excerpted from the book
Full Spectrum Dominance
Totalitarian Democracy in the
New World Order
by F. William Engdahl
Third Millennium Press, 2009,
For those segments of the US establishment whose power had grown
exponentially through the expansion of the post World War II national
security state, the end of the Cold War meant the loss of their
reason for existing.
What few were aware of, largely because their irresponsible national
media refused to tell them, was that since the fall of the Berlin
Wall in November 1989, the Pentagon had been pursuing, step-by-careful-step,
a military strategy for domination of the entire planet, a goal
no earlier great power had ever achieved, though many had tried.
It was called by the Pentagon, 'Full Spectrum Dominance' and as
its name implied, its agenda was to control everything everywhere
including the high seas air, space and even outer space and cyberspace.
George F. Kennan, US State Department Policy Memorandum, February
We have about 50% of the world's wealth
but only 6.3% of its population. ..I this situation, we cannot
fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in
the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which
Will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without
positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will
have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and
our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate
national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can
afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.
America's leading post-war planners had been involved in the 19391
War & Peace Studies Project of the New York Council on Foreign
Relations. Their strategy had been to create a kind of informal
empire, one in which America would emerge as the unchallenged
hegemonic power in a new world order to be administered through
the newly-created United Nations Organization.
The architects of the post-war US-dominated
global order explicitly chose not to call it an 'empire.' Instead,
the United States would project its imperial power under the guise
of colonial 'liberation,' support for 'democracy' and 'free markets.'
It was one of the most effective and diabolical propaganda coups
of modern times.
The American architects of post-War power - centered in and around
the powerful Council on Foreign Relations, the Rockefeller Foundation
and, above all, the Rockefeller faction in US politics and economics
- had adopted [the British father of geopolitics Sir Halford]
Mackinder's geopolitical view as their own. The leading strategists
within Rockefeller's faction, including Henry Kissinger and, later,
Zbigniew Brzezinski, both men part of the powerful Rockefeller
faction in US politics, were trained in Mackinder geopolitics.
In 1945, President Harry S. Truman ordered General Eisenhower
and his Joint Chiefs to prepare a secret plan for a surprise nuclear
attack on some 20 cities of the Soviet Union.
In the year 2000, a strange new political phenomenon emerged'
Belgrade, the capital of Serbia in the former Yugoslavia... On
the surface, it seemed to be a spontaneous and genuine political
'movement.' In reality, it was the product of techniques that
had been under study and development in the US for decades.
... In Belgrade several specific organizations
were key players: the National Endowment for Democracy and two
of its offshoots, the International Republican Institute, tied
to the Republican party, and the National Democratic Institute,
tied to the Democrats. While claiming to be private Non-Government
Organizations (NGOs), they were, in fact, financed by the US Congress
and State Department. Armed with millions in US taxpayer dollars,
they were moved into place to create a synthetic movement for
Washington Post writer Michael Dobbs
The United States government had 'bought'
the removal of [Serbian President] Milosevic for $41 million.
The operation was run out of the offices of US Ambassador [Richard]
Miles with specially trained agents coordinating networks of naïve
students who were convinced they were fighting for a better world,
the 'American way of life.'
and the Washington Post reported that
U.S.-funded consultants played a crucial
role behind the scenes in virtually every facet of the anti-Milosevic
drive [Yugoslavia 1999].
Through slick Madison Avenue marketing techniques and careful
study of genuine protest movements, the US Government had perfected
techniques for 'democratically' getting rid of any opponent, while
convincing the world they were brought down by spontaneous outbursts
The Serbian Otpor! revolution had been
founded, guided and financed covertly by the US Government via
Beginning in the 1950s, with covert funding from Nelson Rockefeller's
Department of Health Education and Welfare, the CIA engaged in
a program given the code name "MK-ULTRA." Alleged to
be necessary in response to claims of 'brainwashing' of American
soldiers by North Korea, the CIA began experiments in "mind
control." The allegations of North Korean brainwashing were
fabricated, as later research revealed, in order to justify this
program after the fact. At the time, there was no evidence of
such brainwashing, nor has there been any since.
