Part Three

excerpted from the book

Full Spectrum Dominance

Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order

by F. William Engdahl

Third Millennium Press, 2009, paperback

For the Pentagon and the US policy establishment, regardless of political party, the Cold War with Russia had never really ended. It merely continued in disguised form. This had been the case with Presidents G.H.W. Bush, William Clinton, and George W. Bush. Pentagon strategists had no fear of a nuclear strike on the territory of the United States from Iran. The US Navy and Air Force bomber fleet stood in full preparation to bomb Iran, even with nuclear weapons, 'back to the stone age' over mere suspicions that Iran was trying to develop independent nuclear weapon technology. States like Iran had no capability to attack America - much less render it defenseless - without risking its own nuclear annihilation many times over. Iran was well aware of this, one could be sure.

'Missile defense' projects emerged in the 1980's when Ronald Reagan proposed developing systems of satellites in space, as well as radar bases listening stations, and interceptor missiles around the globe, all designed to monitor and shoot down nuclear missiles before they hit their intended targets.

It was dubbed 'Star Wars' by its critics.

... The Star Wars target of the Pentagon was not Iran or even North Korea. It was the only other nuclear power on the face of the earth standing the way of total US military domination of the planet - Russia.

New York Times - in an article about space weapons - post-September 11, 2001

War planners have conceived scores of new and exciting weapons.

Rebuilding America's Defenses, the September 2000 report of the Project for the New American Century {PNAC), the strategic blueprint for defense and foreign policy after George W. Bush entered the White House in January 2001. The PNAC strategy paper declared:

The United States must develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for US power projection around the world.

The US rush to deploy a missile defense shield was clearly not aimed at North Korea or Middle East terror attacks. It was aimed at Russia. It was aimed also at the far smaller nuclear capacities of China.

Keir Lieber and Daryl Press 'The Use of Nuclear Primacy' Foreign Affairs magazine, March/April 2006

The current and future US nuclear force ... seems designed to carry out a pre-emptive disarming strike against Russia or China.

... Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike. This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States' nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China's nuclear forces. Unless Washington's policies change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and readiness of their forces, Russia and China - and the rest of the world will live in the shadow of US nuclear primacy for many years to come.

... [T]he sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one-as an adjunct to a US First Strike capability, not as a stand-alone shield. If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with only a tiny surviving arsenal-if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes...

Foreign Policy in Focus, 1999

As a result of a rash of military-industry mergers encouraged and subsidized by the Clinton Administration, the Big Three weapons makers - Lockheed Martin Corporation, Boeing Corporation, and Raytheon Corporation - now receive among themselves over $30 billion per year in Pentagon contracts. This represents more than one out of every four dollars that the Defense Department doles out for everything from rifles to rockets.

Ian Mount, David H. Freedman, and Matthew Maier in Business 2.0 magazine, March 2003 about the 'New Military-Industrial Complex'

When it comes to military spending, the tradition of the iron triangle - Congress, the Pentagon, and defense industries - joining to push costly weaponry is nothing new.

Washington Post, March 1992, reporting on a leaked document titled ''Defense Planning Guidance (DPG)'

In a classified blueprint intended to help 'set the nation's direction for the next century,' the Defense Department calls for concerted efforts to preserve American global military supremacy and to thwart the emergence of a rival superpower in Europe, Asia or the former Soviet Union... [T]he document argues not only for preserving but expanding the most demanding American commitments and for resisting efforts by key allies to provide their own security.

In particular, the document raises the prospects of 'a unilateral US defense guarantee' to Eastern Europe, 'preferably in cooperation with other NATO states,' and contemplates use of American military power to pre-empt or punish use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, 'even in conflicts that otherwise do not directly engage US interests'

The memo was drafted under supervision of Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary for Policy. The central strategy of the Pentagon framework is to 'establish and protect a new order' that accounts 'sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership,' while at the same time maintaining a military dominance capable of 'deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.

George W. Bush's 'National Security Strategy' document, September 2002

While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country.

