Global Security – United States Defense Strategy

December 24, 2017

Global Security – United States Defense Strategy

Padmini Arhant

United States military leaderships alerting US troops on the near future possibility of Russia and the Pacific theater being the next major areas of conflict is extravagant, unaffordable and not pragmatic.

The rhetoric from United States military command is unwise and serve as an unnecessary provocation challenging major nuclear powers Russia and China under pretexts not conforming to credible evidence.

“I hope I’m wrong, but there’s a war coming. You’re in a fight here, an informational fight, a political fight, by your presence.”

Gen. Robert Neller, U.S. Marine Corps commandant.

Sgt. Maj. Ronald Green sounded a similar tone.

“At a Q&A session with the troops in the Norwegian Home Guard base near Trondheim, Neller said that the U.S. could shift its focus from the Middle East to Eastern Europe, citing Russia’s conflicts with Ukraine and Georgia as justification. He told the Marines that they should be prepared for a “big-ass fight” on the horizon.”

United States position in the world stage could be secure and respected provided the military leaderships, think tanks, every administration key officials and some members in Congress behind war strategy begin to acknowledge sovereignty of other nations, concern for all lives at stake over vested interests and importantly the devastation on the entire world upon such confrontation that would inevitably be nuclear.

The era of waging wars for profitability ignoring massive loss of lives and destruction is no longer viable and proved counterproductive time and time again.

The hard lessons from illegal invasion and occupation under false premise has been excruciating for U.S. taxpayers subject to enormous economic liability of warfare inviting adverse impact overall together with tarnishing United States image as an aggressor. Not to mention the scores of lives lost and millions forced into refugee status facilitating terror recruitment for networks preying on disenchanted and frustrated segments to unleash violence at the source of the problems.

In other words, United States determination to retain status quo backfires exacerbating preventable crisis.

United States and NATO operations beginning with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen followed by sponsoring terrorism against Syria since 2011, bifurcation of Sudan in 2012, militarization of Africa and Latin America in the past decade, destabilization of Ukraine in 2012, troops deployment in Eastern Europe through NATO allies extending up to Norway in June 2016, provocative military drills with nuclear threats in Korean Peninsula summarize U.S. exertion of military might and unnecessary intrusions endangering global peace and security.

United States demand on other nations to submit to U.S. failed and flawed policy is neither favorable to United States status nor conciliatory in maintaining peaceful coexistence, a natural and inalienable right of all nations and people in the world.

The argument from military top tiers and the newly unveiled national security strategy under President Donald J.Trump administration is basically prolonging stance up until now that was accelerated in the recent past with events highlighted above including the introduction of Pivot Asia by former President Barack H.Obama administration. The red flag claiming Russia and China are eroding America’s influence, interests and power eventually hurting America’s security and prosperity is a misguided perception without any credence.

The strange scenario projected to justify U.S. military buildup and base increase contradict reality.

China is one of the major creditors besides Japan and Saudi Arabia in floating the U.S.dollar and financing multi trillion dollar national deficit largely acquired from military interventions and terror sponsoring that has nothing to do with U.S. national security and instead fulfilling the core elements ideological and lofty agenda launched as Project for New American Century (PNAC) initially targeting U.S. citizens on September 11, 2001 and proceeded to other nations in the PNAC charter.

As for Russia presumed the enemy reviving Cold War sentiments post Soviet Union is yet another deviation from history and contemporary trend. There are no doubts that secret society comprising members from wherever sharing similar ambitions are in the league reflected in the unified resistance to UNSC dissolution, Nuclear disarmament and dismantling of international syndicate reining control over politics, economy, communication outlets and global affairs shunning transparency and accountability.

Nevertheless, the momentum seeking opportunity for warfare in Korean Peninsula or in the Baltic Sea is self destructive in the nuclear age. Any nation faced with persistent military threats and troops on their borders cannot be expected to remain complacent for peace is possible only in simmering tensions on all sides through reliable dialogue and diplomacy. The lack of will to pursue peaceful negotiations substituted with unlawful economic sanctions to anger the other side is paradoxical to blame game accusing the other party at fault while declining any responsibility for the situation.

The latest tax bill provision with $4 billion on missile systems aimed at installation and enhancement arguably arousing anxiety amongst those the strategy is intended with comments suggesting United States never ending desire to engage in warfare.

Having experimented perpetual wars and terrorism ruining lives, infrastructure and environment, United States renouncing violent hegemonic goals for universal peace and humanitarian endeavors would guarantee honor and credit besides winning humanity’s trust and confidence as honest broker and partner on global natter.

None can possibly sabotage or invalidate the salient characteristics and noble deeds of any carried out in good faith and sincere commitment to protect life and rights of all beings in a selfless and incorruptible mission.

Those who attempt in this regard have nothing but disappointment and embarrassment to savor along with a reminder to refrain from such indulgence in the short and long term.

In conclusion, United States defense strategy expending resources on peaceful overtures, constructive talks and diplomacy would produce positive outcome in diffusing conflicts nuclear or otherwise.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant
Author & Presenter PadminiArhant.com
Spouse in Divine Mission