The CIA's program involved administering
LSD and other drugs to American subjects without their knowledge
or against their will, causing several to commit suicide.
The MK-ULTRA operation was secretly co-funded
by the Rockefeller Foundation," as well as by funds specifically
earmarked for MK-ULTRA front projects by Nelson Rockefeller -
then President Eisenhower's Under Secretary for Health, Education
and Welfare, and later his Special Assistant on Cold War Strategy
and Psychological Warfare. In addition to attempts at 'mind control'
with drugs, MK-ULTRA involved research on methods of effective
propaganda, brainwashing, public relations, advertising, hypnosis,
and other forms of suggestion.
Following World War I, the British Military had created the Tavistock
Institute to serve as its psychological warfare arm. The Institute
received its name from the Duke of Bedford, Marquis of Tavistock,
who donated a building to the Institute in 1921 to study the effect
of shell-shock on British soldiers who had survived World War
I. Its purpose was not to help the traumatized soldiers, however,
but instead to establish the 'breaking point' of men under stress.
The program was under the direction of the British Army Bureau
of Psychological Warfare. For a time Sigmund Freud worked with
Tavistock on psychoanalytical methods applied to individuals and
After World War II, the Rockefeller Foundation
moved in to finance the Tavistock Institute and, in effect, to
co-opt its programs for the United States and its emerging psychological
warfare activities. The Rockefeller Foundation provided an infusion
of funds for the financially strapped Tavistock, newly reorganized
as the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations. Its Rockefeller
agenda was to undertake "under conditions of peace, the kind
of social psychiatry that had developed in the Army under conditions
Tavistock immediately began work in the
United States sending its leading researcher, the German-born
psychologist, Kurt Lewin, to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
in 1945 to establish the Research Center for Group Dynamics. Lewin
was interested in the scientific study of the processes that influence
individuals in group situations, and is widely credited as the
founder of 'social psychology.' After Lewin's death, the Center
moved to the University of Michigan in 1948 where it became the
Institute for Social Research.
Tavistock's work over the next two decades
was to co-opt legitimate psychological insights into social groups
and social dynamics in order to refine techniques for social manipulation.
The US success in removing the tenacious Slobodan Milosevic as
Serbia's President in 2000 proved to the US State Department and
intelligence community that their new model for covert regime
change via non-violent coup d'etats worked. It seemed to be the
perfect model for eliminating regimes opposed to US policy. It
did not matter if a regime had been popular or democratically
elected. Any regime was vulnerable to the Pentagon's new methods
of warfare - the 'swarming' and 'color revolution' techniques
Within months of his success in overseeing
the creation of the Serb Otpor! Revolution, US Chief of Mission
to Belgrade, Ambassador Richard Miles, was sent to his next assignment,
the tiny Republic of Georgia ml the Caucasus mountains of Central
The National Endowment for Democracy ... seemed to be present
in every major US coup or regime change operation since the 1980s.
Also prominent in Georgia ... was the Open Society Foundation
run by American billionaire, George Soros, and the Washington-based
Freedom House which had been set up in the 1940s as a NATO propaganda
organization and in 2001 was headed by former CIA chief, James
The US State Department had often used NGOs in its coup machinery
over the years: in the overthrow of President Fernando Marcos
of the Philippines in 1986, or in the Tiananmen Square destabilization
in 1989, and Vaclav Havel's 'velvet revolution' in Czechoslovakia
... [Gene] Sharp's Albert Einstein Institution
apparently played a key role in training and educating youth movements
across former Warsaw pact countries and also in Asia. According
to researcher Jonathan Mowat, Sharp's organization was funded
in part by the Soros foundations and the US Government's National
Endowment for Democracy, among others.
The transformation of Ukraine from independent former Russian
republic to pro-NATO US satellite was accomplished by the so-called
range Revolution' in 2004
... The man Washington decided to back
in its orchestrated regime change in Ukraine was Viktor Yushchenko,
a fifty-year old former Governor of Ukraine's Central Bank. Yushchenko's
wife, Kateryna, an American citizen born in Chicago, had been
an official in both the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations,
and in the US State Department. She had come to Ukraine as a representative
of the US-Ukraine Foundation whose Board of Directors included
Grover Norquist, one of the most influential conservative Republicans
in Washington. Norquist had been called "the managing director
of the hard-core right" backing the George W. Bush Presidency."