'The Military-Industrial Think Tank Complex', William Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca, Multinational Monitor, Jan-Feb 2003

The pre-emption doctrine is actually misnamed. Pre-emption suggests striking first against a nation that is poised to attack. The Bush doctrine is much more open-ended, implying that a U.S. attack is justified if a nation or organization might pose a threat at some unknown future date.

'Rebuilding America's Defenses, Project for A New American Century (PNAC)

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.

[The hijacking of the Italian cruise ship 'Achille Lauro' in 1985] was ordered by Mossad, the Israeli secret services and carried by their agents inside Palestinian organizations. The details of the preparations were related by an insider of the Israeli secret services, An Ben-Menashe, former special intelligence advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, in his book, "Profits of War." According to Ben-Menashe, the attack on the Achille Lauro was "an Israeli 'black' propaganda operation to show what a deadly, cut-throat bunch the Palestinians were."" He said Mossad paid millions of dollars, via agents posing as "Sicilian dons," to a man named Abu'l Abbas to follow orders "to make an attack and do something cruel.

[Ari Ben-Manashe, 'Profits of War: Inside the Secret U.S.-Israeli Arms Network', 1992]

[Abu'l] Abbas then gathered a team to attack the cruise ship. The team was told to make it bad, to show the world what lay in store for other unsuspecting citizens if Palestinian demands were not met. The group picked on an elderly American Jewish man, Leon Klinghoffer, in a wheelchair, killed him, and threw his body overboard. They made their point. But for Israel it was the best kind of anti-Palestinian propaganda.

A growing number of critical citizens [after 9-11] began to question the accusations against an elusive Osama bin Laden as mastermind of 19 Arabic-speaking terrorists. The idea that they could commandeer, with only primitive boxcutters, four sophisticated Boeing commercial jets and redirect three of them, successfully, as apparently poorly-trained amateur pilots in air maneuvers which seasoned pilots claimed were near impossible, was creating growing disbelief among ordinary Americans in the official US Government version of the events.

What became clearer in the months after 9-11 was that the attack was clearly used immediately by the Bush Administration, at the very least, as the pretext to launch a war on Islam under the name of a 'War on Terror,' the 'Clash of Civilizations,' which Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington outlined in the early 1990's.

Many senior international intelligence experts began to put forward the possibility that the attacks of September 11, 2001 had been a "False Flag" operation.

Eckehardt Werthebach, former president of Germany's domestic intelligence service, BundesVerfassungsschutz, told the press just after 9/11 that, "the deathly precision and the magnitude of planning behind the attacks would have needed years of planning."

Such a sophisticated operation, Werthebach said, would require the "fixed frame" of a state intelligence organization, something not found in a "loose group" of terrorists like the one allegedly led by Mohammed Atta while he studied in Hamburg.

Many people would have been involved in the planning of such an operation and Werthebach pointed to the absence of leaks as further indication that the attacks were "state organized actions."

Andreas von Billow served on a German Parliamentary Commission which oversaw the three branches of the German secret service while a member of the Bundestag or German parliament from 1969 to 1994. Von Bülow told American Free Press he believed that the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, and the CIA were behind the 9/11 terror attacks. '

He believed the planners used corrupt "guns for hire" such as Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist who von Bülow called "an instrument of Mossad," high-ranking Stasi (former East German secret service) operatives, or Libyan agents who organize terror attacks using dedicated people, for example Palestinian and Arab "freedom fighters."

Both Werthebach and von Billow said the lack of an open and official investigation, like Congressional hearings, into the events of September 11 was incomprehensible.

Horst Ehmke was German Minister of Justice under Prime Minister Willy Brandt in the 1970s - about 9-11

Terrorists could not have carried out such an with four hijacked planes without the support of a secret service.

General Leonid Ivashov, one of the most senior of Russian military figures, in a speech delivered in an international conference in Brussels in early 2006

If we analyze what happened on September 11, 2001, in the United States, we can arrive at the following conclusions: 1. The organizers of those attacks were the political and business circles interested in destabilizing the world order and who had the means necessary to finance the operation.

