Pentagon Defense and Military Strategies
• Build the Bulwark Against War and Fascism
• Dramatic Increase in Resistance to Military
• FYI: Resisting the Military

Codifying Brutal U.S. Strategy for War
• Pentagon National Defense Strategy
• National Military Strategy: Militarization of Relations, National and International
• Military Base Reorganizing: Building a “Seamless Total Force” for Aggression Abroad and Repression at Home
• Pentagon Defense Strategy Executive Summary
• National Military Strategy Executive Summary

Pentagon Defense and Military Strategies

Build the Bulwark Against War and Fascism

The Pentagon recently released its National Defense Strategy (NDS) together with its National Military Strategy (NMS). Both plans are characterized by the brutality of U.S. imperialism and the brazen chauvinism of the ruling class as it seeks to achieve world domination. These strategies represent an effort to complete arrangements and preparations necessary to impose war and fascism worldwide, as the means for the U.S. to control the world, its peoples and resources, even outer space.

The materials openly proclaim that the aim is “Full Spectrum Dominance — the ability to control any situation or defeat any adversary across the range of military operations.” For the U.S., the issue is not defending itself from enemy attack, but taking "pre-emptive" military action to “alter an adversary’s unacceptable behavior or policies” or achieve “regime change, defense or restoration.” Both strategies emphasize that U.S. objectives at home and abroad will be accomplished by “developing our own key military advantage” and “demonstrating the will to resolve conflicts decisively on favorable terms.” The U.S. will also not hesitate to use nuclear weapons as part of its first-strike "pre-emptive" actions. As the NMS says, the existing nuclear forces will be transformed to a model that includes “non-nuclear and nuclear strike forces.”

All the norms and standards for international relations, including respect for sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of countries, which outlaw “regime change or restoration” and all aggression and propaganda for it as war crimes, are all eliminated. They are replaced by arrangements for U.S. war and dictate, any time, anywhere. As the NDS puts it, “At the direction of the President, we will defeat adversaries at the time, place and in the manner of our choosing.” The NDS calls for the U.S. to impose “global freedom of action” to “secure access to key regions, lines of communications and the global commons.” These global commons are not just the globe itself. The NDS states, U.S. ability “to operate in and from the global commons — space, international waters and airspace and cyberspace — is important” and “critical to the direct defense of the United States.” With utmost chauvinism the U.S. is openly declaring that all the planet, its peoples, resources and outer space belong to it, to militarize and destroy.

The imperialists are counting on their chauvinism to win the support of the American people, something they very much require. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard B. Myers put it in introducing the NMS, the task of the military to achieve full spectrum dominance “requires the full integration of all instruments of national power, the cooperation and participation of friends and allies and the support of the American people.”

U.S. rulers are attempting to play on the notion that so long as there are not American deaths, all other aggression and crimes are acceptable. Repeatedly the strategies call for taking action “early and at a safe distance” from the U.S. The U.S. rulers are banking on this chauvinism to convince Americans to support their path of fascism and war. The reality that this chauvinist effort will likely fail can already be seen in the consciousness in the anti-war movement — including that of soldiers resisting the war, military families, youth, students and workers — who are taking their stand on principle that the war in Iraq is a crime and George Bush a war criminal. The movement is fighting from the perspective Not One More Day, Not One More Life, Not One More Dime! Similarly at the recent actions against nuclear weapons, Americans and Japanese stood as one to demand that the U.S. disarm and to fight to ensure that there is never another Hiroshima anywhere on the planet. These and many other examples show that Americans are standing shoulder to shoulder with the world’s people, rising to defend and advance all of humanity.

It is in part to counter the growing resistance that the strategies also call for development of a “seamless total force,” controlled by the military. The NMS calls for a single integrated joint force that “focuses on fusing and synchronizing military operations among the Services, other government agencies, the commercial sector, non-government organizations and those of partners abroad.” It adds that this single force “requires the full integration of all instruments of national power,” and that “enhancing joint warfighting requires the integration of our Active and Reserve Components and our civilian work force to create a seamless total force.”

The efforts to create this “seamless total force” necessarily require elimination of the long-standing division between military and civilian life, long considered a hallmark of U.S.-style democracy. The arrangements now being fully imposed put the military and “war-fighting” at the center with everything else subordinated to the needs of “war-fighting” and achieving “full spectrum” world dominance. A single “seamless total force” that puts civilians, government and industry all at the disposal of this aim is being put in place. The Executive, especially the President as Commander-in-Chief, will decide.

Building this “seamless force” already includes establishment of the Pentagon’s Northern Command, responsible for all of North America, reorganizing of military bases into giant joint bases, re-stationing 70,000 U.S. troops in the U.S., “security plans” that put the military in command in the event of “declared emergencies” inside the county, joint military drills that include civilians, sharing of all information with the military, establishment of a national ID card with biometric identifiers, and much more, including secret plans.

What stands out is that these plans for war and fascism fully reveal the true colors of U.S. style democracy, in all its chauvinism and brutality. It shows a superpower insistent on molding the world in its image and using all the power and weapons at its disposal to do so. As the NDS says, the U.S. seeks to create conditions for an international order that is “favorable to freedom, democracy and economic opportunity,” of the U.S. brand.

Americans know exactly what the character of this democracy is, with elections and the whole political set-up being condemned as a fraud from top to bottom. It is a fraud designed to keep the people out of power while guaranteeing the rule of a class that cannot provide any solutions to the problems of the day, especially the security and well-being of the people.

Across the country this U.S.-style democracy is delivering massive attacks on rights, including the right to education, healthcare, livelihoods, to organize unions, freedom of speech and association, and free and fair elections. It has shown it is no longer fit for existence on the planet and must resort to brutality and use of force to prevent being wiped from the face of the earth. The very fact that the government is organizing to impose military dictate at home is evidence that it fears the power of the people and their just movements against war and for democracy.

Building the bulwark against the U.S. path of war and fascism is vital. The resistance that is developing all across the country must be strengthened and stepped up. Building up broad discussion among the people to develop common thinking about the grave dangers posed by U.S. imperialism and taking united action to defend the rights of all, in each and every case, is the way forward. It is the democracy and power being developed and built by the American people, a democracy that empowers the people to work collectively and take decisions that favor them, that is contributing to the struggle of humanity for a new world that puts the rights of all the peoples abroad and at home, at the center.