The central focus of Yushchenko's slick
campaign for President was to advocate membership for Ukraine
in NATO and the European Union. His campaign used huge quantities
of orange colored banners, flags, posters, balloons and other
props, leading the media inevitably to dub it the 'Orange Revolution.'
Washington funded 'pro-democracy' youth groups that played a particularly
significant role organizing huge street demonstrations that helped
him win the re-run of a disputed election.
... The same US Government-backed NGOs
that had been in Georgia also produced the results in Ukraine:
the George Soros Open Society Institute; Freedom House; and the
National Endowment for Democracy, along with its two subsidiaries,
the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic
The location of the various Color Revolutions was aimed directly
at encircling Russia and cutting off, at any time, her export
pipelines. With more than sixty percent of Russia's dollar export
earnings coming from its oil and gas exports, such an encirclement
would amount to an economic chokehold on Russia by US-led NATO.
[An] NGO that invariably turned up in each of Color Revolution
regime changes was Freedom House. Along with the Open Society
Institutes of George Soros, the US-funded NED and others, the
curiously named Freedom House turned up everywhere.
Freedom House was an organization with
a noble-sounding name and a long history. It had been created
in the late 1940s as a US lobby to organize public opinion in
favor of establishing NATO. The chairman of Freedom House at the
time of the Georgia and Ukraine Color Revolutions was James Woolsey,
former CIA director and a neo-conservative who proclaimed to the
world that September 11, 2001 was the start of "World War
W." Woolsey defined the Cold War as World War III.
Other trustees and financial backers of
Freedom House included Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, foreign
policy advisors to Presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama. Freedom
House also listed among its financial contributors the US State
Department, USAID, US Information Agency, Soros Open Society Foundations,
and the ubiquitous National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
The NED along with Freedom House, had
been at the center of all the major 'color revolutions' in Eurasia
since 2000. created during the Reagan Administration to function
as a de facto CIA, privatized so as to allow more freedom of action.
Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing
the NED [National Endowment for Democracy] - in an interview
A lot of what [NED does] today was done
covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.
The majority of the historic figures linked
to clandestine CIA actions have at some time been members of the
Board of Directors or the Administrative Council of the NED, including
Otto Reich, John Negroponte, Henry Cisneros and Elliot Abrams.
In 2004, the NED [National Endowment for Democracy] was involved
in a US-sponsored coup attempt against Venezuela's new democratically-elected
President, Hugo Chavez. After Hugo Chavez had easily won a referendum
in August 2004 on his presidency, accusations emerged about the
NED's role in supporting anti-Chavez groups. A key figure in the
attempted coup had been Bush's Assistant Secretary of State for
the Western Hemisphere, Cuban-born Otto Juan Reich. ReIch ...
was also a board member of the controversial Western Hemisphere
Institute for Security Cooperation, better known as the School
of the Americas, where the Pentagon trained most of the Latin
American death squads.
A close look at the map of Eurasia began to suggest what was at
stake for Washington in Eurasia. The goal was not only the strategic
encirclement of Russia through a series of NATO bases ranging
from Camp Bond Steel in Kosovo, to Poland, to the Czech Republic,
and possibly Georgia, and possibly Ukraine. All of this had the
overarching goal of enabling NATO to control energy routes and
networks between Russia and the EU.
a Foreign Affairs article by Zbigniew Brzezinski in September
1997 revealed the true Washington geopolitical strategy towards
Eurasia accounts for 75 percent of the
world's population, 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its
energy resources. Collectively, Eurasia's potential power overshadows
Since the Bush-Cheney Administration took office in January 2001,
controlling the major oil and natural gas fields of the world
had been the primary, though undeclared, priority of US foreign
policy. The battle was for the highest stakes. Washington's power
elites were determined to deconstruct Russia as a functioning
power in their pursuit of global domination, their New World Order.