... Unlike traditional wars, whose conception is determined by generals and politicians, the oligarchs and politicians submitted to the former were the ones who did it this time.

... Only secret services and their current chiefs - or those retired but still having influence inside the state organizations - have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude.


... Osama bin Laden and "Al Qaeda" cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders. Thus, a team of professionals had to be created and the Arab kamikazes are just extras to mask the operation.

The September 11 operation modified the course of events in the world in the direction chosen by transnational mafias and international oligarchs; that is, those who hope to control the planet's natural resources, the world information network and the financial flows. This operation also favored the US economic and political elite that also seeks world dominance.

Stanley Hilton a Washington attorney, the former Chief of Staff of Senator Bob Dole, represented
families of victims of September 11. In a September 10, 2004 radio interview on the Alex Jones Radio Show,

[W]e are suing Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, (FBI chief) Mueller for complicity in personally not only allowing 9/11 to happen, but in ordering it... this is now without any doubt a government operation and that it amounts to the biggest act of treason and mass murder in American history.

The Bush Administration vehemently refused to name a truly independent commission of inquiry into 9/11 and had allowed most of the vital evidence, including ? especially the steel pillars of the World Trade Center towers, to be immediately shipped overseas for scrap.

Whoever ultimately was responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks, the undeniable result was a military hysteria and defense mobilization not seen in the United States since the Pearl Harbor attack in December 1941 that brought the United States into World War II against Germany, Japan and Italy.

The bombing attack by Japan at Pearl Harbor, as 1946 classified US Congressional Hearings established, was known well in advance by President Roosevelt and a handful of top US military officials, days before the US fleet was bombed. It could have been avoided, and thousands of American lives saved. Roosevelt cold-bloodedly decided to "let it happen" to bring the United States into a war that he and his top planners had calculated they would win.

As early as November 26 [1941], two weeks before the attack, Roosevelt had been urgently and personally alerted to an imminent attack on Pearl Harbor by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Roosevelt responded by stripping the fleet at Pearl Harbor of air defenses, to insure Japanese success. Churchill's November 26 message to Roosevelt was the only document in their correspondence which has to this day never been made public on grounds of "national security."

The devastating attack on Pearl Harbor gave Roosevelt the cause to wage the war he so urgently sought. It was a war to create a new American Empire.

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Potentially the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia and perhaps Iran, an 'anti-hegemonic' coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances... Averting this contingency... will require a display of US geostrategic skill on the western, eastern and southern perimeters of Eurasia simultaneously.

When the combined military budgets of the United States and all its NATO allies as well as key Pacific allies Japan, South Korea and Australia were totaled, the US-dominated alliance spent annually $1.1 trillion on their combined militaries, representing 72 percent of the world's total military spending.

President George W. Bush signed the Order creating AFRICOM, the new US military command dedicated to Africa,

... The African Continent contains what most geologists believe to be the planet's most abundant mineral riches. With China, Russia, India and other potential US 'rivals' beginning to develop ties to various African nations and their raw materials, the Washington response was clear-military.

The Democratic Republic of Congo had been renamed from the Republic of Zaire in 1997 when the forces of Laurent Désiré Kabila (father of President Joseph Kabila) had brought Mobutu's thirty two year reign-of-terror to an end. Locals continued to call the country Congo-Kinshasa.

The Kivu region of the Congo was the geological repository of some of the world's greatest strategic minerals. The eastern border straddling Rwanda and Uganda runs on the eastern edge of the Great African Rift Valley, believed by geologists to be one of the richest repositories of minerals on the face of the earth. The Great Rift was the largest rupture on the earth's land surface, extending more than 4,000 miles from Lebanon to the Mozambique Channel in the southern part of the Continent, containing perhaps the most fertile volcanic soil and greatest mineral concentration on the planet. Quite literally for whoever controlled it, this region was a goldmine.

The Democratic Republic of Congo contained more than half the world's cobalt. It held one-third of its diamonds, and, extremely significantly, fully three-quarters of the world resources of columbite-tantalite or "coltan" - a primary component of computer microchips and printed modern boards, essential for mobile telephones, laptops and other modern electronic devices.

