AMERICAN EXPANSIONISM - IMPERIALISM & TERRORISM

Dr. Mirza Arshad Ali Begarshadalibeg@gmail.comAdded: 2015-06-13 T 06:15:06 UTCDOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2808.8489Published (ummat Publications 10102006)

There is universal conviction among non-supporters ofAmerican presence outside the USA that American Imperialismhas, with the impetus provided by its linkage with the BBIs:Bush, Blair and Israel, hit the rock bottom of popularopposition all over the world, earning greater moralhumiliation during the past fifteen years compared with theearlier few decades. However, Secretary of Defence,Rumsfeld, has forcefully denied, “We don't seek empires.We're not imperialistic. We never have been.” Contrarily,the present analysis suggests that American policies areautocratic, which is the first symptom of imperialisticgovernance.

American imperialist agenda was clearly stated by George W.Bush after the formal swearing in of Secretary of State Gen.Powell: “America remains involved in the world, by historyand by choice, shaping a balance of power that favoursfreedom.” This statement is a slightly modified version ofthe US foreign policy: Promotion of peace, freedom, and democracyin all regions of the world.

American imperialist agenda is further upheld when Going by history the Americans are found to have done

everything to qualify themselves as imperialists. Going by definition of empire, America may not have

been an empire, if it had a legal emperor, king,despot, or other hereditary head of state. However, ithas a President whose recent utterances: “We are notleaving Iraq so long as I am the President”, do soundautocratic.

Going by another definition America again qualifiesbeing an empire, because it possesses sovereignty overterritories which it has not annexed as states, such asPuerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam and in the past theTrust Territory of the Pacific Island and thePhilippines.

Going by choice, the rule by international corporationsover the world is hidden within the American governanceSystem, which does cause shrinkage of boundariesbetween sovereign states to nothing.

Going by the claim that America is “shaping a balanceof power that favours freedom”, it is to be noted thatthis is exactly the point that the opposition toAmerican Imperialism is trying to make that America isdoing what its ruling hierarchy thinks is right and notwhat in fact is right.

The opposition to American Imperialism, particularly itsoperation through the instrument: “shaping the balance of powerthat favours freedom” is fueled by popular revulsion to thehavoc wrought by the Americans, along with its alliesBritain and Israel i.e. the BBI imperialists. Morefundamentally, the most politically conscious elements inthe popular opposition to war anywhere, reject not only themethods employed by the BBI imperialists to export orimplant democracy, but their goals, which are not to“democratize” the countries where they have their vestedinterest e.g. the oil rich Central Asian Countries or theMiddle East, but to reduce them to the status of semi-colonies, completely subordinated to the interests ofAmerican expansionism. Most recently President Bushrepeatedly claimed that the goal of the United States inIraq was to foster democracy, making it clear that he feltno accountability to the democratic will of the Americanpeople. Whatever the popular sentiment in the US, hedeclared, “We’re not leaving so long as I’m the president.”

Incidentally this contradiction was spelled out in twocomments made by President Bush in the course of the press

conference. He declared that the “war on terror” wasdirected against an ideology opposed to democracy: “And theonly way to defeat this ideology in the long term is todefeat it through another ideology, a competing ideology,one that the government responds to the will of the people.”However, towards the end of the press conference, when askedwhether he still hoped to convince the American people, orwhether “this is the kind of thing you’re doing because youthink it’s right and you don’t care if you ever gain publicsupport for it,” President Bush replied bluntly: “Look, I’mgoing to do what I think is right and if, you know, ifpeople don’t like me for it, that’s just the way it is.”

Despite denial by the USA hierarchy on America being anempire, it has been taking advantage of being thehemispherical, Pacific and Atlantic power. This strategicgeographical position provides it the status of an empireand capability to influence both Asia and Europe in thenorth and Latin America, Africa and Australasia in thesouth. Its geographical position is ideal for becoming anempire and the American imperialists, in their lust to graband concentrate power do not spare any opportunity to act asone.

USA has three major trading areas: Europe led by Germany,Asia led by Japan and the Americas led by USA. The threemajor economic powers have different approaches; Europe ishighly inclined towards a social market economy withgovernment involvement in markets and provision of services;Japan with orientation towards the producer, using astrategic mix of cooperation and competition to strengthenthe economy, and the USA favouring a pluralist marketeconomy with the minimum of government intervention and freehand to the international corporations.

The pluralist market economy has forced itself on Regionaltrade groups in Europe, Latin America, Southeast Asia andSouth Asia besides those emerging in the Middle East, andformer USSR states of Central Asia. It had for example

created the Organisation of American States OAS in 1948, toserve as an instrument of US imperialism. Through thecreation of Free Trade of the Americas Agreement, FTAA, USmultinationals, with the enthusiastic support of Canadiancapital, has tried to institutionalize and increase itstraditional economic domination over Latin America.Motivating this policy shift are fears of Washington andWall Street over the emergence of the European Union andEast Asia as powerful rival trading blocs and the inroadsthat European and Japanese capital have made in SouthAmerica over the past two decades i.e. since the fag end ofthe Cold War.

However, the FTAA is far from the only initiative the US istaking to bolster its strategic position in South America orin other parts of the world. Apparently a campaign to fightdrugs, the Colombia Plan has served to dramatically increasethe presence of US military personnel in South America, thusprojecting US geo-political power.

American hierarchy realizes however that it claims USA to bethe largest democracy in the world implying thereby thatthere is no place for despots and for that matter forauthoritarian rule. Accordingly if America is democratic athome it cannot be autocratic abroad. Moreover populardemocracy is not on record to attain super power statusanywhere, much less international supremacy. This limits theuse of power, especially the military capacity tointimidate. That is why there is a gulf of differencebetween democratic actions being taken in America andautocratic operations being carried out abroad.

There is thus a clear case of dichotomy in the behaviour ofAmericans. They have a lust for power and they would love tobe at the centre for getting it. If they cannot get it theywill grab it. With this psychological frame of mind theyhave attained the status of super power, and of an Empirefor the USA. The imperialists’ psyche of the rulinghierarchy demands maintenance of superiority all around, and

in order to do so it has to maintain continuity of itsempire building activities. They attain this objective byannexing territories, and overseas interventions bydifferent pretext.

Empire Building by Annexing Territories

The American psyche in empire building is not altogetherunusal in history. It would not appear quite abnormal if onetakes into account that this country was founded byentrepreneurs with a go-get-it spirit. The founders wereEuropean imperialists while many settlers of the time wereescaping persecution from their governments. Given a freehand, those who had the courage soon turned into persecutorsof weak natives of this continent and the African slaves.

