Greg Jaffe had a piece a few days ago in the War Street Urinal about the new planning document Donald H. Rumsfeld has released, a result of a major review conducted by the Pentagon every four years, and its implications for the future of the US military. The report, according to Jaffe, marks “a significant departure from recent reviews.” How is this report different? Jaffe says
At its heart, the document is driven by the belief that the U.S. is engaged in a continuous global struggle that extends far beyond specific battlegrounds, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The vision is for a military that is far more proactive, focused on changing the world instead of just responding to conflicts such as a North Korean attack on South Korea, and assuming greater prominence in countries in which the U.S. isn’t at war.
And why would the US military need a greater presence in friendly countries?
The U.S. would seek to deploy these troops far earlier in a looming conflict than they traditionally have been to help a tottering government’s armed forces confront guerrillas before an insurgency is able to take root and build popular support. Officials said the plan envisions many such teams operating around the world.
Get it? Rummy wants the new military of the future to help train storm troopers in countries where the governments are not very popular with their slaves, er I mean subjects. That way destructive revolutions such as, for instance, the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783) will be prevented. At this point the libertarians reading this are no doubt screaming with rage, rightly so. On the positive side, Jaffe notes that this philosophy change will be bad news for the Military Industrial Complex, hurting great American merchants of death such as Lockheed Martin. That might be good news, but my cynical tendencies make me suspicious. Don’t these foreign governments need weapons to keep the people in line?