[TOP]

Dramatic Increase in Resistance to Military

May 10, 2005: Demonstration in San Diego during the National Day of Action in support of all soldiers refusing to fight in Iraq and all the youth refusing to join the military and organizing resistance in their schools.

Last year the Pentagon admitted that at least 5,500 U.S. military personnel, most from the Army, had resisted the war and left the military. Those working with people refusing to serve say the true figure is much higher. The GI Rights Hotline, War Resisters League, National Lawyers Guild, the American Friends Service Committee, and many other groups report that the number of veterans and recruits inquiring about how to avoid service or leave the military has risen dramatically over the last year. Most people are resisting and refusing on the grounds that the war on Iraq is immoral, illegal, and unjust. In March, news reports indicated that “Pentagon figures show more than 8,000” soldiers have refused to fight in the war since its start.

Steve Morse of the GI Rights Hotline says that the number of calls they have received from soldiers and recruits resisting the military and trying to leave has grown from 17,000 in 2001 to more than 32,000 in 2004. He says that about 30 percent are from soldiers who have already gone AWOL (Absent Without Leave) or are thinking about doing so as part of their efforts to oppose the war in Iraq.

At present, the hotline gets 3,000 calls a month and the volunteers say that by the time a soldier or recruit dials the help-line they have almost always made up their mind to resist by one means or another. Jeffry House, lawyer for outspoken resister Jeremy Hinzman and four other soldiers now in Canada, said he has had inquiries from more than 100 U.S. service members.

More soldiers and military families are also publicly taking their stand against the war in Iraq. U.S. Army veteran Carl Webb, thirty-nine, recently told the St Louis Post-Dispatch that he felt strongly that, “I won’t kill if I feel I’m on the wrong side. This is a war about oil and profits. It’s not about bringing democracy to anybody.” Capturing the spirit of many, Camilo Mejía, a former staff sergeant who refused to return to Iraq after spending five months there in 2003, told the Inter Press Service News Agency that, “There are so many people dying in this senseless, criminal war that going to jail to oppose it or refusing to join the army are not very big sacrifices when you compare them to all the innocent people killed in the war.” Mejía served time in jail and was released on February 15. He, like many other soldiers and returning veterans are joining the anti-war movement, building organizations like Iraq Veterans Against the War and speaking at rallies and elsewhere, calling on all to refuse to serve and to step up the struggle to end the war in Iraq and all unjust wars.

[TOP]

Resisting the Military

The military, facing tremendous pressures to keep and recruit more soldiers, often threatens and lies to soldiers requesting information concerning how to leave the military given their convictions that the Iraq war is criminal or beliefs against all war. Organizations providing information to soldiers generally recommend that those who have gone AWOL (Absent Without Leave) turn themselves in within 30 days. Going AWOL is one of the most common means soldiers choose to refuse duty in Iraq. If they turn themselves in within 30 days and a fight is waged to leave the military, the individual can gain a discharge, though it is commonly a less-than-honorable one. Such a discharge rarely impacts on future employment.

Once an individual is AWOL for more than thirty days, they are branded as a deserter and an arrest warrant is issued. If caught the individual is returned to their unit and/or court-martialed and often given jail time. As those soldiers forced to serve time in jail for resisting have said, it is far better to refuse to commit war crimes and do time in jail with a clear conscious, than it is to serve in Iraq and commit untold crimes against civilians.

For information on resisting recruitment and getting out of the military, contact any of the following organizations:

Central Committee for ­Conscientious Objectors
1515 Cherry St.
Philadelphia, PA 19102
http://www.objector.org

American Friends Service Committee New England Regional Office
2161 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02140
afscnero@afsc.org

Center on Conscience & War (NISBCO)
1830 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20009
202-483-2220 or 800-379-2679
http://www.nisbco.org

Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild
318 Ortega St.
San Francisco, CA 94122
415-566-3732
http://www.nlg.org/mltf

Northcoast WRL / Humboldt Committee for Conscientious Objectors (NCWRL-HCCO)
1040 H Street
Arcata, CA 95521
707-826-0165
HCCO-Help@sbcglobal.net

Quaker House of Fayetteville, NC
223 Hillside Ave
Fayetteville, NC 28301
910-323-3912 or 919-663-7122
http://www.quakerhouse.org

Resource Center for Nonviolence Draft & Military Alternatives
515 Broadway
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831-359-0202
http://www.rcnv.org/rcnv/co.htm

San Diego Military Counseling Project
P.O. Box 15307
San Diego, CA 92175
619-692-3686
http://www.sdmcp.org

Seattle Draft and Military Counseling Center
P.O. Box 25681
Seattle, WA 98165-1181
206-789-2751
sdmcc@scn.org

Veterans for Peace
438 N. Skinker
St. Louis, MO 63130
314-725-6005
http://www.veteransforpeace.org

War Resisters League
339 Lafayette Street
New York, NY 10012
212-228-0450
http://www.warresisters.org

[TOP]

Brutal U.S. Strategy for War

Pentagon National Defense Strategy

The Pentagon recently released the “National Defense Strategy” (NDS) of the United States. It is a document that openly declares and codifies as U.S. strategy: pre-emptive war, long-term occupations, military dictate at home, as well as militarization and U.S. control of space and international waters and airspace.