The go-get-it psyche has been the persistent dominatingforce in first building the empire of the United States ofAmerica followed by empire building by annexing territoriessince those were the principles of empire building at thetime. During the American Revolution, the United Statesestablished relations with several European powers,convincing France, Spain, and the Netherlands to intervenein the war against Britain, a mutual enemy. In the followingperiod, the US oscillated between pro-French and pro-Britishpolicies.

The US generally remained aloof from European disputes,focusing on territorial expansion in North America. Afterthe Spanish colonies in Latin America declared independence,the US established the Monroe Doctrine, a policy of keepingEuropean powers out of the Americas. US expansionism led towar with Mexico and to diplomatic conflict with Britain overthe Oregon Territory and with Spain over Florida and laterCuba. During the American Civil War, the US accused Britainand France of supporting the Confederate States and tryingto control Mexico. Thereafter, the US sovereignty remainedunchallenged in its home territory, except by NativeAmericans.

Firm foundations were laid for empire building through theRoosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. Striving to bethe dominant influence in the Americas, USA has been tryingto weaken European influence in Latin America andoccasionally intervening to establish puppet governments inother weak states. The major difference between the Americanempire and other empires was that the former had a governinghierarchy to govern the affairs of the state while thelatter had kings and emperors as the head of the empire. Theoligarch in USA is the president who is the head of thegoverning hierarchy. It has been normally observed thatchanges in the presidents do not necessarily change thegovernance system. This is because the psyche of thegoverning hierarchy of an empire has to observe continuityin maintaining superiority in weapons as well as trade. Fordoing so USA will continue to claim being the largestdemocracy, and practice autocracy.

Empire building has, during the course of time, taken adifferent form and democracy is being induced all over in aneffort towards globalization and markets are being openedfor open economy. Arms trade has become business. TheAmerican empire has taken upon itself to: export democracyand “Shape the balance of power that favours freedom” for firmingup its empire building and is presently the dominant featureof all decisions of American governance system.

American empire has attained such status that traditionalmilitary threats to the USA are fairly remote. All itsenemies, including former enemies and allies do not pose anymilitary threat since it has become the largest armssupplier of the world. The most likely forms of threat tothe United States are suggested to be through terroristactions, rather than conventional warfare. Americanhierarchy has therefore geared its spending on armsaccording to the requirements. However, the lion’s share ofthe spending on arms is not spent by the Pentagon onprotecting American citizens. It goes to supporting US

military activities, including interventions, throughout theworld.

Empire Building by Overseas Interventions

Overseas expansion of the USA followed the norms of the timeto stretch its frontiers into Puerto Rico, Guam, and Cuba asa consequence of the Guano Islands Act, Spanish AmericanWar, colonization of the American Samoa, annexation of theRepublic of Hawaii at the request of the then president ofHawaii, Sanford Dole, and purchase of The Virgin Islandsfrom Denmark in 1917.

Scores of factors that were incident during this period to bring about an accelerated pace of American expansionism included:

Wars like the Spanish-American War that led to liberation and acquisition of former colonies of foreign states

Growth of industry and agriculture beyond the need for consumption demanded creation of foreign markets. This was considered essential for further economic growth, and for promotion of more aggressive foreign policy.

Prevalence of racism, notably conception of Anglo-Saxonracial superiority, and the call to “civilize and Christianize” - all manifestations of a growing racism in some schools of American political thought.

Development of the idea that America was the wellspringof its creativity and virility as a civilization, that the Western United States was gradually becoming less afrontier and more a part of America, many believed thatoverseas expansion was vital to maintaining the American spirit.

The publication of “The Influence of Sea Power upon History” by Alfred Mahan in 1890, and its advocating ofthree factors crucial to The United States' ascension to the position of “World Power”:

Construction of a canal in South America, which later influenced the decision on construction of the Panama Canal,

Expansion of the US Naval Power, and Establishment of a trade/military post in the Pacific,

so as to stimulate trade with China. This publication had a strong influence on the idea that a strong navy stimulated trade, and influenced policy makers such as Theodore Roosevelt and other proponents of a large navy.

In addition to direct annexation of land, the UnitedStates has been involved in a number of covert andovert military interventions that have had the effectof expanding United States influence over the policiesof foreign governments. It will be seen from some ofthe following examples that the military interventionswere initially intended to increase the sphere ofinfluence and to facilitate trade, followed, in a fewcases by occupation or keeping occupation forces.

Interventions in Latin America

The early decades of the 20th century saw a great amount ofintervention in Latin America by the US Government, oftenunder the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, andmost often openly in aid of US corporate interests.President William Taft viewed Dollar Diplomacy as a way forAmerican corporations to benefit while assisting in thenational security goal of preventing European powers,particularly United Kingdom and Germany, from filling anypossible financial or power vacuum.

1901: Platt Amendment renders Cuba a protectorate of the United States, putting severe restrictions on the Cuban government's financial freedom, granting USA its base at Guantanamo Bay, and reserving the right of USA to intervene in Cuban affairs. Cuba is also pressured to write the provisions of the Platt Amendment into itsconstitution.

1903: US customs receivership in Haiti following collapse of Haitian government and threats by France and Italy to intervene to collect their debts.

1903: U.S. backed independence of Panama from Columbia in order to build the Panama Canal.

1903 - 1905: U.S. occupation of the Dominicum Republic (former Spanish colony)

1904: Announcement of “Theodore Roosevelt Corollary" tothe Monroe Doctrine, stating that the United States would intervene to protect Washington's interests in the Western Hemisphere should Latin American governments prove incapable or unstable.

1905 - 1941: U.S. protectorate of Dominican Republic 1906-1909: U.S. reassumption of military rule over Cuba

under Governor Charles Magoon. 1909: forced resignation of President Jose Santos

Zelava after triumph of U.S.-backed rebels in Nicaragua.

1914 to 1916: Mexico conflict, including U.S. troops occupying northern portion of the country and port cityof Verzug

1923 to 1928 (Nicaragua) Marines occupied main cities, Their purpose was to provide stabilization to the government. There was a period of a few months between 1925 and 1926 when the Marines left but were back for the same reason.

Interventions in Asia

While American intervention had begun earlier with MathewParty forcibly opening Japan to the West with the Conventionof Kanagawa in 1854, this period saw the United Statesexpand its presence in Asia. The US pushed through the OpenDoor Policy that guaranteed equal economic access to China.It also vigorously acquired small islands in the Pacific,mostly to be used as coaling stations.

