RESISTANCE IS FUTILE -- I saw a Beast Rising up out of the Sea

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

…I saw a Beast Rising up out of the Sea

By Doug Krieger

The rush toward economic and geopolitical integration is so unalterable and ubiquitous, that RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.   The “Borg Collective” in Star Trek menacingly announced their foreboding trajection with these ominous phrases upon those who would be so foolish to contest their aspirations:

“This is the Borg Collective . . . Prepare to be assimilated. We will add your biological and technological distinctive to our own. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.”

Heralding the vicissitudes of EFFECTIVE DEMOCRACIES as the Weltanschauung of the Twenty-First Century, the White House released its 48-page draft entitled: “National Security Strategy of the United States” (NSS-2006). The formidable document was made public prior to Stephen J. Hadley’s formal March 16, 2006, dissemination of the declared global agenda of these United States of America.

Hadley, national security adviser to President Bush (and former underling to Condi Rice who occupied the post), and principal author of the new report, expands upon the origination of the sea change in American Foreign Policy given in September 2002—the preemptive, unilateral, wars of national interest policy of the Bush administration. Formalization of this policy came within one year of 9/11 and prior to the War in Iraq.

Now, Hadley enunciates and amplifies that original dictum—having major foreign policy ramifications on America’s quest toward economic globalization, China and Russian diminution, and, most assuredly, Iranian and Syrian acquiescence no matter what it takes.   In addition, and sprinkled throughout the tome, is the recurring theme of EFFECTIVE DEMOCRACIES—a.k.a. America demands that nations either “walk the talk,” not simply “talk the walk!”

SINO-RUSSIAN RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

It is this aggressive expression of American foreign policy—based upon the diplomatic reverberations caused by its original manifestation in 2002—that portends diplomatic apoplexy throughout world capitols; in particular, those governments in line for “regime change.” Likewise, it sends an uncompromising signal to China: Stop your unilateral search for fueling your energy needs! Furthermore, Russia’s meddling into Iran’s nuclear program will not be tolerated. As if all of the posturing now taking place in the United Nations Security Council (mid-March, 2006) over Iran’s dubious nuclear pursuits were somehow unnoticed by either Russia or China to wit:

“Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov . . . also dismissed the 14-day period (proposed as the time limit—near the first week of April, 2006—on the UN Security Council’s deliberations on Iran prior to action against Iran by the Council as proposed by America’s UN Ambassador, John Bolton) as ‘not very feasible’ and said he saw ‘a parallel’ between the current Iranian crisis and the run-up to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 when the Security Council intervened before UN inspectors had done their job . . .” (AFP, Security Council close to agreement on Iran statement, March 17, 2006)

But it is Russia’s U.N. ambassador Andrey Denisov who has no illusions regarding America’s intentions:

“Let’s just imagine that we adopt it (i.e., the revised list of British, French and American proposals—proposals which retain many elements that Russia and China have opposed heretofore—to chastise Iran within a two-week time frame) and today we issued that statement—then what happens after two weeks? . . . In such a pace we’ll start bombing in June.” (Russia Rejects U.N. Proposals on Iran, Nick Wadhams, AP Writer, March 17, 2006 and hereafter)

This Associated Press account of Denisov’s remarks includes the worried chuckle, to wit:

“Denisov chuckled after he made the (aforementioned) remark, but it reflected Russia’s fears that the international community has not yet decided how to respond if Iran continues to resist demands that it make explicitly clear it is not seeking nuclear arms.”

The Russian chuckle received a response from U.S. Ambassador John Bolton:

“If I were as near to Iran as Russia, I’d certainly want to get this resolved quickly . . . I think in the Russian nuclear establishment, I think they know exactly what Iran is doing.”

And, in case the Sino-Russian resistance doesn’t get the point . . . Russia’s entrenchment into command economics and restricting what the NSS-2006 calls “a diminishing commitment to democratic freedoms and institutions” will result in a US policy toward Russia that “will depend on the policies, foreign and domestic, that Russia adopts.”

And, in a move assuredly designed in Maoist tones for effect, the NSS-2006 poignantly states: “Expanding trade, but acting as if they (China’s leadership) can somehow ‘lock up’ energy supplies around the world or seek to direct markets rather than opening them up—as if they can follow a mercantilism borrowed from a discredited era” are not but China’s “old ways of thinking and acting.”

SYRIAN-IRANIAN RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

And, unlike the ambiguity of the 2002 document, Syria’s role as sponsor of international terrorism is unequivocally denounced—by name!