It became increasingly clear that not only the invasion of Iraq,
but also the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan, had nothing
to do with 'democracy,' and everything to do with pipeline control
across Central Asia and the militarization of the Middle East
After 1999, the United States, which already
maintains between 600 and 800 military bases around the world,
built even more bases ranging geographically from Camp Bondsteel
in Kosovo, to Sao Tome/Principe off the coast of West Africa.
It attempted 'regime change' of the democratically elected President
of oil-rich Venezuela, while shamelessly proclaiming itself the
champion of democracy. And the US put massive pressure on a nervous
Germany and France to bring the tiny but strategic \ Republic
of Georgia into NATO to secure oil flows from Baku to the Mediterranean.
The Bush-Cheney Presidency had, from the outset, been based on
a c1 consensus among various factions of the US power establishment.
That consensus was that US foreign policy should aim to secure
what the Pentagon termed 'Full Spectrum Dominance.'
The strategists of Full Spectrum Dominance
envisioned control of pretty much the entire universe, including
outer and inner-space, from the galaxy to the mind. The control
of energy, particularly global oil and gas resources, by the Big
Four Anglo-American private oil giants ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil,
BP and Royal Dutch Shell-was the cornerstone of their global strategy.
The Bush Administration implemented the
consensus of the US establishment that the US required a drastic
change in its foreign policy to an extremely aggressive grab for
global oil resources -- in order for the US to continue to control
world economic growth and to prevent the emergence of rival economic
groups, especially China.
It was clear in Washington policy circles
that in order to control those global oil and gas flows, the United
States needed to project its military power far more aggressively,
to achieve a total military supremacy, which was what Full Spectrum
Dominance was actually about.
[Vice President Dick Cheney in a speech to the London Institute
of Petroleum]. The problem as Cheney saw it, was that the vast
untapped oil reserves of the Middle East were largely under local
government control and not in private hands. The military occupation
of Iraq was the first major step in this US strategy to move oil
into select private hands, Anglo-American Big oil hands.
However, while ultimate US military control
over the vast oil resources of the Persian Gulf, was necessary
to the Pentagon's agenda of Full Spectrum Dominance (unchallenged
domination of the entire planet), it was not at all sufficient.
So long as Russia remained a free agent and not yet under the
thumb of US military domination, US control of Eurasia would remain
impossible. Ultimate dismemberment or deconstruction of Russia's
remaining nuclear arsenal and control of Russia's vast oil and
gas resources remained the strategic priority of Washington.
The NATO encirclement of Russia, the Color Revolutions across
Eurasia, and the war in Iraq, were all aspects of one and the
same American geopolitical strategy: a grand strategy to de-construct
Russia once and for all as a potential rival to a sole US Superpower
British Royal Geographer, Sir Halford Mackinder [believed] the
prime objective of both British and later, of United States, foreign
policy and military policy was to prevent a unity, whether natural
or un-natural, between the two great powers of the Eurasian landmass-Russia
Postwar [WWII] American policy makers were drawn from a relatively
small number of privileged families. Most of them were part of
the influential circle around the Rockefeller family, especially
John D. III and his banker brother, David Rockefeller. It was
this particular group that determined postwar US-China policy.
Their goal was always to maintain a strategy
of tension across Asia, and particularly in Eurasia. For example,
the US would threaten Japan with the loss of US military protection
if it did not follow US policy wishes, and it would seduce China
by outsourcing US manufacture to China, while actually providing
failing American manufacturers with huge profits.
Regardless of the tactics used, the end
goal of US China Policy was the maintenance of control over China
as the potential economic colossus of Asia-over its energy development,
its food security, its economic development, its defense policy..,
its very future.
... Washington policy, while still based
on advancing US military hegemony, increasingly shifted to masquerading
behind the issues of human rights and 'democracy' as weapons of
psychological and economic warfare in its ongoing attempt to contain
and control China and its foreign policy.
The creation of AFRICOM was Washington's response to its increasing
loss of control over Africa's raw materials. China, not terrorism,
was the unspoken reason for the new US military concern over Africa.