Throughout the later half of the 19th century, China wasdivided into “spheres of influence”-areas to which a foreign

power (Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japanand Russia) were given exclusive trading rights or even theterritory itself as the result of treaties. The UnitedStates, having recently gained the Philippines in theSpanish-American War and thereby becoming a player in EastAsia, felt impeded by these “spheres of influence”. In aneffort to equalize trade, the Secretary of State at the time(under William Mckinley), sent letters to European leaderssuggesting an “open door” policy in China, one that wouldgrant equivalent trading rights to all powers inside thespheres of influence. The proposal was gently rejected, butlater United States and the European powers agreed topreserve Chinese independence and government.

The occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1951was more intense.During this time the US occupation forces, led by GeneralDouglas MacArthur staged a dramatic restructuring ofJapanese society in order to prevent the nation from re-emerging as a military threat. Although the occupationofficially ended in the 1950's, American troops remain todayin bases in Japan.

Interventions in Europe

After helping the Allies in defeating Nazi Germany, theUnited States occupied the southern portion of the Westernsector of Germany for ten years (1945 to 1955). Marshal Planwas launched in 1947 to grant American Aid to boost theEuropean economy, including Germany, yesterday’s enemy, asthe European Recovery Programme. The USA granted a total of$3.3 billion to Germany to enable it to help itself. $2.2billion out of this was non-repayable.

The American psyche was clearly reflected in offering thehelp in the statement by George Marshal, “The EuropeanRecovery is far more than a transaction of a financialnature. If accepted, it will go down in the annals of worldcivilization as one of the greatest historic enterprises.Upon its success or failure will depend whether the world of

democracy, of personal freedom, of economic stability and ofpeace can continue to exist. The Moscow Conference, at whichthe Western Allies had strived for a peace settlement, hadfailed. If things were allowed to run their course, not onlythe Mediterranean Region, the Middle East and British Isles,but also the entire European Continent, with its enormouscollection source of aid, its labour resources andindustrial potential will, in the course of time, fall underthe control of the communist system, which was hostileliberarian form of government and way of life.”

Food, fertilizer and fuel, machinery and medicine, worth $13billion started flowing in after Truman signed the Plan andlegalized it in 1948. West Germany and West Berlin received$1.6 billion, which was in addition to the $1.7 billionworth of desperately needed supplies already delivered tothe occupied zone. The American deliveries were paid indollars to American exporters by the US government, whilethe German importers were not required to raise foreigncurrency and paid in German Mark, which in turn wascollected in a special fund and placed at the disposal ofthe German government as a loan to finance reconstruction. Afinal settlement was effected when the Federal Republic ofGermany was founded in 1949 and the USA transferred theseassets in their entirety to the Federal Republic of Germany.The FRG was soon in a position to dispose of the loanwithout American finances.

The German Economic Recovery Programme was the firstInternational Treaty entered into by FRG. Thus the USA notonly helped Bonn economically but also recognized it as apartner in treaty. The German economy in 1951 had hardly anyresemblance with that in 1948. Its production status hadrisen from 60% to 130% of that in 1936.The value of exportshad increased from $300 million in 1947 to $2 billion in1950 and starvation conditions were replaced by a livingstandard that was only slightly lower than the prewarperiod.

During the 1960s and 1970s it became fashionable to view theSoviet Empire in Eastern Europe as comparable to theAmerican/British domination of Western Europe. It wasfrequently argued that, through economic and militarypressure, the United States pursued hegemony just asaggressively as the Soviet Union.

Intervention in the Balkans

Intervention in the strategically vital Balkan region isconsidered as an attempt to legitimise past actions ofAmerican imperialism in furthering its predatory interests.The Milosevic regime was corrupt, while the Serbian forcesunder his command committed atrocities against ethnicAlbanians in Kosovo and against Croats and Muslims inBosnia. But he was not the only one to whom all thesuffering of the Balkan people can be attributed. Theimperialist powers are much more responsible for unleashingmore than a decade of bloody ethnic conflict, and for pavingthe way for further social disasters.

The origins of the Bosnian and Kosovo conflicts lie in thebreak-up of the former Yugoslavia in the late 1980s andearly 1990s, under the impact of the severe economicdislocation fuelled by IMF and World Bank structuraladjustment plans. The deepening economic crisis, soaringinflation and colossal job losses saw the outbreak of a waveof strikes and protests by the Yugoslav working class.Seeking to divert the rising class struggle, ex-Stalinistbureaucrats and nationalist demagogues throughout the formerYugoslav republics began to promote nationalist sentiments,vying for support from Western governments.

The imperialist powers concluded that support for variousseparatist movements and the ensuing break-up of Yugoslaviainto its constituent parts would serve to ensure their owneconomic and political domination of the Balkans. Germanrecognition of Slovenia and Croatia in late 1991 set intrain the disintegration of Yugoslavia and opened up bitter

ethnic fighting. Backed by the US and other major powers,Bosnia Herzegovina and then Macedonia followed suit.

Though there was nothing in principle to differentiate theSerbian nationalism of Milosevic from other rival groupings,his Croatian, Muslim, Slovenian or ethnic-Albaniancounterparts, the Serbian bourgeoisie had the greatestinterest in preserving a unitary state in which it playedthe dominant role. Milosevic regime, previously viewed as acrucial force in preserving stability in the Balkans, wasrecast in the role of regional oppressor.

The Western powers considered maintaining Milosevic as anally in the Balkans even after the Bosnian civil war in1995. He was regarded as the main guarantor of the Daytonaccord, which established a NATO protectorate over Bosnia.It was only when he resisted the further break-up of Serbiadue to America's planting of the ethnic Albanian separatistKosovo Liberation Army (KLA), and rejection of the demand byWashington during the Rambouillet talks in March 1999 thatNATO have complete military access to Serbian territory thatMilosevic was declared a war criminal.

The indictment of Milosevic by the International CriminalTribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was first draftedin May 1999. Its aim was to reinforce support in the US andEurope for a war against Serbia. It was cited as proof that,like Germany under the Nazis, the Serbian people weresupposedly accomplice in the war crimes of their leader anddeserved to be bombed into submission.