However, the report resoundingly spells out Iran’s premiere position as the nation posing the foremost threat to the security of the United States of America; and, not surprisingly, the report did not equivocate on America’s 2003 pre-emptive and ultimate unilateral intrusion into Iraq—to the contrary, America’s initial thrust and subsequent war against the insurgency is wholly justified and merits no apology nor exit strategy.

Eerie reflections to the unilateral—for the 2003-UN “discussions” became naught but an obstacle to peace—and preemptive liberation of Iraq are ensconced in the rhetoric of the NSS-2002 didacticism. Likewise, the expansion of the Bush Doctrine can easily be discerned in the NSS-2006 enhanced projectile. Here, Iran’s aspirations for Nuclear Club Membership are reduced to peashooter status and the peacock’s plume is cropped, while Damascus is destined to become “a ruinous heap” . . .

“Tyrannical regimes such as Iran and Syria that oppress at home and sponsor terrorism abroad know that we will continue to stand with their people against their misrule . . . Iran has violated its Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguards obligations and refuses to provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.

“We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran. For almost 20 years, the Iranian regime hid many of its key nuclear efforts from the international community. Yet the regime continues to claim that it does not seek to develop nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime’s true intentions are clearly revealed by the regime’s refusal to negotiate in good faith; its refusal to come into compliance with its international obligations by providing the IAEA access to nuclear sites and resolving troubling questions; and the aggressive statements of its President calling for Israel to ‘be wiped off the face of the earth.’ The United States has joined with our EU partners and Russia to pressure Iran to meet its international obligations and provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided.

“As important as are these nuclear issues, the United States has broader concerns regarding Iran. The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom. The nuclear issue and our other concerns can ultimately be resolved only if the Iranian regime makes the strategic decision to change these policies, open up its political system, and afford freedom to its people. This is the ultimate goal of U.S. policy. In the interim, we will continue to take all necessary measures to protect our national and economic security against the adverse effects of their bad conduct. The problems lie with the illicit behavior and dangerous ambition of the Iranian regime, not the legitimate aspirations and interest of the Iranian people. Our strategy is to block the threats posed by the regime while expanding our engagement and outreach to the people the regime is oppressing.” (NSS-2006, Section 5, Subsection C.1 on Nuclear Proliferation). (My emphasis).

Again, the profundity of the NSS-2006 announcement regarding both Iran and Syria is precisely the same under girding doctrinal basis for the ultimate liberation of Iraq and the aggressive implementation of Western democracy with a twist of Middle Eastern cultural flare (whatever that is).

Also, in case you might think the United States is impressed with the peacock’s plume all fanned out over a false desire to talk to the US regarding Iraq . . . think no further:

“President Bush’s top foreign policy adviser (Steven J. Hadley) said Friday that Iran’s new willingness to talk about Iraq with the United States is probably a ploy designed to ‘divert pressure and divert attention’ from international concern that Tehran wants a nuclear bomb.” (Jennifer Loven, AP Writer, Bush Adviser Says Iran Bluffing on Iraq, March 18, 2006)

THE MARCH TO NOWHERE . . . CELEBRATING THREE YEARS OF EFFECTIVE DEMOCRACY

Today, March 18, 2006, marks the THIRD ANNIVERSARY of Saddam’s topple from power—OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM . . . let us review the phenomenon and mark the acquisition of Ancient Babylon under the heel of what Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin affectionately refers to as Pax Americana—for he too signed on to the 2003-Iraqi invasion (supplemented with copious links thanks to Reference.com):

“The 2003 invasion of Iraq, also called the Iraq War or "Operation Iraqi Freedom", began March 20, 2003, initiated by the United States, the United Kingdom and a loosely-defined coalition.

“The invasion began without the explicit authorization of the United Nations Security Council, and some legal authorities take the view that the action violated the U.N. Charter. The Bush Administration has cited Security Council resolutions from early 1990s as legal justification, though there is no clear position in any of them with regard to the use of military action against Iraq.

“On 17 March 2003, in his Address to the Nation, U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay leave Iraq, giving them a 48-hour deadline http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/iraq/20030317-7.html. The following day, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer rescinded Bush's previous statement, saying that the U.S. would invade Iraq whether Saddam Hussein left or not http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030318-4.html.

“United States military operations were conducted under the name Operation Iraqi Freedom. United Kingdom military operations as Operation Telic, and Australian operations as Operation Falconer.