The Pentagon document - 2008 Army Modernization Strategy - stated
that the objective of US Army strategy was to span and dominate
the entire universe, not just the globe. It called for "an
expeditionary, campaign-quality Army capable of dominating across
the full spectrum of conflict, at any time, in any environment
and against any adversary-for extended periods of time."
The document went on, "the Army must concentrate its equipping
and modernization efforts on two mutually supporting ends-restoring
balance and achieving full-spectrum Dominance."
... [2008 Army Modernization Strategy]
envisioned that the United States, for at least the next "thirty
to forty years," would be engaged in continuous wars to control
During the Cold War, US control of Africa and its vast mineral
wealth had relied on assassination and civil wars which it covertly
fuelled, or the cooperation of brutal former colonial powers such
as Britain, France, Portugal or Belgium.
US policy towards China's economic emergence across Asia, Africa
and beyond, incorporated unexpected weapons of war-'Human Rights'
and 'Democracy.' Atypical as weapons of warfare, 'Democracy' and
'Human Rights' were a 21st Century version of the 1840 Opium Wars-
tactics aimed at forcing China to open itself up to full US Superpower
Both the NED [National Endowment for Democracy] and IRI [International
Republican Institute] were the US State Department's primary vehicles
to promote pro-US regime changes around the world.
The main US targets in the new 'Opium War' against China, euphemistically
termed 'promotion of democracy,' were China's vital sources of
raw materials. Specifically, the US targeted Myanmar, Sudan, and
China itself - through the Dalai Lama organizations in Tibet and
the Falun Gong 'religious' sect inside China. To accomplish their
goal, the US clandestine intelligence services turned to an arsenal
of NGOs they had carefully built up, using the battle cry of 'human
rights violations' and weakening of 'democracy.'
This approach was part of a highly effective
method of 'soft warfare' developed since the 1980's by US intelligence
agencies to disarm and destabilize regimes it deemed 'uncooperative.'
Countries to be targeted were singled out and repeatedly charged
- typically in a massive international media assault led by CNN
and BBC - as violators of 'human rights. The definition of human
rights, of course, was contrived by the accusing country, the
United States, which itself remained immune to similar charges.
It was a controlled game in which US agencies, from the State
Department to the intelligence community, worked behind the façade
of a handful of extremely influential, allegedly 'neutral' and
In the 1980s, during the presidency of
Ronald Reagan, US intelligence agencies and the State Department
spent billions of dollars to create an elaborate and sophisticated
global network of NGOs and ostensibly philanthropic organizations.
NGOs and 'foundations' would serve US strategy as a flank in its
effort to bring the entire planet under its Full Spectrum Dominance.
One Australian researcher of the process, Michael Barker, called
it "the Project for a New American Humanitarianism, a human
The project had evolved by the dawn of
the new Century into one of the most effective weapons to extend
the influence of American global dominance. It had also managed
to avoid major media scrutiny in the Western press. Barker described
the concerted US deployment of various 'human rights and pro-'democracy'
front organizations it funded, from the National Endowment for
Democracy to Human Rights Watch and the Open Society Institutes.
The loose collection f concerned activists
that coalesce within the Project for a New American Humanitarianism
help sustain imperialism by both providing it with 'moral cover'
and sanctioning the abandonment of the rule of law in the purported
interest of human rights."
That was the weapon unleashed by Washington
to force regime change in Myanmar, in a destabilization modeled
on the color revolutions that Washington had used to bring corrupt,
Washington-friendly despots to power in Georgia and Ukraine in
It was to become known as the 'Saffron
Revolution' in Myanmar, in reference to the saffron robes of the
protesting Buddhist monks. In Tibet, it was called the 'Crimson
Revolution.' In Sudan it was called simply 'genocide.' In each
case, the power of the Pentagon and US intelligence services,
in coordination with the State Department and select NonGovernment
Organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy, were
involved in the 'weaponizing' of human rights to extend the control
of US interests and prevent the rise of 'emerging near-peers,'
specifically China and Russia.