The ICTY indictment charged Milosevic with responsibilityfor the deaths of 340 Albanians, allegedly killed by Serbforces during the conflict with the KLA. However, Belgradehas always insisted that this was a legitimate policingoperation inside Serbian territory. It is known that eversince the Bosnian war of 1995, the KLA had pursued astrategy of destabilising the Serbian province of Kosovo byacts of terrorism, in the hope that the US and NATO would

intervene, and that in its latter stages the KLA receivedtraining and assistance from the CIA.

Such considerations counted for nothing at the time, becauseNATO propaganda machine was intent on portraying the KLA asheroic freedom fighters suffering cruel repression byBelgrade in order to legitimise war against Serbia.

The Bush administration clearly believed that if Milosevicwas not brought before a court (whose agenda is set andverdict largely determined by them), then questions willcontinue to be raised about the American-led militaryintervention in 1999. Therefore Washington insisted that“closure” be reached on the entire sordid chapter.

Ironically, this led to greater urgency due to the shift inUS Balkan policy in face of the growing danger posed toregional stability by ethnic Albanian separatist forces. TheKLA “freedom fighters” of yesteryear became their Macedonianguise of the National Liberation Army, routinely describedas terrorists by the US and European powers. Serbian troopsstarted patrolling the Kosovo border alongside NATO units,in order to prevent military incursions into neighbouringMacedonia and southern Serbia, which have resulted in thedisplacement of tens of thousands of non-Albanians. Thuswith their every justification for the war of 1999 lying inruins, it became all the more imperative that Milosevic bemade the scapegoat for what was ultimately the devastationsproduced by US and Western imperialist policy.

Interventions in the Middle East

After the Second World War, with the continued rise in theimportance of oil to the world economy, the United Statesincreased its interest in intervention in the Middle East.While it had no formal colonies, it had strong influence inseveral countries including Israel, Iran under the Shah, andvarious Gulf states. Since 2001, and the September 11attack, the USA has had a large number of troops in

Afghanistan. Since the US-led invasion in March 2003, it hashad an even larger number in Iraq. At least some US warplanners were interested in US military domination of theoil-rich Gulf region, the world's top supply of this mostimportant resource, according to US General Jay Garner, whowas in charge of planning and administering post-warreconstruction in Iraq, explaining that the US occupation ofIraq was comparable to the Philippine model: "Look back onthe Philippines around the turn of the 20th century: theywere a coaling station for the navy, and that allowed us tokeep a great presence in the Pacific. That's what Iraq isfor the next few decades: our coaling station that gives usgreat presence in the Middle East". (Interview on NationalJournal 2004, archivedhttp://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=5819&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported,http://www.alternet.org/story/17923/ )

Intervention in Iran

The 1952-53 intervention in Iran marks the first among theCIA’s overseas adventures. The saga has been documented inCIA’s Secret History, which reflects on the methodologyadopted by Imperialist America to push its tentacles, stillclaiming that it is promoting democracy.

Imperialist Britain occupied Iran in 1941 to protect asupply route to its ally, the Soviet Union, and to preventthe oil from falling into the hands of the Nazis. Britainousted the Shah's father, whom it regarded as unmanageable.It retained control over Iran's oil after the war throughthe Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. At this time Dr. Mosaddeqbecame a member of Parliament. He was hailed as a hero forhis fiery speeches on the evils of British control of Iran'soil industry. In 1951, when Parliament voted to nationalizethe industry, the young Shah, recognizing the nationalists'popularity, appointed Dr. Mosaddeq prime minister.

In that job he was unable to reach an oil compromise. Even

as the British negotiated with Iran, they won the support ofthe major oil companies in imposing an effective globalboycott on Iranian oil. In the developing world Dr. Mosaddeqbecame an icon of anti-imperialism. He amassed power. Whenthe Shah refused his demand for control of the armed forcesin 1952, Dr. Mosaddeq resigned, only to be reinstated in theface of popular riots. Meanwhile, the United States becamealarmed at the strength of Iran's Communist Party, whichsupported Dr. Mosaddeq.

The nationalization event came only eight years after theend of World War II. This left Americans with a sense ofnational interest framed by six years of confrontationbetween the Allies and the Axis. The front pages of Westernnewspapers were dominated by articles about the new globalconfrontation with the Soviet Union, about Moscow's prowessin developing nuclear weapons and about Congressionalallegations of "Red" influence in Washington.

According to CIA’s Secret History, British intelligenceofficials shocked their American counterparts duringmeetings in 1952 with a plan for a joint operation to oustthe prime minister. The Americans, who "had not intended todiscuss this question at all," agreed to study it. It hadattractions. Anti-Communism had risen to a fever pitch inWashington, and officials were worried that Iran might fallunder the sway of the Soviet Union, a historical presencethere.

In March 1953, an unexpected development pushed the plotforward: the CIA's Tehran station reported that an Iraniangeneral had approached the American Embassy about supportingan army-led coup. The newly inaugurated Eisenhoweradministration was intrigued. The coalition that elected Dr.Mosaddeq was splintering, and the Iranian Communist Party,the Tudeh, had become active.

Allen W. Dulles, the director of central intelligence,approved $1 million on April 4 to be used "in any way that

would bring about the fall of Mosaddeq," the history says."The aim was to bring to power a government which wouldreach an equitable oil settlement, enabling Iran to becomeeconomically sound and financially solvent, and which wouldvigorously prosecute the dangerously strong CommunistParty."

Within days agency officials identified a high-rankingofficer, Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi, as the man to spearhead acoup. Their plan called for the shah to play a leadingrole." A Shah-General Zahedi combination, supported by CIAlocal assets and financial backing, would have a good chanceof overthrowing Mosaddeq," officials wrote, "particularly ifthis combination should be able to get the largest mobs inthe streets and if a sizable portion of the Tehran garrisonrefused to carry out Mosaddeq's orders."

But according to the history, planners had doubts aboutwhether the Shah could carry out such a bold operation. Hisfamily had seized Iran's throne just 32 years earlier, whenhis powerful father led a coup of his own. But the youngShah, according to CIA History, was "by nature a creature ofindecision, beset by formless doubts and fears," often atodds with his family, including Princess Ashraf, his"forceful and scheming twin sister." Also, the Shah had whatthe CIA termed a "pathological fear" of British intrigues, apotential obstacle to a joint operation.

In May 1953 the agency sent Dr. Wilber to Cyprus to meetNorman Darbyshire, chief of the Iran branch of Britishintelligence, to make initial coup plans. CIA officialswere, however, divided over whether the plan drawn up inCyprus could work. The Tehran station warned headquartersthat the "the Shah would not act decisively againstMosaddeq." And it said General Zahedi, the man picked tolead the coup, "appeared lacking in drive, energy andconcrete plans." The plot was under way, even though theShah was a reluctant warrior and Mr. Eisenhower had yet togive his final approval.

