James Madison issued a warning to America in 1795 of the effects of continual war:
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
Full Spectrum Dominance is a Pentagon concept for the control of “all elements of a battle area:”1 air, sea, land, space and cyber. The idea is to leave little room for the opposition to function effectively.
One would imagine that this would be the strategy of all armies today depending on their human and mechanical resources. In addition, a powerful conventional army can be beaten by guerilla warfare, so that “dominance” can be limited.
Total global military spending in 2012 amounted to $1.7 trillion; NATO partners account for $1 trillion. Developing countries are increasing their defense expenditures but their role is relatively small compared with their total population. USA’s share of global military expenditure in 2012 is 39%, China’s 9.5%, Russia’s 5.2%, UK’s 3.5%, and Japan’s 3.4%. The US spends more than the next top ten countries, on its military budget.2 The US is therefore expected to have the capacity for Full Spectrum Dominance over the world.
Since military might leads to geopolitical supremacy, the aim of the West and NATO for “complete and total military domination of the world,” is not a far-fetched one. The unknown author of “NATO and the ‘phantom menace’: a pretext for global expansion,” suggests that NATO should have been disbanded after the Second World War and the Cold War, but its functions have been expanded to include the rest of the world. Operation “Steadfast Jazz 2013,” which is a reorganization of training and preparation for world domination, underlies the real intentions of the US alliance: destabilize a region or the world instead of working for peace.3
The West gains in several ways from this aggressive strategy of spending less on peace than on war. Shah notes that the UN and its branches spend a mere $30 billion annually, which is just 3% of the global military spending. Many countries have not paid their dues: by December 31, 2010, member arrears amounted to $348 million, of which the US owed 80%.4 Madsslien notes that peace, which delivers economic prosperity and stability, does not seem to be an attractive proposition.5 The disparity between the amounts spent on peace and war made the UN Secretary General Ban-ki moon declare that the world is “over-armed and peace is under-funded. The reader is asked to test this proposition which is the title of the book.
Our IP Address: