Stories
The US’s New Grand Strategy
Next Post

Press {{ keys }} + D to make this page bookmarked.

Close
Photo: thegreatermiddleeast.com/PrtSc

The US’s New Grand Strategy

559

AUSTIN, TEXAS – March 27, 2019

It’s often said today that the US is assertive but doesn’t achieve much. Wars in the Middle East are a continuous series of failures, for example. But this is a wrong impression. The US military, trade, and diplomatic strategy are carefully coordinated, are in the interests of the United States, and are successful.

We used to assume that after the end of the Cold War, the US has no Grand Strategy — an attempt to impose your vision of the world on everyone, forcing all countries to abide by it. If one theater of war fails, a new theater is chosen, and so on, until victory is achieved.

At the end of World War II, Washington followed the guidelines proposed by Ambassador George Kennan in his famous diplomatic telegram about justifying the policy of containment of the USSR by the so-called Soviet expansionism. So, although the Korean and Vietnamese wars were lost, in the end, the US won.

Few can believe in the Grand Strategy, although they have before, for example, under Charles de Gaulle in France.

For the past eighteen years, Washington has been constantly setting new goals and developing new ways to achieve them.

1991 - 2001: a period of uncertainty

After the collapse of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991, under President Bush Sr. the United States believed that the country no longer had rivals. The president of the victorious country arbitrarily reduced the armed forces by one million people and dreamed of a prosperous and just world. He introduced the free movement of capital so that capitalists, in their enrichment, could, in his opinion, enrich their own people.

However, capitalism is not a political process, it is just a means of making money. Large US companies, but not the federal state, are associated with the Chinese Communist Party (hence the famous expression of Deng Xiaoping "Moving to the South"). They transfer their production with low added value from the West to China, where labor, albeit unskilled, is 20 times cheaper than the American. This was the beginning of the process of de-industrializing the West.

To manage transnational operations, Big Capital moves its assets to low tax countries, where it quickly discovered that its social responsibilities could be avoided. These countries, whose low taxation and compliance with trade secrets contribute to international trade, suddenly found themselves embroiled in a giant tax optimization, and in fact in massive fraud, that they secretly used. The reign of finance over the economy began.

Military strategy

In 2001, Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense and a permanent member of the “backup government,” created the Office of Force Transformation, headed by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski. By that time, this man had not only introduced information technologies in the Armed Forces but had also changed the goals.

A world without the Soviet Union had become unipolar, that is, it is now governed not by the Security Council, but only by the US. To maintain its dominant position, the US was forced to divide the world into two parts. On the one hand, there are stable states (G8 members, including Russia, and allies), and on the other hand, the rest of the world, considered as a reservoir of natural resources. Washington no longer considers access to natural resources vital but makes it clear that they are available to stable states and only with its consent. For this, it was necessary to destroy all state structures in this part, so that no one could ever resist the will of the first world power or manage without it.

This strategy has never been interrupted. It began in the Middle East (Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Yemen). However, in contrast to the Pivot to Asia (that was announced by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton), it was continued not in the Far East due to the military power of China, but in the Caribbean (Venezuela, Nicaragua).

Diplomatic strategy

In 2012, President Barack Obama, guided by the ideas of the Republican Party, made the production of shale oil and gas by hydraulic fracturing a state priority. In a few years, the US, having increased investment in the extraction of shale oil and gas, has become the first world power for the production of hydrocarbons, completely changing the paradigm of international relations.

In 2018, the former director of the International Center for Petroleum Equipment, Mike Pompeo, became the director of the CIA and then State Secretary. He created the Bureau of Energy Resources, with Francis Fennon appointed its head. The same thing happened as with the Bureau of Force Transformation at the Pentagon -- it was headed towards taking control of world hydrocarbon trading markets. For this, a new type of alliance was created, an example of which could be the Free and Open Indo-Pacific. It’s not about creating military blocs, but about organizing alliances to ensure economic growth based on guaranteed access to energy resources.

This concept does not differ from the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski strategy: the point is not to take over the hydrocarbons of the rest of the world (Washington no longer needs them), but to determine who can have them to develop and who can not. This is a complete departure from the doctrine of the oil famine spread by the Rockefellers and the Club of Rome since the 1960s, and subsequently by the National Energy Policy Development Group and Vice President Dick Cheney. Today, the US recognizes that oil not only has not disappeared anywhere but despite the monstrous increase in demand, humanity will have enough of it no less than for a century.

Under various pretexts, Pompeo is blocking access to the world market, first to Iran and then to Venezuela, and the US continues to keep its troops in eastern Syria to prevent the development of recently opened oil fields. At the same time, Pompeo is putting pressure on the European Union to give up the Russian gas pipeline Nord Stream-2 and on Turkey to give up the Turkish Stream.

Trading strategy

In 2017, President Donald Trump made an attempt to return to the US some of the jobs taken to Asia and the European Union. Guided by the arguments of left-wing economist Peter Navarro, he put an end to the Pacific Partnership and renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement. At the same time, he introduced increased customs duties for the import of German cars and most Chinese goods. To top it off, he is pursuing a reform that supports the return of capital to the country. Such a policy has improved the trade balance and created new jobs.

Now the whole mechanism in military, trade, and diplomatic terms is completely polished. Every detail is in its place. And everyone knows what they have to do.

The main strength of the new Grand Strategy is that it is understood only by a select few. Washington takes advantage of the surprise effect, supported by deliberately chaotic statements by Donald Trump. But judging by business, not presidential tweets, one can see how much progress the US has made after two periods of uncertainty under Presidents Clinton and Obama.

Author: USA Really