In early June, American and British intelligence officialsmet again, this time in Beirut, and put the finishingtouches on the strategy. Soon afterward, the chief of theCIA's Near East and Africa division, Kermit Roosevelt, agrandson of Theodore Roosevelt, arrived in Tehran to directit. "On Aug. 3rd," the secret history says, "Roosevelt had along and inconclusive session with the shah," who "statedthat he was not an adventurer, and hence, could not take thechances of one."Roosevelt pointed out that there was noother way by which the government could be changed and thetest was now between Mosaddeq and his force and the shah andthe army, which was still with him, but which would soonslip away." Mr. Roosevelt told the shah "that failure to actcould lead only to a Communist Iran or to a second Korea."Still haunted by doubts, the shah asked Mr. Roosevelt ifPresident Eisenhower could tell him what to do. "By completecoincidence and great good fortune," the secret historysays, "the president, while addressing the governors'convention in Seattle on 4 August, deviated from his scriptto state by implication that the United States would not sitby idly and see Iran fall behind the Iron Curtain."

By Aug. 10, the shah had finally agreed to see GeneralZahedi and a few army officers involved in the plot, butstill refused to sign the decrees. The CIA then sent Mr.Rashidian to say Mr. Roosevelt "would leave in completedisgust unless the shah took action within a few days." Theshah finally signed the decrees on Aug. 13. Word that hewould support an army-led coup spread rapidly among the armyofficers backing General Zahedi.

The coup began on the night of Aug. 15 and was immediatelycompromised by a talkative Iranian Army officer whoseremarks were relayed to Mr. Mosaddeq. The operation, thesecret history says, "still might have succeeded in spite ofthis advance warning had not most of the participants provedto be inept or lacking in decision at the criticaljuncture." Dr. Mosaddeq's chief of staff, Gen. Taghi Riahi,

learned of the plot hours before it was to begin and senthis deputy to the barracks of the Imperial Guard. The deputywas arrested there, according to the history, just as pro-shah soldiers were fanning out across the city arrestingother senior officials. Telephone lines between army andgovernment offices were cut, and the telephone exchange wasoccupied. But phones inexplicably continued to function,which gave Dr. Mosaddeq's forces a key advantage. GeneralRiahi also eluded the pro-shah units, rallying commanders tothe prime minister's side.

Pro-shah soldiers sent to arrest Dr. Mosaddeq at his homewere instead captured. The top military officer working withGeneral Zahedi fled when he saw tanks and loyal governmentsoldiers at army headquarters. The next morning, the historystates, the Tehran radio announced that a coup against thegovernment had failed, and Dr. Mosaddeq scrambled tostrengthen his hold on the army and key installations. CIAofficers inside the embassy were flying blind; the historysays they had "no way of knowing what was happening."

Mr. Roosevelt left the embassy and tracked down GeneralZahedi, who was in hiding north of Tehran. Surprisingly, thegeneral was not ready to abandon the operation. The coup,the two men agreed, could still work, provided they couldpersuade the public that General Zahedi was the lawful primeminister.

To accomplish this, the history discloses, the coup plottershad to get out the news that the shah had signed the twodecrees. The CIA station in Tehran sent a message to TheAssociated Press in New York, asserting that "unofficialreports are current to the effect that leaders of the plotare armed with two decrees of the shah, one dismissingMosaddeq and the other appointing General Zahedi to replacehim." The CIA and its agents also arranged for the decreesto be mentioned in some Tehran papers, the history says.

The propaganda initiative quickly bogged down. Many of the

CIA's Iranian agents were under arrest or on the run. Thatafternoon, agency operatives prepared a statement fromGeneral Zahedi that they hoped to distribute publicly. Butthey could not find a printing press that was not beingwatched by forces loyal to the prime minister. On Aug. 16,prospects of reviving the operation were dealt a seemingly afatal blow when it was learned that the shah had bolted toBaghdad. CIA headquarters cabled Tehran urging Mr.Roosevelt, the station chief, to leave immediately. He didnot agree, insisting that there was still "a slightremaining chance of success," if the shah would broadcast anaddress on the Baghdad radio and General Zahedi took anaggressive stand.

The first sign that the tide might turn came with reportsthat Iranian soldiers had broken up Tudeh, or Communist,groups, beating them and making them chant their support forthe shah. "The station continued to feel that the projectwas not quite dead," the secret history recounts. Meanwhile,Dr. Mosaddeq had overreached, playing into the CIA's handsby dissolving Parliament after the coup. On the morning ofAug. 17 the shah finally announced from Baghdad that he hadsigned the decrees - though he had by now delayed so longthat plotters feared it was too late. At this critical pointDr. Mosaddeq let down his guard. Lulled by the shah'sdeparture and the arrests of some officers involved in thecoup, the government recalled most troops it had stationedaround the city, believing that the danger had passed.

On the morning of Aug. 19, several Tehran papers publishedthe shah's long-awaited decrees, and soon pro-shah crowdswere building in the streets. "They needed only leadership,"the secret history says. And Iranian agents of the CIAprovided it. Without specific orders, a journalist who wasone of the agency's most important Iranian agents led acrowd toward Parliament, inciting people to set fire to theoffices of a newspaper owned by Dr. Mosaddeq's foreignminister. Another Iranian CIA agent led a crowd to sack theoffices of pro-Tudeh papers.

"The news that something quite startling was happeningspread at great speed throughout the city," the historystates. The CIA tried to exploit the situation, sendingurgent messages that the Rashidian brothers and two keyAmerican agents should "swing the security forces to theside of the demonstrators." But things were now moving fartoo quickly for the agency to manage. An Iranian Armycolonel who had been involved in the plot several daysearlier suddenly appeared outside Parliament with a tank,while members of the now-disbanded Imperial Guard seizedtrucks and drove through the streets. "By 10:15 there werepro-shah truckloads of military personnel at all the mainsquares," the secret history says.