According to the International Rescue Committee, more than 5,400,000 Congolese civilians had died over the course of an ongoing war in the Congo since 1996, making the wars in the DR Congo the deadliest conflict in the world since World War ll. Curiously enough, unlike the case of Darfur, no Washington outcry of genocide was heard over this staggering number of deaths in the Republic of the Congo-orders of magnitude larger than those cited as proof of genocide in Darfur.

Joseph Kabila, the Democratic Republic of Congo's first democratically elected President, had been negotiating a major $9 billion trade agreement between the DRC and China, something that Washington was clearly not happy about In April 2008 Kabila had given an interview to a Belgian newspaper, Le Soir, where he declared that China was now Congo's most important trade and development partner, promising that its influence would expand further at the expense of Europe.

... Not long after Kabila's interview in Le Soir, Nkunda launched his new offensive. Nkunda was a long-standing henchman of Rwanda's President Kagame who had been trained at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. All signs pointed to a heavy, if covert, USA role in the Congo killings by Nkunda's men. Nkunda himself was a former Congolese Army officer, a teacher and Seventh Day Adventist pastor. But, thanks to his training at Fort Leavenworth, he became best known for killing.

The Congo News Agency charged that it was not to protect his native Tutsi brothers that [Laurent] Nkunda was fighting, but instead:

[Laurent Nkunda's] true motives ... are to occupy the mineral-rich North Kivu province [of DRC], pillage its resources, and act as a proxy army in eastern Congo for the Tutsi-led Rwandan government in Kigali. Kagame wants a foothold in eastern Congo so his country can continue to benefit from the pillaging and exporting of minerals such as Columbite-Tantalite (Coltan). Many experts on the region agree today that resources are the true reason why Laurent Nkunda continues to create chaos in the region with the help of Paul Kagame.

A French court in 2006 ruled that [Paul] Kagame had organized the shooting down of the plane carrying Hutu President of Rwanda, Juvénal Habyarimana, in April 1994, the event that set off the indiscriminate, rampaging slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people, both Hutu and Tutsi, across the region.

The end result of the Rwandan genocide, in which perhaps as many as a million Africans perished, was that US and UK backed Paul Kagame-a ruthless military strongman trained at the US Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth Kansas-was firmly in control as the US-backed dictator of Rwanda. The Clinton Administration had done nothing to intervene to halt the killing. On the contrary, the US had actively blocked UN Security Council action. At the time, according to a later declassified Pentagon memo, the Pentagon had predicted a "massive bloodbath" and announced that it would not intervene "until peace is restored".

Since the end of the 1994 genocide, [Rwandan president Paul] Kagame had covertly backed the repeated military incursions by General [Laurent] Nkunda into the mineral-rich Kivu region [of DRC]. on the pretext it was to defend a small Tutsi minority. Kagame repeatedly rejected attempts to repatriate those Tutsi refugees back to Rwanda, however, obviously fearing he might lose the pretext for his occupation of the mineral rich region of Kivu.

According to Canadian researcher [Michel] Chossudovsky, the 1994 [Rwandan] massacre of civilians between Tutsi and Hutu was "an undeclared war between France and America".

By supporting the build up of Ugandan and Rwandan forces and by directly intervening in the Congolese civil war, Washington also bears a direct responsibility for the ethnic massacres committed in the Eastern Congo including several hundred thousand people who died in refugee camps.

Major General Paul Kagame was an instrument of Washington. The loss of African lives did not matter. The civil war in Rwanda and the ethnic massacres were an integral part of US foreign policy, carefully staged in accordance with precise strategic and economic objectives.

The U.S. Pentagon, working covertly through the USAID under the Department of State, had been diverting millions of dollars of USAID funds earmarked for 'gorilla conservation' in the Virunga National Park in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo and using it instead to explore the vast oil and mineral riches located in the same area.

... When skeptics investigated, they found that USAID money officially paid to the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International and Conservation lnternational, were being misused.

... The USAID was apparently covering up for the diversion of US taxpayer dollars from gorilla conservation to minerals exploration and providing arms to various organizations in Congo's Kivu.