“After approximately three weeks of fighting, Iraq was occupied by coalition forces and the rule of Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party came to an end. Subsequently, the period known as post-invasion Iraq began. Approximately 260,000 United States troops, with support from 45,000 British, and smaller forces from other nations, collectively called the "Coalition of the Willing", entered Iraq primarily through a staging area in Kuwait. Plans for opening a second front in the north were abandoned when Turkey officially refused the use of its territory for such purposes. Forces also supported Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 50,000.

“Facing them was a large but poorly equipped military force. The regular Iraqi army was estimated at 290,000–350,000 troops, with four Republican Guard divisions with 50,000–80,000 troops, and the Fedayeen Saddam, a 20,000–40,000 strong militia, who used guerrilla tactics during the war. There were an estimated thirteen infantry divisions, ten mechanized and armored divisions, as well as some Special Forces units. The Iraqi Air Force and Navy played a negligible role in the conflict.

Now, worldwide, the anti-occupation-war-on-terror marches ensue—they are the marches to nowhere! Why? Frankly, the rhetoric of EFFECTIVE DEMOCRACIES is unassailable. How on earth can one contest such an ideological imperative?

ECONOMIC RESISTANCE IS FUTILE FOR HER WINE IS INSIDIOUSLY ADDICTIVE!

All this buttressed by the hegemonic economic globalism controlled by American agencies: The WTO, IMF, and World Bank . . . all of whom are enforced by the platitudes of “Free Trade and Market Economy” with regional action corollaries in place and exponentially expanding: Witness the organization of America’s globe trotting endeavors—endeavors disseminated by the Commander-in-Chief himself!

(1)     NAFTA—North American Free Trade Agreement: The USA, Canada and Mexico.

(2)     CAFTA-DR—The Central American Free Trade Agreement: Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica.

(3)     MEFTA—The Middle East Free Trade Area (NSS—2006: “Expanding the circle of opportunity”): Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco, and Oman (as well as many other Middle Eastern nations in the mix)

(4)     ASEAN—The Association of South East Asian Nations (Note: Enterprise for ASEAN Initiative): Includes virtually all nations in South East Asia (Including Viet Nam) with major breakthroughs with Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia.

(5)     Nation-specific and/or limited regional accords known as FTAs (Free Trade Agreements) have been implemented/concluded and/or enhanced with Israel, Australia and others like South Africa (Note: The South African accord under girds SACA—The Southern African Customs Union comprised of South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Lesotho, and Swaziland—and is spearheaded by the USA)

(6)     AGOA—sub-Saharan Africa—African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Generalized System of Preferences involving scores of African nations.

(7)     SAFTA—South Asian Free Trade Agreement: India, Pakistan Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, and Sri Lanka (Note: SAFTA under girds and expands SAARC or the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) and is spearheaded by the USA.).

(8)     FTAA—Free Trade Area of the Americas (Note: Spearheaded by the USA and involving virtually all of North and South America . . . notwithstanding the vociferous populous outbursts against such a “Free Trade Zone” witnessed in Mar del Plata, Argentina, at the FTAA Summit held in November, 2005). Also: Star of the anti-FTAA forces, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, gets his “come-unpins” from the NSS-2006 report as follows:

“In Venezuela, a demagogue awash in oil money is undermining democracy and seeking to destabilize the region” (NSS-2006, Section IV.B.)

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE . . . UNTIL . . .

Yes, we have been given the Weltanschauung for the Twenty-First Century—a Weltanschauung enshrouded in the guise of “Peace and Safety” and freedom for all. It is the PAX ROMANO, the Peace of Rome—the PAX AMERICANA . . . and who can resist this one who arises from the sea of humanity heralding the benefits of populist democracy? Alas! A government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth?

“Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him? And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months . . . He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name . . . for all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury” (Revelation 13:4b-5, 16-17; 18:3)

“The whole world lies under the sway of the Wicked One . . .” (I John 5:19) . . .

“And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea . . . and when they (The Two Witnesses—Israel and the Church) finish their testimony, the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit will make war against them, overcome them, and kill them . . . now after the three-and-a-half days (i.e., 3 ½ years or 42 months or 1,260 days) the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them. And they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, ‘Come up here,’ And they ascended to heaven in a cloud, and their enemies saw them . . . then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, ‘The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Messiah, and He shall reign forever and ever!’” (Revelation 13:1a; 11:7, 11-12, 15).