By noon the crowds began to receive direct leadership from afew officers involved in the plot and some who had switchedsides. Within an hour the central telegraph office fell, andtelegrams were sent to the provinces urging a pro-shahuprising. After a brief shootout, police headquarters andthe Ministry of Foreign Affairs fell as well. At the embassy, CIA officers were elated, and Mr. Rooseveltgot General Zahedi out of hiding. An army officer found atank and drove him to the radio station, where he spoke tothe nation. Dr. Mosaddeq and other government officials wererounded up, while officers supporting General Zahedi placed"known supporters of TP-AJAX" in command of all units of theTehran garrison. The Soviet Union was caught completely off-guard. Even as the Mosaddeq government was falling, theMoscow radio was broadcasting a story on "the failure of theAmerican adventure in Iran." But CIA headquarters was assurprised as Moscow. When news of the coup's successarrived, it "seemed to be a bad joke, in view of thedepression that still hung on from the day before," thehistory says.Throughout the day, Washington got most of its informationfrom news agencies, receiving only two cablegrams from thestation. Mr. Roosevelt later explained that if he had told

headquarters what was going on, "London and Washington wouldhave thought they were crazy and told them to stopimmediately," the history states.

Still, the CIA took full credit inside the government. Thefollowing year it overthrew the government of Guatemala, anda myth developed that the agency could topple governmentsanywhere in the world. Iran proved that third world kingmaking could be exciting. "It was a day that should neverhave ended," the CIA's secret history said, describing Aug.19, 1953. "For it carried with it such a sense ofexcitement, of satisfaction and of jubilation that it isdoubtful whether any other can come up to it."

Interventions in Iraq

Declassified British Cabinet papers, published in 1994,indicate the possibility that the CIA and MI6 both providedbacking for the 1963 military coup of Iraqi Colonel SalamArif which overthrew Brigadier General Abdul Karim Qasim.Qassim had attempted to nationalize the Iraq PetroleumCompany, of which US companies were major shareholders, andin order to assert Iraqi rights to the territory of Kuwait.Following the coup, the new Iraqi government abandoned bothof these policies disapproved of by the governments of boththe US and the United Kingdom. After the government ofRahman Arif took power, the US again backed a coup in Iraq,bringing the Baath Party to power in 1968, with SaddamHussein eventually taking the helm.

Similar tactics were used by USA in Iran in 1953 to topplethe democractially-elected Moussadegh government and toinstall the Shah dictatorship.

The same manoevering again took place in Chile in 1973 toinstall General Pinochet after the overthrow of thedemocratically-elected government of Dr. Salvador Allende.

In all the above cases US interest lay in maintainingcontrol over the resources of others e.g. Iran's oil andChile's copper. In the case of Venezuela it is widelybelieved that the US was behind the Venezuelan coup attemptof 2002 to topple the democratically-elected government ofPresident Hugo Chavez.

Interventions in Pakistan

The United States established diplomatic relations withPakistan in 1949. Pakistan-US relations developed againstthe backdrop of the Cold War. The strategic geographicposition made Pakistan a valuable partner in Westernalliance systems to contain the spread of communism. In 1954Pakistan signed a Mutual Defense Agreement with the UnitedStates and subsequently became a key member of the CentralAsia Treaty Organization (CENTO) and Southeast Asia TreatyOrganization (SEATO). These agreements placed Pakistan inthe United States sphere of influence and Pakistan wasconsidered one of Washington's closest allies in Asia.Pakistan received economic and military assistance but hashad to pay dearly for all its alliances with the USA.

Pakistan made a risky offer of allowing its Badaber base inPeshawar to be used for flying a U-2 spy plane on mission,code-named Operation Grand Slam. The automatic pilot hadconked out halfway during the flight, which had theaudacious objective of filming the annual May Day parade of1960 in Moscow. Gary Power, the pilot had pressed on, buthis plane was detected and shot down. Power was put on trialand sentenced to 10 years in prison, but was exchanged for aSoviet spy after a few months. Immediately after downing theU-2 Spy plane, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev hadannounced that it had drawn a red circle around Peshawar andwould bomb the city if any further spy flights took place.The incident marked a turning point in Pakistan-Sovietrelations, and its deterioration was never controlled, norwere sympathies (not to mention gratitude) offered by theUSA.

In 1962 during India's debacle against the Chinese when onlyone infantry brigade was left against Pakistan's border andPakistan could have easily sealed Kashmir within 24 hours byclosing in at Madhupur, it was the US which came to therescue of the Indians. Not only that the US Governmentbrought tremendous pressure on President Ayub Khan,preventing him from taking any advantage of the precariousmilitary situations in which Indian leadership had landedIndia. It also made false promises that Indian leadershiphad agreed to resolve the Kashmir issue in return forPakistan's benevolent stance. The US airlifted arm suppliesto modernise Indian armed forces in quantities in one monththat Pakistan had not received even in six years even onjoining CENTO and SEATO.

The economic aid was not being favourably considered afterthe breakdown of talks on assistance for establishment ofSteel Mills, while the program of military assistancecontinued reluctantly until the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War. USPresident Lyndon B. Johnson placed an embargo on armsshipments to Pakistan and India immediately thereafter. TheUS suspension of military assistance during the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war generated a widespread feeling in Pakistan thatthe United States was not a reliable ally. Even though theUnited States suspended military assistance to bothcountries involved in the conflict, the suspension of aidaffected Pakistan much more severely. The United States armsshipments to Pakistan remained suspended during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and the embargo was not lifted until1975, the period of administration of President Gerald R.Ford.

In 1965 War when Indian offensive had been halted in Sialkotand its strategic reserves consumed and when PAF was rulingthe skies and creating havoc with Indian lines ofcommunications with major part of Pakistan's strategicreserves still in tact and a mere push would have won thatWar for Pakistan the US repeated its policy of betrayal by

stopping supply of critical spares and ammunitions ofPakistan's predominantly US origin armed forces and thusforced Pakistan to opt for cease fire.

In the 1971 war, Washington was all the time talking ofdispatching the 7th Fleet. On the other hand, even whenPakistan’s unity was under threat, Islamabad went out of itsway to bring US and China together in the most eventfulchange in the world geo-politico scenario.

Yet again Pakistan Government was so loyal to US intereststhat it put on stake its own relationship with China byallowing CIA to paint PIA planes on scheduled flights overthe Chinese test sites with radiation detection chemicalsand thus jeopardized its own security when the Chinesedetected it.

United States-Pakistani relations preceding the 1971 warwere characterized by duplicity, uncertainty, andunpredictability. The administration of President Richard M.Nixon was forced to formulate a public stance on the brutalcrackdown on East Pakistanis by West Pakistani troops thatbegan in March 25, 1971, and it maintained that thecrackdown was essentially an internal affair of Pakistan inwhich direct intervention of outside powers was to beavoided. The Nixon administration expressed its concernabout human rights violations to Pakistan and restricted theflow of assistance but it stopped short of an opencondemnation.