January 6, 2005: Demonstration in Washington, D.C. opposing the fraud of the 2004 U.S. Presidential Elections on the occasion of Congressional certification of the vote.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the forward to the document, refers to the U.S. as “an unusually powerful player in world affairs,” and says the Strategy is implementing President George W. Bush’s “commitment to the forward defense of freedom.” He says, “This strategy emphasizes the importance of influencing events before challenges become more dangerous and less manageable.” He adds, “The war on terrorism has exposed new challenges, but also unprecedented strategic opportunities to work at home and with allies and partners abroad to create conditions favorable to a secure international order.” These conditions “include the effective and responsible exercise of sovereignty, representative governance, peaceful resolution of regional disputes, and open and competitive markets.” (NDS, March 2005, p. 7)

The Executive Summary provides key highlights of the document, also emphasizing U.S. “global freedom of action” to “secure access to key regions, lines of communication and the global commons.” It begins with the statement that the U.S. is at war and says the strategy seeks to create conditions for an international order that is “favorable to freedom, democracy, and economic opportunity. This strategy promotes close cooperation with others around the world who are committed to these goals. It addresses mature and emerging threats.” The section on alliances further elaborates this content, saying, “We will expand the community of nations that share principles and interests with us,” and are willing to “cooperate” with the U.S. Giving content to Bush’s “you are with us or against us,” the Strategy says, “Problem states will continue to undermine regional stability and threaten U.S. interests. These states are hostile to U.S. principles.” (p. 5)

The summary then speaks to U.S. plans for "pre-emptive" war, anytime, anywhere the U.S. decides. It says U.S. objectives will be accomplished by “developing our own key military advantage” and “demonstrating the will to resolve conflicts decisively on favorable terms.” It emphasizes that “At the direction of the President, we will defeat adversaries at the time, place and in the manner of our choosing.” This content alone is evidence of the completion of the wrecking of rule of law that the strategy represents. This includes not only the international laws and standards opposing aggressive wars and propaganda for them, but also that the President alone can launch such wars, a power that the Constitution gives to Congress, not the President.

The Pentagon’s NDS addresses a number of themes elaborating the U.S. strategy of war and fascism and the arrangements needed to achieve them, including “global freedom of action” to launch "pre-emptive" wars, “responsible sovereignty,” weapons of mass destruction, control of outer space, U.S. command control of the militaries of “partners,” and military missions inside the U.S.

Pre-Emptive War & Occupation

The content of the U.S. imposing the “global freedom to act” and to do so on a first-strike, aggressive basis, is repeated throughout the Strategy. The effort to justify this is based in large part on “working to actively forestall the emergence of new challenges,” from rivals, those states which stand against U.S. aggression and interference, or any others the U.S. considers a threat.

The U.S. aims “by various means, to preclude the emergence of the gravest dangers,” the Strategy asserts. It adds, “We will actively confront — when possible, early and at a safe distance — those who directly threaten us, employing all instruments of our national power. We will give top priority to dissuading, deterring and defeating those who seek to harm the United States directly, especially extremist enemies with weapons of mass destruction.” (p. 7) It emphasizes, “We will deter by maintaining capable and rapidly deployable military forces and, when necessary, demonstrating the will to resolve conflicts decisively on favorable terms.” (p. 9)

The NDS openly states that the U.S. “active defense” includes “preventive actions to deny an opponent the strategic initiative or preempt a devastating attack; combat operations against a capable and organized military, paramilitary or insurgent adversary; and stability operations that could range from peace-keeping to substantial combat action.” (p. 10) It should be noted here that the previous standard of an “imminent threat” or a “clear and present danger” has been replaced simply by the need to “deny an opponent.” The Strategy continues, saying, “Allowing opponents to strike first — particularly in an era of proliferation — is unacceptable. Therefore the United States must defeat the most dangerous challenges early and at a safe distance, before they are allowed to mature...Preventive actions include security cooperation, forward deterrence, humanitarian assistance, peace operations, and non-proliferation initiatives to interdict illicit WMD transiting the commons. Preventive actions also might entail other military operations — for example to prevent the outbreak of hostilities or to help defend or restore a friendly government.” (p. 11-12)

The Strategy goes on to say “A key goal is developing the capability to surge military forces rapidly from strategic distances to deny adversaries sanctuary. In some cases, this will involve discrete Special Operations Forces (SOF) or precision attacks on targets deep inside enemy territory. In others, sustained joint or combined combat operations will be necessary, requiring the comprehensive defeat of significant state and non-state opponents operating in or from enemy territory or an ungoverned area.” (p. 14)

Overall it emphasizes “Our most important contribution to the security of the U.S. homeland is our capacity to identify, disrupt and defeat threats early and at a safe distance, as far from the United States and its partners as possible. Our ability to identify and defeat threats abroad — before they can strike — while making critical contributions to the direct defense of our territory and population is the sine qua non of our nation’s security.”

Speaking to plans for long-term occupations, the Strategy says, “We will need to train units for sustained military operations. This will include developing ways to strengthen their language and civil-military affairs capabilities as required for specific deployments.”

The NDS also emphasizes the need for “capable partners at home and abroad.” It says a principle vehicle for strengthening these partnerships is the Pentagon’s “security cooperation” program. Speaking to the U.S. need for partners to supply troops and funds, the “cooperation program” calls for partners to play leading roles, with the U.S. acting to “increase their capability and willingness to operate in coalition with our forces.” To enforce this “cooperation,” the U.S. is “seeking authorities to facilitate cooperation with partner militaries and ministries of defense,” and “the military transformation of key allies,” including “combined command and control.” (p. 15)

The Strategy further speaks to eliminating any legal arrangements standing in the way of these plans for pre-emptive war and occupation. It says, “Many of the current legal arrangements that govern overseas posture date from an earlier era.” International agreements “must help, not hinder, rapid deployment and employment of U.S. and coalition forces worldwide in a crisis.” It says the U.S.. will act “consistent with our partners’ sovereign considerations," yet "will seek new legal arrangements that maximize our freedom to: deploy forces as needed; conduct essential training with partners in the host nation; and support deployed forces around the world.” The Strategy calls for Status of Forces agreements to provide for these “freedoms” and to protect U.S. troops from the International Criminal Court, responsible for trying war criminals. (p. 24)

“Responsible Sovereignty”

The NDS elaborates on the U.S. claim of various states “failing” to exercise “responsible sovereignty” using this as a justification for U.S. intervention. In the section on America’s role in the world (part I, A) it says that in the “secure order” the U.S. seeks, “states must be able to effectively govern themselves” and “exercise sovereignty responsibly.” It emphasizes, “It is unacceptable for regimes to use the principle of sovereignty as a shield behind which they claim to be free to engage in activities that pose enormous threats to their citizens, neighbors or the rest of the international community.” (p. 1) It adds, “Great dangers may arise in and emanate from relatively weak states and ungoverned areas. The U.S., its allies, and partners must remain vigilant to those states that lack the capacity to govern activity within their borders. Sovereign states are obligated to work to ensure that their territories are not used as bases for attacks on others.” (p. 1) Existing experience already shows that if the U.S. decides a state has “failed,” or poses an “emerging threat” or that they are “harboring terrorists” it will justify pre-emptive war so as to put in place a “responsible” government, much as has occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Strategy continues by very broadly identifying what the U.S. considers enemies, saying “Some enemies may seek to terrorize our population and destroy our way of life, while others will try to 1) limit our global freedom to act, 2) dominate key regions, or 3) attempt to make prohibitive the costs of meeting various U.S. international commitments.” (p. 1) The Strategy says that a U.S. course of “resolute action” and an “active defense of the nation and its interests” against such enemies is the means to “preserve and extend peace, freedom and prosperity” throughout the world.

