Die CIA und der 11. September.
Dieses Buch enthält im Kapitel "Der 11. 9. 2001 als Vorwand für das Neue Amerikanische Jahrhundert"
einige Andeutungen Bülows des Inhalts,
Mitglieder der Bush-Administration (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, u.a.) hätten schon
im September 2000 als Mitwirkende an einem Strategiepapier zur Landesverteidigung, erstellt von einer
Denkfabrik der Neokonservativen, mit Bedauern festgestellt, dass in der Bevölkerung eine Zustimmung zu
den vorgeschlagenen Verteidigungsausgaben wohl nur nach einem "catastrophic and catalyzing event"
ähnlich Pearl Harbor erreichbar erscheint,
und mit den Ereignissen vom 11. September hätten die Attentäter
der Regierung Bush und der Rüstungsindustrie ihre Wünsche von den Augen abgelesen.
Konkret heisst es dazu auf Seite 233:
" ....
Die für die Sicherung des >>Neuen Amerikanischen Jahrhunderts<< für erforderlich gehaltene Politik
wird in einem Papier über den
>>Umbau der amerikanischen Verteidigung in Strategie, Streitkräften und Mitteleinsatz<<
zum Ausdruck gebracht (Fussnote 235).
.... "
Weiters dann auf Seite 234:
" ....
Mit bedauerndem Unterton geht die Gruppe davon aus, daß die erforderliche Umstellung von
Rüstung und Streitkräften samt der dem Volk aufzuerlegenden Finanzierungslasten nur zögerlich
vorangehen werden.
Es sei denn, so klingt ein Hoffnungsschimmer an, ein Katastrophenereignis trete ein wie seinerzeit
der Überfall der japanischen Streitkräfte auf den ahnungslosen amerikanischen Marinestützpunkt
Pearl Harbor mit 2000 Todesopfern und der Versenkung eines Großteils der pazifischen US-Flotte,
der 1941 die damals überwiegend pazifistisch gesinnte Bevölkerung der USA über Nacht dazu bewogen
hatte, mit Präsident Roosevelt in den Weltkrieg gegen Japan und Deutschland zu ziehen (Fussnote 236).
.... "
Schliesslich auf Seite 236:
" ....
Und nun liefern die 19 Hobbyselbstmordflieger exakt das katastrophale und alles Bisherige umwerfende
Ereignis des 11. 9., nur ein Jahr, nachdem die Gruppe ihren Wunschzettel für die Umsetzung des Projektes
>>Neues Amerikanisches Jahrhundert<<
niedergelegt, neun Monate, nachdem Präsident Bush sein Amt angetreten hat.
Die Regierung ebenso wie die Medien sprechen sofort von dem neuen Pearl Harbor, vom weltweiten
Krieg gegen den Terrorismus, der alle bisherigen Politikvorstellungen von Grund auf verändere.
Die Bush-Regierung fordert im Innern wie vom Ausland nahezu bedingungslose Gefolgschaft.
Wer nicht mit uns ist, ist für den Terrorismus.
Es folgt Schlag auf Schlag die Umsetzung des Programms der konservativen Denkfabriken.
.... "
Die beiden Fussnoten:
" ....
(235) Rebuidling Amerika's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Ressources for a New Century.
A Report of The Project for a New American Century, September 2000.
(236) >> Some catastrophic and catalyzing event. <<
.... "
Diese Andeutungen haben mich zunächst elektrisiert.
Weil mir das sehr bedeutsam erschienen ist, wollte ich mir ein eigenes Bild davon machen
in welchem Kontext dieser "Hoffnungsschimmer" artikuliert wurde und habe deshalb versucht,
in den Inhalt dieses Strategiepapieres einzusehen.
Google sei Dank konnnte ich das Dokument
Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Ressources for a New Century
problemlos unter "www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf"
aufspüren und lesen.
Ich kopiere hier nur die für eine Erfassung des Kontextes erforderlichen Textstellen herein.
Dafür sollte es genügen, aus dem Vorspann der Studie die Zusammenfassung der wesentlichen
Schlussfolgerungen, und sodann die unmittelbare Umgebung dieses Zitates im Kapitel V,
wiederzugeben.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
KEY FINDINGS
This report proceeds from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of
global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces.
Today, the United States has an unprecedented strategic opportunity.
It faces no immediate great-power challenge;
it is blessed with wealthy, powerful and democratic allies in every part of the world;
it is in the midst of the longest economic expansion in its history;
and its political and economic principles are almost universally embraced.
At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests
and ideals.
The challenge for the coming century is to preserve and enhance this American peace.
Yet unless the United States maintains sufficient military strength, this opportunity will be lost.
And in fact, over the past decade, the failure to establish a security strategy responsive to new realities
and to provide adequate resources for the full range of missions needed to exercise U.S. global leadership
has placed the American peace at growing risk.
This report attempts to define those requirements.
In particular, we need to: ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
defend the American homeland;
fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
perform the constabulary duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
transform U.S. forces to exploit the revolution in military affairs;
To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations.
In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a
global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats,
not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today's force to roughly the levels anticipated in
the "Base Force" outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength
from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting
permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing
naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.
MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while
increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface
combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army,
and the V-22 Osprey "tilt-rotor" aircraft for the Marine Corps.
CANCEL "ROADBLOCK" PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier,
and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding
while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled
programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.
DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and
American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.
CONTROL THE NEW "INTERNATIONAL COMMONS" OF SPACE AND "CYBERSPACE", and pave
the way for the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces - with the mission of
space control.
EXPLOIT THE "REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS" to insure the long-term superiority
of U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which
.- maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced technologies, and,
.- produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition between single
services and joint-service experimentation efforts.
INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product,
adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.
Fulfilling these requirements is essential if America is to retain its militarily dominant status for
the coming decades. Conversely, the failure to meet any of these needs must result in some form of
strategic retreat.
At current levels of defense spending, the only option is to try ineffectually to manage increasingly
large risks:
paying for today's needs by shortchanging tomorrow's;
withdrawing from constabulary missions to retain strength for large-scale wars;
choosing between presence in Europe or presence in Asia;
and so on.
These are bad choices. They are also false economies.
The savings from withdrawing from the Balkans, for example, will not free up anywhere near
the magnitude of funds needed for military modernization or transformation.
But these are false economies in other, more profound ways as well.
The true cost of not meeting our defense requirements will be a lessened capacity for
American global leadership and, ultimately, the loss of a global security order
that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im Kapitel V ist die zitierte Aussage dann folgendermassen eingebettet:
( RMA dürfte für "Revolution in Military Affairs" stehen. Immer dieser AKüFi der Militärschädel ! )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CREATING TOMORROW'S DOMINANT FORCE
To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must
move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts,
and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs.
Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of
modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming
effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world.
The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought,
what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military
preeminence.
The United States enjoys every prospect of leading this transformation.
Indeed, it was the improvements in capabilities acquired during the American defense build-up of
the 1980s that hinted at and then confirmed, during Operation Desert Storm,
that a revolution in military affairs was at hand.
At the same time, the process of military transformation will present opportunities for America's
adversaries to develop new capabilities that in turn will create new challenges for U.S. military
preeminence.
Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions,
has seen funding for experimentation and transformation crowded out in recent years.
Spending on military research and development has been reduced dramatically over the past decade.
Indeed, during the mid-1980's, when the Defense Department was in the midst of the Reagan buildup
which was primarily an effort to expand existing forces and field traditional weapons systems,
research spending represented 20 percent of total Pentagon budgets.
By contrast, today's research and development accounts total only 8 percent of defense spending.
And even this reduced total is primarily for upgrades of current weapons.
Without increased spending on basic research and development the United States will be unable
to exploit the RMA and preserve its technological edge on future battlefields.
Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security
strategy, military missions and defense budgets.
The United States cannot simply declare a strategic pause while experimenting with new technologies
and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple
American and allied interests.
A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States,
for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one,
absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial
policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.
A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as
justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval.
Likewise, systems entering production today - the F22 fighter, for example - will be in service inventories
for decades to come.
Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt
production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with
some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation - the Joint Strike Fighter
program, at a total of approximately $200 billion - seems an unwise investment.
Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change:
transition and transformation over the coming decades.
..............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scheint in diesem Text tatsächlich ein neues Pearl Harbor als "Hoffnungsschimmer" durch ?
Ich habe keine Spur davon gefunden.
Und was den "bedauernden Unterton" betrifft, darf daran erinnert werden, dass jede realistische Analyse
eben auch jene Aspekte ansprechen und abhandeln muss, die eine Umsetzung der Vorschläge behindern und
verzögern. Dass dabei kein begeisterter Ton vorherrscht, ist wohl selbstverständlich.
Ein solcher Aspekt ist die erwähnte Komplexität des Transformationsprozesses selbst.
Dieser Prozess wird sich nach Einschätzung der Autoren über Jahrzehnte erstrecken.
Die Autoren des Berichtes raten deshalb ausdrücklich zu behutsamer Vorgangsweise mit sorgfältiger Wahl
des Zeitpunktes für die einzelnen Umstellungsetappen (wise management of this process .... ).
Da drängt sich mit Vehemenz die Vermutung auf, dass Andreas von Bülow diesen
"Hoffnungsschimmer neues Pearl Harbor" eher krampfhaft in den Text hinein-interpretiert
als notwendigerweise aus dem Text heraus-gelesen hat.
Man muss schon eine extrem einseitig fixierte Phantasie haben,
um aus diesem Text den Wunsch nach einem neuen Pearl Harbor herauslesen zu können.
Da sind anscheinend jemandem die Pferde durchgegangen.
Das musste unbedingt auch einmal gesagt werden.
lg nase