Despite the United States widely publicized “tilt” towardPakistan during the 1971 war, Pakistan felt betrayed, sincethere was a general feeling that the United States couldhave done much better by at least preventing India fromintervening in Pakistan's civil war, thereby saving thiscountry the trauma of defeat and dismemberment. Bhuttothereafter started striving to lessen Pakistan's dependenceon the United States. His foreign policy envisioned placingPakistan at the forefront of Islamic nations. Issues central

to the developing world would take precedence in foreignaffairs over those of the superpowers, implying neutralityin the Cold War with equal treatment accorded bothsuperpowers. Distancing of Islamabad from Washington andother Western links was accompanied by Pakistan's renewedbid for leadership in the developing world.

The military links of Pakistan with the West continued todecline following the loss of the East Wing. Pakistanwithdrew from SEATO, while CENTO was dismembered followingthe fall of Shah of Iran in March 1979. Pakistan then joinedthe Nonaligned Movement. Much to the disliking of USgoverning hierarchy, nuclear capability development wasinitiated by Pakistan in response to India's explosion of anuclear device in 1974. In April 1979, President JimmyCarter cut off economic assistance to Pakistan, except forfood assistance, as required under the Symington Amendmentto the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. This amendment calledfor ceasing economic assistance to non-nuclear weaponcountries that imported uranium-enrichment technology.Relations between the United States and Pakistan werefurther strained in November 1979 when protesters attackedthe United States embassy in Islamabad, resulting in thedeath of four persons. The violence had been sparked by afalse report that the United States was involved in a fireat the Grand Mosque in Mecca.

American foreign policy on Pakistan has gone through threephases. The first phase up to 1979 marked the use ofsticks and carrot by the Nixon and Carter administrations,which used sticks (cutting off aid as well as diplomaticpressure) and carrots (offers of aid, including conventionalweapons) to discourage Pakistani nuclear weapons work. USdispleasure with Bhutto led to his fall but it also led tothe transfer of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program to themilitary.

The second phase, which occurred during the Reagan-Bushyears, suggests that US geostrategic and political

calculations about the Soviet military presence inAfghanistan eroded the US commitment to nonproliferation. Inan effort to buy Pakistan's goodwill and at least slow itsnuclear program, Washington cranked up the carrot line-billions of dollars in economic and military aid flowed toPakistan.

In 1989 the Pakistani foreign secretary claimed publicly inWashington that Pakistan possessed a nuclear weaponscapability. Under the cover of its carrots policy, theUnited States had intentionally or unintentionally aidedPakistan's nuclear weapons program. With Pakistan, neithercarrots nor sticks had worked. Beginning in the mid-1970s,Pakistan set out to build nuclear weapons and it apparentlysucceeded.

Having written off Pakistan, US interest suddenly reawakenedin the region when the Russians invaded Afghanistan in 1979.Pakistan fought the US proxy War and in return asked fornothing. Pakistan thus indirectly won for the US its solosuper power status. And in return the US through adeliberate policy blunted and compromised Pakistan'sconventional deterrence by refusing to sell the contractedF-16s or up-dating ones on PAF's inventory. It also used itsinfluence to prevent other countries from selling high techstate of the art armaments to Pakistan.

The Ojhri Camp, where US knew Pakistan had stacked nearly500 undelivered Stringer Missiles for Afghan Mujahideen, wasblown off as the US feared that because of Russia'sunilateral pull out these would go on Pakistan's orbit whichwill tilt the air balance in Pakistan favour in the subcontinent. This was followed by blowing up the C130 carryingZia-ul-Haq and Pakistan's military elite.

The immediate requirement in the post Russian withdrawal andelimination of Zia-ul-Haq was to bring about a pro-US, pro-Indian Government in Pakistan. Benazir fitted custom made inthe US-Indian-Israeli joint perceptions. The Khalistan

movement had reached its peak and the Indian Governmentwould have submitted, if only this movement had been giventhe support it sought from Pakistan. It would have changedthe history of the sub continent since the success ofKhalistan would have disintegrated the whole of India intofive, six states or may be more and Kashmir would have beenresolved. Unfortunately the Benazir Government bailed outIndia when it was at its lowest ebb of vulnerability. Thisis why Nawaz Sharif had branded Benazir as a security risk.

The third phase began with the Soviet withdrawal fromAfghanistan. With the decline of Pakistan's front-linevalue, US nonproliferation policy reverted to its emphasison sticks rather than carrots. In particular, the Bushadministration invoked the authority of Foreign AssistanceAct, which forbids aid to countries with clandestine nuclearweapons programs. A section of the act viz. the Pressleramendment, which applies only to Pakistan, requires the USPresident to certify annually that Pakistan does not possessa nuclear device. In 1990, President Bush declined to issuethe certificate and aid was cut off. Pakistan, like India,considered the Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weaponsto be discriminatory--allowing the five acknowledged nuclearstates to keep their weapons while banning others fromjoining the club. Pakistan declared that it would sign thetreaty only in the unlikely event that India did so first.India refused to join any regional accord as long as Chinapossessed nuclear weapons. Although the United Statesgovernment continued to push both India and Pakistan for aregional solution to the threat of nuclear weaponsproliferation, Pakistan complained that it bore the brunt ofUnited States anti-proliferation policies.

After much US-Pakistan discussion, Pakistan tentatively andunilaterally agreed in 1991 to “cap” its nuclear program.But thus far, a verifiable bilateral agreement has not beenworked out. The two countries are at odds on the issue ofhow to verify the cap. The Pakistanis want the United Statesto use national technical means i.e. spy satellites. The

United States wants intrusive, on-the-ground inspections,although not necessarily IAEA inspections.

United States offered Pakistan another carrot, a one-timewaiver of the Pressler amendment: If Pakistan would permiton-the-ground verification of the cap, an earlier deal for38 F-16 fighters could be consummated. Pakistan has paid forthe F-16s; but it has not been able to take delivery ofthem. So far, Pakistan has not bought that idea.

US carrots-and-sticks diplomacy in Pakistan has been neitherprincipled nor consistent or especially skilled. However, ithas been part of a larger US agenda of keeping a market forthe disposal of its obsolete arms, for the sale of its armsand to keep an eye on the military capabilities lest thecountry turns hostile. Historically, if the United Stateshas ever tilted toward Pakistan, it is partly because of itsvalue as a front-line state in relation to the Soviet Union,the Gulf region, and China, and earlier on also as beinguseful in checking Indian power and ambition.