Coupled with U.S. wars to put in place “responsible” governments are the U.S. claims that any opposition in international fora, such as the United Nations, represents “threats” to the U.S. on a par with terrorist attacks. The NDS says, “Our strength as a nation will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes, and terrorism.” In this manner, opposition to the U.S. in these international fora are now considered grounds for U.S. intervention. Given the isolation of the U.S. internationally and the growing unity worldwide against U.S. provocations, aggression and war plans, literally every country is now a “threat.”

In addition, ensuring the elimination of sovereignty in the name of “responsible sovereignty” also means arming partners. As the Strategy puts it, “We will expand the community of nations that share principles and interests with us and we will help partners increase their capacity to defend themselves and collectively meet challenges to our common interests.” (p. 8)

Weapons of Mass Destruction

The Strategy takes up the issue of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) primarily as part of targeting various states for aggression and forestalling “the emergence of new challenges” to U.S. domination (Section I, B). The document specifically targets the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK), Russia and China. It speaks to “potential adversaries” using “asymmetric capabilities and methods,” involving “irregular, catastrophic and disruptive” challenges. The term “irregular” refers to “terrorists and insurgents,” an effort to both target and equate the two. “Disruptive” refers to the use of cyberspace, biotechnology and laser weapons to “disrupt” U.S. actions.

May 1, 2005: A delegation of more than 1000 people from Japan and thousands of Americans together marched on the United Nations, demanding: No Nukes! No Wars! Keep Dangerous Weapons Out of U.S. Hands!

“Catastrophic” challenges “involve the acquisition, possession and use of WMD or methods producing WMD-like effects.” The NDS says contending with these challenges is “an urgent priority.” It states, “We will place greater emphasis on those capabilities that enable us to dissuade others from acquiring catastrophic capabilities, to deter their use and, when necessary, to defeat them before they can be employed.” It gives content to how the U.S. might act by speaking to “Porous international borders, weak international controls,” and the “nexus of transnational terrorists, proliferation, and problem states that possess or seek WMD.” (p. 4) The current provocations against the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) and Iran concerning WMD are examples of this strategy in action.

Again targeting sovereignty so as to justify U.S. intervention, the Strategy underlines: “The absence of effective governance in many parts of the world creates sanctuaries for terrorists, criminals and insurgents. Many states are unable and in some cases unwilling to exercise effective control over their territory or frontiers, thus leaving areas open to hostile exploitation.” (p. 3) It adds that “problem states” are those that are “hostile to U.S. principles,” that “seek WMD” or give “terrorists safe haven.”

While emphasizing that the U.S. military predominates in the world, there is no specific mention of the fact that the U.S. has the largest arsenal of WMD and is the only country to twice use nuclear weapons, both crimes against humanity. The U.S. does however target the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) saying it “at once poses traditional, irregular and catastrophic challenges.”

It also says “several key states face basic decisions about their roles in global and regional politics, economics and security and the direction of their own internal evolution. These decisions may change their strategic position in the world and their relationship with the United States.” (p. 4) Russia and China are specifically named.

The Strategy speaks to U.S. concerns about its ability to dominate the world saying, “Over time, some rising powers may be able to threaten the United States and our partners directly, rival us in key areas of military and technological competition, or threaten U.S. interests by pursuing dominance over key regions.” (p. 5) Giving yet another basis for intervention, the Strategy says, “Large capable states could become dangerously unstable and increasingly ungovernable.”

Control of Outer Space

In the section dealing with “operating from the global commons” the Pentagon makes clear that this includes not only the entire globe, but also outer space. It says, “Our ability to operate in and from the global commons — space, international waters and airspace and cyberspace — is important. It enables us to project power anywhere in the world from secure bases of operation. Our capacity to operate in and from the strategic commons is critical to the direct defense of the United States and its partners.” (p. 16)

The Strategy emphasizes “we will operate in and from the commons by overcoming challenges to our global maritime, air, space and cyberspace operations.” Key goals are to “ensure our access to and use of space, and to deny hostile exploitation of space to adversaries.” (p. 16) Thus, all the globe and outer space are to be what the Pentagon refers to as the “battlespace” for U.S. aggression. As well, when various references are made to taking actions at a “safe distance” as far from the U.S. as possible, outer space and international air and sea space are included.

U.S. Global Command Control

The NDS addresses the “comprehensive realignment of U.S. global defense posture,” that emphasizes “rapid deployment of forces” anywhere, anytime. Use of the military of partners is considered critical. The Strategy says, “We are transforming our network of alliances and partnerships, our military capabilities and our global defense posture. Our security is inextricably linked to that of our partners.”

The Strategy specifically outlines “four forward regions” for pre-emptive actions, Europe, Northeast Asia, the East Asian Littoral and the Middle East-Southwest Asia.” This is a shift from the concentration of U.S. forces in two main areas, Western Europe and Northeast Asia.

The Strategy explains that the concentrated military presence in the four regions serve to “assure partners, dissuade military competition and deter aggression and coercion.” The forces are “able to respond rapidly to emerging crises and control escalation on our terms.” In addition, the concentration of these forces “does not constrain our capacity to undertake military operations worldwide, nor does it limit our global interests.” Speaking to what the U.S. thinks is its “secure homefront,” it adds, “For example, we remain steadfast in our commitment to the security of the Americas, yet we require a very small military presence in Central and South America.” (p. 20-21). Addressing waging war on two fronts, the Strategy calls for “a total force that is balanced and postured for rapid deployment and employment worldwide. It is capable of surging forces into two separate theaters to ‘swiftly defeat’ adversaries in military campaigns that overlap in time.” Given the difficulties the U.S. is already facing sustaining its troop strength in Iraq, these “swift defeats” likely refer to plans to make use of nuclear first-strike action and similar “precision” bombing. (p. 21)

The NDS also includes live military exercises around the world and development of what are called “austere facilities” worldwide. It says the facilities in the four regions provide the U.S. with “unmatched ability to act globally.” However, it says there is “an even higher premium on the ability to take rapid military actions,” which require “the capacity to move swiftly into and through strategic pivot points and remote locations.” This will be secured through developing a “diverse array of more austere cooperative security locations.” (p. 23) Many of these smaller bases are in place in the Middle East and Asia.

