagon wants to wage war and control the world from home. Global redeployment is underway with that in mind. Beginning in 2008, human soldiers will be reachback capable. Human soldiers (called the Objective Force Warrior...think about that term: Objective Force) will make fewer and fewer decisions, will not need to aim weapons, and ultimately will not pull the trigger.

Each soldier will have “20 times the capability of today’s warrior by about 2010. The Lead Systems Integrator (LSI), Boeing and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), working in partnership with the Army and DARPA, has total systems integration responsibility for the FCS program. Soldiers will have full-spectrum capabilities, optimized for urban combat.” (globalsecurity.org/military/systems; See also DARPA Programs at arpa.mil)

The entire strategy maximizes the soldier to minimize the need for a military draft. On the other hand, America stands one event away from a knee-jerk “patriotic” frenzy that would make an aggressive draft publicly acceptable.

US forces will use Iraq’s oil reserves to seize other oil reserves and thus neutralize military competition. The point of this seizure is to placate Americans by giving them enough self-indulgent slack (status-quo consumerism) to get to the end game (20 to 30 years), and to enable current oil-based US military forces to reach the end game. Americans will have enough oil while other nations surpass consumption thresholds.

The US will pit nations against each other to deter partnerships that might thwart the end-game strategy; thus, the China-Japan rift, and others will be encouraged to fester.

An all-out launch of the strategy appears to hinge on the upcoming release of the above-mentioned Quadrennial Defense Review of 2005.

Points of Consideration

  • All areas of government are dominated or heavily under siege by ultraconservatives fully allied with US corporate-military powers. The neo-conservative movement is no longer a separate extremist entity, as its sphere of influence has encompassed the makers and enforcers of US policy as well as strategic US goals, economic and otherwise.
  • Originally known as ARPANET, the Internet was the brainchild of the Department of Defense (DoD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), not public domain.
  • Pentagon strategy not only suggests it has the capability to shut down or alter the Internet, it relies on shutting it down or altering it.
  • Pentagon strategy, civil and international, answers to two men alone: the president or (not “and”) the secretary of defense. The American people have no say; their fate is decided in secrecy.
  • Pentagon strategy isolates America and abuses all other nations. Beyond 2010, with the strategy in full swing, there will be scant potential for disaster-free recovery. If the people (and progressives who represent the conscience of the people) fail to unite and keep up with this rapidly unfolding scenario, they will not be in a position to oppose it and will suffer its consequences.
  • Contrary to founding principles, what the public sees and knows is always the tip of the iceberg. People inclined to do so can freely access unclassified information, but this appears temporary and unfortunately involves a small percentage of those pursuing progressive causes.

The records show that there has never been a national security consensus from the people to their government directing it to establish permanent global military superiority—but there clearly has been a national security consensus from the power elite directing the people’s government to do so. This elite consensus took effect simultaneous to the undemocratic post-World War II decision to employ a military-first US economy rather than a people-first economy. Though the people never gave their consent, America has since relied on conflict (there have been some 200 wars in the world since World War II) and its primary industry remains weapons manufacturing and sales.

To assert that the American people understand and approve of a military-first economy, and by extension the current strategy for global supremacy, would be misleading, as the only mention of such a system has come from Hollywood productions of futuristic world scenarios, most of which portray a planet dominated by America. The fact that Americans accept so much emphasis on militarism today is a result of carefully orchestrated exploitations of terrorism, other manipulations of various groups of citizens (religious, etc.), and a prevailing sense of futility among youth. September 11, 2001 is thus cited by the vast majority of those who do approve of such emphasis.

All of this separates building a second superpower of public opinion into two areas: global and domestic. Anger against the US footprint will generate public opinion globally, while only a Pentagon misstep or a quantum shift in American thinking led by progressives will trigger a domestic movement.

The scope of this refined Pentagon strategy should motivate a serious effort in counterstrategy. Progressives should become informed and work together on behalf of people everywhere, who would choose to resist a permanent, military-backed enslavement to American interests.

Some have pointed to the assassination of President Kennedy as a warning to future presidents not to stray too far from the elite consensus. Thus, few two-party approaches to this situation exist. For this reason, it is hard to imagine how progressives might respond in the traditional sense, and it is therefore imperative that progressive groups continue to maintain their myriad agendas and unite to formulate counterstrategy as quickly as possible.

According to historical records, the people never voted for—nor were asked or informed about—establishing the post-World War II permanent war economy or post-Cold War global military superiority; the latter being wholly of ultraconservative designs. Yet such designs have mutated and matured into clear and official US doctrine that can only be challenged in the earliest stages.

As Americans, we have as recourse the 9th Amendment and fundamentally very little else. As humans we have far greater potential, most of which has yet to be discussed and developed among us.

Rather than wait for new books to appear and events to unfold, individuals would be wise to broadly participate in this situation, collectively working as a team—an entity of love and higher consciousness—to imagine, share, and refine aspects of its resolution, for it is from a lack of such active responsibility to founding concepts that our condition arose.

Abstract cleverness of the few got us into this pit, and only the cooperation and wisdom of the many, mindful of the needs of all life, can safely get us out.

“Life’s continuing quest to achieve ever-higher forms of complexity and competence takes place through joining individual entities into new wholes with new capabilities.” — David C. Korten, The Post-Corporate World

Brian Bogart, Graduate School/Peace Studies, University of Oregon, [email protected]

Share it:

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.