The latest revelation by President Musharraf that former USdeputy secretary of state Richard Armitage had, in order toforce Pakistan join the Afghan war, threatened to bombPakistan back to ‘the stone age’, is an example of howAmerica treats its faithful ally. Mr Armitage had toldPakistan’s intelligence director, “Be prepared to be bombed.Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age.”

The threat forced Pakistan to cooperate with Washingtonafter the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but in return Pakistan didnot even get the sympathy for its geopolitical indebtedness.

Empire Building under the New Imperialist Plan

Growth in power through territorial gains in the Pacific anddevelopment of trade relations abroad, demanded the openingof Japanese market to trade, and compete with other powersfor influence in China. During World War I, the USA was

among the victorious Allies, after which it breifly followedisolationist policies. In 1941 it entered World War II,again on the Allied side, following the Japanese attack onPearl Harbour and the subsequent declaration of war againstthe USA by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. After the war, itwas a major player in the establishment of the UnitedNations and became one of five permanent members of theSecurity Council.

The US foreign policy during the Cold War sought to limitthe influence of the Soviet Union around the world (called“containment”), leading to the Korean War, the Vietnam War,the over throw of at least one democratic government, anddiplomatic actions like the opening of China andestablishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Italso sought to fill the vacuum left by the decline ofBritain as a global power, leading international economicorganizations such as the WTO and GATT. By the time ofcollapse of the Soviet Union, the US had military andeconomic interests in every region of the globe. In thetwilight of the Cold War, the United States invaded Panama,partly based on its re-declaration of the War on Drugs. Inthe 1980's the US declared a 'war on terror', operatedcampaigns in Central America which in 1986 led to the WorldCourt conviction of international terrorism by the USagainst Nicaragua. In 1991, the US organized and led theGulf War against Iraq in response to its invasion of Kuwait.

American Imperialism Plan comprising “shaping the balance ofpower that favours freedom” has started showing its true facefrom the dawn of the new millennium. After the September 11,2001 attack, the US declared a second “War on Terror”, underwhich it led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Initiallythe imperialism plan was conceived to firm up theimplantation of Israel in the Middle East and to reduce thethreats from Muslim World. The firming up operations started50 years back when an imbalanced alliance was forged betweenthe USA and Britain in the aftermath of Suez War. For thefirst 20 years the plan had to remain dormant due to real

threats to the Super Power from the Soviet Union. Moreoverthe support of the Muslim World was necessary since that wasthe only one that could effectively counter communism.

The last sixteen years have seen the implementation of aplan to remake the world in its own interests by force. Theglobal strategy of American imperialism plan has its realorigins in the formal dissolution of the Soviet Union inDecember 1991. The collapse of the Soviet Union wasinterpreted by several sections of the American rulinghierarchy as an unprecedented opportunity to establish theglobal geo-strategic hegemony of the United States. With theSoviet Union out of picture, there remained no well-organized power to restrain the American imperialism planfrom being implemented anywhere in the world. Indeed, theAmerican ruling hierarchy believed that the overwhelmingsupremacy of the United States in terms of raw militarypower could be deployed to offset the long-term decline inthe economic position of the country in the global scenario.

Among the most significant consequences of the Sovietcollapse was the radical change in the physical balance ofpower in the vast landmass combining Europe and Asia in theform of Eurasia. The transformation of the Central Asianrepublics of the former USSR into independent states hadcreated an immense power vacuum that the United States waseager to exploit. Moreover, that vacuum facilitated theaggressive projection of American power into the MiddleEast.

The American ruling hierarchy was only waiting for a chanceto exploit the greatest portion of the world’s strategic oiland natural gas reserves located in these geographicallycontiguous regions. That provided it the opportunity to laythe outlines of the strategy, which began to emerge in themid-1990s. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national securityadviser under President Carter published an article in the1997 issue of Foreign Affairs, highlighting the criticalimportance of Eurasia for the world position of the United

States: “Eurasia is the world’s axial super-continent. Apower that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisiveinfluence over two of the world’s three most economicallyproductive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glanceat the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasiawould almost automatically control the Middle East andAfrica. With Eurasia now serving as the decisivegeopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashionone policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happenswith the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass willbe of decisive importance to America’s global primacy andhistorical legacy. “In a volatile Eurasia, the immediatetask is to ensure that no state or combination of statesgains the ability to expel the United States or evendiminish its decisive role.”

However, as Brzezinski himself realized, the establishmentof American dominance in Eurasia was a daunting project. Ina book entitled The Grand Chessboard, in which he elaboratedupon the ideas initially presented in the Foreign Affairsarticle, Brzezinski described Eurasia as a “mega-continent”which was “just too large, too populous, culturally toovaried, and composed of too many historically ambitious andpolitically energetic states to be compliant toward even themost economically successful and politically preeminentglobal power.” There was yet another obstacle to thehegemonic aspirations of American imperialism. Brzezinskiwrote.

Military Preparedness to implement American Imperialism Plan

The last 16 years have seen the development and successfuloperation of the “Network-Centric Warfare”. America hassensed that its mastery of the space technology can win warseverywhere from air and space because it enjoys not thebird’s eye view but the hawkish eye view from satellites andGPS: the “global information grid”. The supremacy soobtained is the cutting edge of progress achieved mainly by

the Americans. American power elites are enjoying theircapability to easily terrify others into submission and thusgrant them the status of super power.

“Network-Centric Warfare” has enabled the Americans toachieve Rapid Dominance or even immediate dominance, whichis a key strategy that destroys the will to resist before,during and after battle. This was the strategy that theOttomans adopted to subdue the Europeans when they developedthe bronze guns. The same strategy was applied by theAmericans when they used the atom bomb at Hiroshima andNagasaki and forced the Japanese to submission.

America has, however, achieved its superiority not only inweapons but also in scores of other fields including trade,commerce and social nuisance. Even without using suchweapons, it is in a position to create an illusion ofunending strength and ruthlessness. It has developed thecapability to deprive an enemy of the ability tocommunicate, observe and interact so as to create a feelingof helplessness and thus force individuals, communities, ornation to submission. America has during its experience overthe past sixty post-War years gone several steps further bydeveloping methods to inflict brutal punishments againstthose who resist. Such punishments include the imposition ofsocial breakdown to collapse the ability of a nation toresist.