The U.S. already has new bases in Kosovo, Bulgaria, Romania, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. It has military access short of full basing rights in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Pakistan. These are in addition to its bases across Western Europe, Japan, south Korea, Puerto Rico, and elsewhere.

Military Missions In the U.S.

The NDS speaks to the importance of pre-emptive actions at home as well as abroad. Speaking generally it outlines that the Pentagon “contributes to protecting the homeland” by conducting military actions abroad, sharing intelligence, conducting air and maritime defense operations, providing support to civil authorities and ensuring continuity of government. (p. 9)

More specifically, it says, “At the direction of the President, the Department will undertake military missions at home to defend the United States, its population and its critical infrastructure from external attack.” It adds “In emergencies we will act quickly to provide unique capabilities to other Federal agencies when the need surpasses capacities of civilian responders and we are directed to do so by the President or Secretary [of Defense].” In this manner, the Office of the President, including the Secretary of Defense is given authority to impose military rule at home whenever the Pentagon decides civilian responders do not have the capacity to respond. Given the increasing militarization of such public events as the presidential inauguration, numerous demonstrations, as well as sporting events, under the guise that civilian forces are insufficient, along with the numerous “terrorist threat” alerts that can be raised at any time, it can be seen that declared “emergencies” will undoubtedly be utilized when no external military or terrorist threat actually exists. These actions are aimed at repressing the struggles of the American people in opposition to Bush’s war and fascism.

The moves toward having internal security Pentagon-centered is further brought out in what the Strategy calls “network-centric operations.” Pushing to eliminate any division between military and civilian operations that still exist in the U.S., this network emphasizes information sharing from the bottom up and control from the top down. It says “networking the forces” on the basis of Pentagon control will “bring decisive capabilities to bear.” The Strategy calls for “reinforcing the need for even greater joint, interoperable command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR).” (p. 18) Recognizing the resistance that already exists to militarization, including opposition from local police forces, the Strategy says that making this transformation requires “fundamental changes in process, policy and culture.”

The Strategy also speaks to the need to step-up the ideological offensive of the ruling circles against the peoples, using “all instruments of national power.” Voicing the concern that the U.S. is losing this battle to brand liberation struggles and opposition to the U.S. as “terrorism,” the Strategy says, “As in the Cold War, victory will come only when the ideological motivation for the terrorists’ activities has been discredited and no longer has the power to motivate streams of individuals to risk and sacrifice their lives.” It is also here that the Strategy emphasizes the U.S. will act at the direction of the President to “defeat adversaries at the time, place and in the manner of our choosing.” (p. 11).

Taken overall, the National Defesne Strategy represents the U.S. efforts to finalize all the arrangements needed for all-out war abroad and fascism at home and to do so through open military brutality and eliminating the laws and standards humanity has achieved.

[TOP]

National Military Strategy

Militarization of Relations, National and International

When the Pentagon recently released its National Defense Strategy (NDS), it was accompanied by the National Military Strategy (NMS). The Military Strategy was developed parallel with the Defense Strategy and serves to “operationalize the strategic guidance” in the Defense Strategy. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard B. Myers, introduces it with a letter. Meyers, an Air Force General, was previously Commander in Chief for the North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Space Command, with responsibilities that included integrating Canadian forces into U.S. military plans and intercontinental ballistic missile operations.

May 10, 2005: Burlington, Vermont joins with Americans across the U.S. on the National Day of Action in support of all soldiers refusing to fight in Iraq and all the youth refusing to join the military and organizing resistance in their schools.

The overall goal of the NMS is openly stated as “Full Spectrum Dominance — the ability to control any situation or defeat any adversary across the range of military operations.” It addresses implementation of the Defense Strategy and changes needed for this, emphasizing development of a single integrated joint force that “focuses on fusing and synchronizing military operations among the Services, other government agencies, the commercial sector, non-governmental organizations and those of partners abroad.” It adds that such integration “does not preclude the unilateral use of force, but rather seeks to ensure unity of effort and maximize the contribution of partners” so as to “support simultaneous operations, the application of overmatching power and the fusion of U.S. military power with other instruments of power.” (p.7-8)

The NMS speaks to the problems the U.S. has confronted in Iraq, where its military forces are unable to defeat the resistance and engage in long-term occupation. It says, “The Joint Force must be able to transition from major combat operations to stability operations and to conduct these operations simultaneously.” (p. 14) It says the military must be designed and large enough “to defend the homeland, deter forward in and from four regions, and conduct two, overlapping “swift defeat” campaigns.” (p. 21)

The NMS states, “The challenge over the next decade will be to develop and enhance joint capabilities in a time of global war, finite resources and multiple commitments.” (p. 15) As well, the changes called for must be done in “an uncertain and complex environment [that] requires a capabilities-based approach to force design and planning that focuses less on a specific adversary or where a conflict might occur and more on how an adversary might fight.”

Emphasizing the role and presence of the military as a constant “reminder” to all to submit, General Myers says, “Our Armed Forces, operating at home and abroad, in peace and war, will continue to serve as a constant, visible reminder of US resolve to protect common interests. Our dedication to security and stability ensures that the United States is viewed as an indispensable partner, encouraging other nations to join us in helping make the world not just safer, but better.” (introductory letter to NMS)

Joint Warfighting

The NMS repeatedly emphasizes the need for “joint warfighting” and that achieving this “will require transformation — a transformation achieved by combining technology, intellect and cultural changes across the joint community.” The long-standing culture of divided, competing military branches, commonly reflecting competing interests within the ruling circles, as well as the culture and norms that strictly divide military and civilian rule and law enforcement, are all being eliminated. A single Armed Force representing a “seamless” merger of military, civilian, non-governmental organizations and international “partners” is to be established.

General Meyers says in his introductory letter that the task of the military to protect U.S. interests, prevent surprise attacks and prevail over all adversaries “requires the full integration of all instruments of national power, the cooperation and participation of friends and allies and the support of the American people.”

Meyers speaks to the difficulties of merging the U.S. armed forces, saying it is necessary to “strengthen trust and confidence” among the different services. He adds, “Enhancing joint warfighting requires the integration of our Active and Reserve Components and our civilian work force to create a seamless total force that can meet future challenges. We must strengthen collaboration among our joint forces, agencies at all levels of government and multinational partners. Key to such collaboration is an improved ability to collect, process and share information.” This joint sharing of information, across military and civilian lines as well as international ones is already largely in place.

The content of a military dominated “seamless total force” integrating military, commercial, civilian and international forces is further elaborated in the NMS where it says the demands to “protect, prevent, and prevail” require “more detailed coordination and synchronization of activities both overseas and at home. Our experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq highlight the need for a comprehensive strategy to achieve longer-term national goals and objectives. The United States must adopt an ‘active defense-in-depth’ that merges joint force, interagency, international non-governmental organizations, and multinational capabilities in a synergistic manner,” that enables the U.S. to “strike swiftly at any target around the globe.” (p. 6)

As part of the development of a “joint force” the NMS emphasizes the need for “strong alliances and coalitions,” and “encouraging nations to develop, modernize and transform their own capabilities.” It says, “the United States must adopt a global posture and take action to prevent conflict and surprise attack. Achieving this objective includes actions to shape the security environment in ways that enhance and expand multinational partnerships. Strong alliances and coalitions contribute to mutual security, tend to deter aggression, and help set conditions for success in combat if deterrence fails.” In this manner the difficulty the U.S. is having in conducting its "pre-emptive" actions alone is shown, as is their plan to embroil other countries in U.S. aggression.

At the same time the NMS makes equally clear, as did the Defense Strategy, that the U.S. will act unilaterally. “The U.S. will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community and increase the capabilities of partners to contend with common challenges, but will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary.” (p. 13)

Consistent with its unilateral action, the U.S. also speaks to the use of nuclear weapons in a first-strike capacity. It says “Deterring aggression by a wider range of adversaries requires transforming existing US strategic nuclear forces into a new triad composed of a diverse portfolio of capabilities. This new model for strategic deterrence includes non-nuclear and nuclear strike forces, active and passive defenses, as well as infrastructure to build and maintain the force.” (p. 12-13)

Military Campaigns

The NMS directly outlines the character of campaigns to be waged, using “all instruments of national power” as presented in the National Defense Strategy. It says, “The Armed Force must have the capability to swiftly defeat adversaries in overlapping campaigns while preserving the option to expand operations in one of those campaigns to achieve more comprehensive objectives. Prevailing against adversaries includes integrating all instruments of national power within a campaign to set the conditions for an enduring victory.” (p. 3)

The NMS delineates campaigns to “swiftly defeat adversaries” and campaigns to “win decisively”:

“Campaigns to ‘swiftly defeat’ the efforts of adversaries are undertaken to achieve a circumscribed set of objectives aimed at altering an adversary’s unacceptable behavior or policies, swiftly denying an adversary’s operational or strategic objectives, preventing attacks or uncontrolled conflict escalation and/or rapidly re-establishing security conditions favorable to the United States and its partners.

“Campaigns to ‘win decisively’ are undertaken to bring about fundamental, favorable change in a crisis region and create enduring results. They may entail lengthy periods of both major combat and stability operations; require regime change, defense, or restoration; and entail significant investments of the nation’s resources and time.” (p. 3)

These campaigns make clear that the U.S. is prepared to take military action, anywhere, anytime, in order to “alter an adversary’s unacceptable behavior or policies.” Thus even the conception of an actual threat existing, let alone a “clear and present danger” is being eliminated in favor of use of military force and “all instruments of national power” to eliminate unacceptable polices by another state or organization or even individuals. As the NMS claims “even some individuals may have the means and will to disrupt international order.”

The NMS also underlines repeatedly, as the Defense Strategy does, that the U.S. will not hesitate to fully militarize outer space to achieve its aims. It says: “Adversaries threaten the United States throughout a complex battlespace, extending from critical regions overseas to the homeland and spanning the global commons of international airspace, waters, space and cyberspace. There exists an ‘arc of instability’ stretching from the Western Hemisphere, through Africa and the Middle East and extending to Asia. There are areas in this arc that serve as breeding grounds for threats to our interests...” (p. 5)

Using the terms “battlespace” and “global commons” are among the means used by the NMS to eliminate existing concepts of definite battlegrounds within specific territories and the firm public opinion that the planet, its people and resources do not belong to the U.S. This is accompanied by efforts to claim aggressive actions are “self-defense.” As the NMS puts it, “Preventing conflict and surprise attack is not, however, solely defensive. The potentially catastrophic impact of an attack against the United States, its allies and its interests may necessitate actions in self-defense to preempt adversaries before they can attack.” (p. 2)

Military Intervention Inside the U.S.

The NMS also elaborates on an increased role for the military inside the U.S. While emphasizing that the “first line of defense is abroad” the Military Strategy says “homeland security” is the first priority and it also requires an integrated “joint force.” The NMS says, “we will join the efforts of multi-national partners and other U.S. governmental agencies to form an integrated defense of the air, land, sea, and space approaches in and around U.S. sovereign territory. Protecting these strategic approaches requires persistent surveillance that allows the United States to identify, continuously track and interdict potential threats. This integrated defense is essential to securing strategic access and retaining U.S. freedom of action.” (p. 10)

The NMS more specifically outlines use of the military at home during “special events” or “emergencies.” It says, “As necessary, the Armed Forces will protect critical infrastructure that supports our ability to project military power. When directed, the Armed Forces will temporarily employ military capabilities to support law enforcement agencies during special events. During emergencies the Armed Forces may provide military support to civil authorities in mitigating the consequences of an attack or other catastrophic event when civilian responders are overwhelmed. Military responses under these conditions require a streamlined chain-of-command that integrates the unique capabilities of active and reserve military components and civilian responders.” (p. 10)

In this manner the NMD makes clear that the military will intervene inside the country, that it will control the chain-of-command and that the aim is not protecting civilians but ensuring the U.S. ability to “project military power” and to “retain U.S. freedom of action.”

In sum the NMS is a weapon to put the military at the center of all relations and effectively subordinate and integrate civilian, commercial, non-governmental organizations, and international “partners” into a “seamless total force” to impose war and fascism at home and abroad.

[TOP]

Military Base Reorganizing

Building a “Seamless Total Force” for Aggression Abroad and Repression at Home

On Friday, May 13, 2005, the Pentagon announced plans for reorganizing military bases inside the U.S. These plans include re-stationing an estimated 70,000 U.S. troops inside the country. They also include the “realignment” of 29 bases, with a focus on developing mega-bases that integrate the separate branches of the military into single joint-base structures. As Anthony Principi, head the Pentagon’s nine-member Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) responsible for the plans said, “This round (of realignment and closings) is more about realignment. It’s more about jointness — seeing if a base can accommodate more than one service to enhance our joint readiness and war-fighting capability.” The plans also include closing 33 bases and an estimated 800 smaller military facilities nationwide.

January 20, 2005: Demonstration opposing U.S. aggression abroad and repression at home on the occasion of the second inauguration of George W. Bush as president..

The current efforts to develop “jointness” are consistent with the Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy (NDS), issued in March of 2005, along with the National Military Strategy (NMS). The NMS calls for a joint force that “focuses on fusing and synchronizing military operations among the Services, other government agencies, the commercial sector, non-governmental organizations and those of partners abroad.” It says that “Enhancing joint warfighting requires the integration of our Active and Reserve Components and our civilian work force to create a seamless total force that can meet future challenges.”

The BRAC reorganization plan serves this goal of “fusing and synchronizing military operations among the services” as a critical part of creating a “seamless total force.” The aim, as the NMS says, is “Full Spectrum Dominance — the ability to control any situation or defeat any adversary across the range of military operations.”

As part of moving in this direction, the Pentagon established its Northern Command, not long after the September 11 terrorist attacks. The Northern Command, headquartered in Colorado, provides centralized control of all military forces on US soil and also includes Canada and Puerto Rico.

“Fusing and synchronizing operations” requires overcoming the long-standing separation and competition among the different military branches. The joint bases provide conditions for all the branches to “train, live and fight jointly.” They will also further concentrate the chain of command, as the joint bases will likely have one top commander, not different ones from the different services as now exists with separate bases.

Fort Bliss, in Texas, is a prime example of the integration planned. It will be integrated with two contiguous bases, White Sands Missile Range and Holloman Air Force Base, both in New Mexico. The three bases combined have a footprint as big as Connecticut, accounting for about one-quarter of the Army’s land in the United States.

The joint base will see a 50 percent increase in the number of soldiers and civilians at the base, adding 11,354 troops to its current military strength of about 18,000 soldiers and civilians. These additional troops represent the re-stationing of the 1st Armored Division from Germany, expected to take place over the next six years. The base itself is the only installation where every weapon in the Army arsenal can be fired. It also includes a sergeant major training school.

Texas will also be the state where all B1-B long-range bombers, commonly used for nuclear weapons, are being consolidated, with the closure of Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota. Fort Sam Houston, also in Texas, is expected to see a large increase in the number of troops stationed there.

Texas is already home to 190,000 service members at 18 major military installations. These forces represent nearly 11 percent of the nation’s armed forces and 27 percent of all active-duty combat ground forces. While Texas will see the closing of three facilities, Ingleside Naval Air Station, the Red Rock Army Depot and Brooks City Depot in San Antonio, overall it is one of the states seeing the largest concentration and consolidation of military forces and weapons.

Florida will also be a focus for consolidation and integration, also including nuclear weapons. Construction, servicing, and deployment of nuclear submarines, and the Naval forces needed for this are being shifted to Florida, as well as to Virginia and Georgia. The Groton submarine command in Connecticut will be closed, as will Fort Monmouth in New Jersey and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine.

Joint Strike Fighter (F35) training, maintenance, and support will be moved from Luke Air Force Base in Arizona to Eglin Air Force Base — one of the largest air bases in the world — in the Florida panhandle. Joint Strike Fighter operations will also be moved to Eglin from Sheppard Air Force Base in Texas, Miramar Marine Corps Air Station in California, and Naval Air Stations in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Pensacola, Florida. In this manner the base will become a major “joint force” base.

Another example of joining forces and bases involves combining air defense artillery and field artillery. The ADA school at Fort Bliss, Texas, will move to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and combine with the Artillery School. The new Net Fires School will train Army and Marine Corps personnel. The same will happen at Fort Benning, Georgia, when the Armor School, which trains soldiers and Marines, moves in.

Increased Use of Military Inside the U.S.

The re-stationing of troops inside the country is an important part of the Pentagon’s reorganization. Roughly 70,000 troops from overseas bases, mainly in Germany and south Korea, are being moved to bases in the US. The Army, especially, is being concentrated within the borders of the continental United States, going from 26 to 40 brigades. The additional forces will all be located in the South and West, with the biggest increases at Fort Benning, Georgia, Fort Bliss, Texas, Fort Carson, Colorado and Fort Riley, Kansas.

The stationing of larger numbers of U.S. troops inside the country is in part to provide a “safer” base of operations for U.S. plans for “rapid deployment forces” for global aggression. Equally important though are the plans for using the U.S. military inside the country as the government steps up its repression of resistance and dissent.

The Military Strategy brings out, “As necessary, the Armed Forces will protect critical infrastructure that supports our ability to project military power. When directed, the Armed Forces will temporarily employ military capabilities to support law enforcement agencies during special events. During emergencies the Armed Forces may provide military support to civil authorities in mitigating the consequences of an attack or other catastrophic event when civilian responders are overwhelmed. Military responses under these conditions require a streamlined chain-of-command that integrates the unique capabilities of active and reserve military components and civilian responders.”

Thus it can be seen that the role of the military is not defending Americans, but rather “project[ing] military power” and intervening in any situation where the Pentagon decides “civilian responders are overwhelmed,” using a military dominated chain of command.

Overall the Pentagon’s reorganization serves two interrelated aims of the ruling circles at this time: 1) to create what is termed a single “seamless total force” capable of achieving “full spectrum dominance” worldwide, and 2) to reposition U.S. troops inside the country, as a “safer” base of operations and to increase the ability of the military to intervene inside the U.S. to repress the growing resistance to the path of fascism and war. Given the location of a number of the expanded joint bases in Florida and Texas, it also appears the reorganization is aimed at insuring the factions of the ruling circles represented by Bush have a significant “joint force” of their own, in states where they also control the local, state and national guard forces.

In terms of specific base closings, the choices also reflect the continuing effort to concentrate power in the hands of those factions represented by Bush, while weakening others, such as those represented by Kennedy in New England.

Of the 30,000 net loss in military-related jobs, half come from just three closings in New England: Portsmouth Navy Yard in Maine, Otis Air Force Base in Massachusetts, and the Groton, Connecticut, submarine command. Thousands more personnel are being moved out of the Northeast with the closure of Brunswick Naval Air Station in Maine, Niagara Falls Air Reserve station in New York, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, and the Willowgrove Naval Air Station and Pittsburgh Air Reserve Base in Pennsylvania.

The closures also in no way represent a weakening of the military forces, but rather their concentration and strengthening, with an effort to overcome the long-standing divisions among the military services. The U.S. currently has about 3,700 domestic military installations and locations, which occupy more than 27 million acres. The Pentagon has 1.4 million troops on active duty and a presence in most countries on the planet. Its budget exceeds the military spending of the next 25 countries put together.

The BRAC’s final list of recommended closings and realignments will be sent to President Bush by September 8. If he accepts the plan, he would forward the list to Congress, which can approve or reject it entirely but not make changes.

[TOP]

Pentagon Defense Strategy Executive Summary

Reprinted from the Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy, March 2005

America is a nation at war. We face a diverse set of security challenges. Yet, we still live in an era of advantage and opportunity. The National Defense Strategy outlines an active, layered approach to the defense of the nation and its interests. It seeks to create conditions conducive to respect for the sovereignty of nations and a secure international order favorable to freedom, democracy, and economic opportunity. This strategy promotes close cooperation with others around the world who are committed to these goals. It addresses mature and emerging threats.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

Secure the United States from direct attack. We will give top priority to dissuading, deterring, and defeating those who seek to harm the United States directly, especially extremist enemies with weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Secure strategic access and retain global freedom of action. We will promote the security, prosperity, and freedom of action of the United States and its partners by securing access to key regions, lines of communication, and the global commons.

Strengthen alliances and partnerships. We will expand the community of nations that share principles and interests with us. We will help partners increase their capacity to defend themselves and collectively meet challenges to our common interests.

Establish favorable security conditions: Working with others in the U.S. Government, we will create conditions for a favorable international system by honoring our security commitments and working with other nations to bring about a common appreciation of threats; the steps required to protect against these threats; and a broad, secure, and lasting peace.

HOW WE ACCOMPLISH OUR OBJECTIVES

Assure allies and friends: We will provide assurance by demonstrating our resolve to fulfill our alliance and other defense commitments and help protect common interests.

Dissuade potential adversaries: We will work to dissuade potential adversaries from adopting threatening capabilities, methods, and ambitions, particularly by developing our own key military advantages.

Deter aggression and counter coercion: We will deter by maintaining capable and rapidly deployable military forces and, when necessary, demonstrating the will to resolve conflicts decisively on favorable terms.

Defeat adversaries: At the direction of the President, we will defeat adversaries at the time, place, and in the manner of our choosing—setting the conditions for future security.

IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES

Four guidelines structure our strategic planning and decision-making.

Active, layered defense: We will focus our military planning, posture, operations, and capabilities on the active, forward, and layered defense of our nation, our interests, and our partners.

Continuous transformation: We will continually adapt how we approach and confront challenges, conduct business, and work with others.

Capabilities-based approach: We will operationalize this strategy to address mature and emerging challenges by setting priorities among competing capabilities.

Managing risks: We will consider the full range of risks associated with resources and operations and manage clear tradeoffs across the Department.

[TOP]

National Military Strategy Executive Summary

Reprinted from the Pentagon’s National Military Strategy, first drafted in 2004 and released in March 2005 together with the National Defense Strategy. Portions of the NMS remain secret.

Chairman’s Intent: Our challenge for the coming year and beyond is to stay the course in the War on Terrorism as we continue to transform our Armed Forces to conduct future joint operations. We cannot afford to let our recent successes cause us to lose focus or lull us into satisfaction with our current capabilities. The war is not over, and there is still dangerous work to do. To meet this challenge, we continue to focus on three priorities: winning the War on Terrorism, enhancing joint warfighting and transforming for the future.

Strategic Guidance: The National Military Strategy is guided by the goals and objectives contained in the President’s “National Security Strategy” and serves to implement the Secretary of Defense’s “National Defense Strategy of the United States of America.”

The Role of the NMS: The NMS provides focus for military activities by defining a set of interrelated military objectives from which the Service Chiefs and combatant commanders identify desired capabilities and against which CJCS assesses risk

Key Aspects of the Security Environment
• A Wider Range of Adversaries
• A More Complex and Distributed Battle space
• Technology Diffusion and Access

Principles guiding the development of the Joint Force
• Agility
• Decisiveness
• Integration

Military Objectives: The NMS establishes three military objectives that support the National Defense Strategy:
• Protect the United States Against External Attacks and Aggression
• Prevent Conflict and Surprise Attack
• Prevail Against Adversaries

Desired Attributes of the Force
• Fully Integrated
• Expeditionary
• Networked
• Decentralized
• Adaptable
• Decision Superiority
• Lethality

Capabilities and Functions
• Applying Force
• Deploying and Sustaining Military
• Capabilities
• Securing Battlespace
• Achieving Decision Superiority

Designing and Sizing the Force: Executing the NMS requires a force able to generate decisive effects in any contingency and sustain multiple, overlapping operations. The force must have the capabilities necessary to create and preserve an enduring peace.

Joint Vision for Future Warfighting: Sustaining and increasing the qualitative military advantages the United States enjoys today will require transformation — a transformation achieved by combining technology, intellect and cultural changes across the joint community. The goal is Full Spectrum Dominance — the ability to control any situation or defeat any adversary across the range of military operations.

[TOP]