... There was reason to believe that the USAID funds were being merely laundered via the conservation NGOs to create a massive arms buildup in the region.

Uganda and Rwanda were two of the Pentagon's premier military partners in Africa in recent years. In 2007 some 150 US Special Forces were added to the Pentagon's Uganda arsenal, while American and British military advisers had been training Uganda's UPDF troops." AFRICOM would presumably upgrade those operations to counter Chinese presence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, using a variety of techniques such as diverting USAID gorilla conservation funds to arms purchases.

If France had been the covert target of US 'surrogate warfare' in central Africa in the early 1990's, by 2008 it was clearly China that had become a real and growing threat to US control of Central Africa's vast mineral riches. China's rapid industrialization had made secure supplies of every mineral commodity imaginable a national state priority for China.

Speaking to the International Peace Operations Association in Washington, D.C. on Oct. 27, 2008 General Kip Ward, Commander of AFRICOM, defined the command's mission:

[I]n concert with other US government agencies and international partners, [to conduct] sustained security engagements through military-to-military programs, military-sponsored activities, and other military operations as directed to promote a stable and secure African environment in support of US foreign policy.

General Ward was speaking to a gathering of the vast private mercenary military industry that had blossomed under the Bush Administration, including notably DynCorp and Blackwater.

... AFRICOM was clearly organized to combine all such resources from hard military power to mercenaries to food aid and so-called 'soft power' to keep Africa's resource-rich countries under its sway and out of the control of rivals such as China.

AFRICOM's "military operations as directed to promote a stable and secure African environment in support of US foreign policy" were clearly aimed at blocking China's growing economic presence on the continent.

I. Peter Pham, a leading Washington insider who was an advisor to the US State and Defense Departments, stated that one of the objectives of the new AFRICOM was:

... protecting access to hydrocarbons and other strategic resources which Africa has in abundance, ... a task which includes ensuring against the vulnerability of those natural riches and ensuring that no other interested third parties, such as China, India, Japan, or Russia, obtain monopolies or preferential treatment.

In testimony before the US Congress supporting creation of AFRICOM in 2007, Pham, who was closely associated with the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, stated:

This [natural wealth makes Africa an inviting target for the attentions of the People's Republic of China, whose dynamic economy, averaging 9 percent growth per annum over the last two decades, has an almost insatiable thirst for oil as well as a need for other natural resources to sustain it. China is currently importing approximately 2.6 million barrels of crude per day, about half of its consumption; more than 765,000 of those barrels-roughly a third of its imports-come from African sources, especially Sudan, Angola, and Congo (Brazzaville). Is it any wonder, then, that... perhaps no other foreign region rivals Africa as the object of Beijing's sustained strategic interest in recent years. Last year the Chinese regime published the first-ever official white paper elaborating the bases of its policy toward Africa.

This year, ahead of his twelve-day, eight-nation tour of Africa-the third such journey since he took office in 2003 - Chinese President Hu Jintao announced a three-year, $3 billion program in preferential loans and expanded aid for Africa. These funds come on top of the $3 billion in loans and $2 billion in export credits that Hu announced in October 2006 at the opening of the historic Beijing summit of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) which brought nearly fifty African heads of state and ministers to the Chinese capital.

Intentionally or not, many analysts expect that Africa - especially the states along its oil-rich western coastline - will increasingly becoming a theatre for strategic competition between the United States and its only real near-peer competitor on the global stage, China, as both countries seek to expand their influence and secure access to resources.

That was the framework for the events of late October 2008 when Nkunda's well-armed troops surrounded Goma in North Kivu and demanded that Congo President Joseph Kabila negotiate with him.

General Nkunda demanded, among other things, that President Kabila cancel a $9 billion joint Congo-China venture in which China would obtain rights to the vast copper and cobalt resources of the region in exchange for providing $6 billion worth of infrastructure: road construction; two hydroelectric dams; hospitals; schools; and railway links to southern Africa, to Katanga, and to the Congo Atlantic port at Matadi. The remaining $3 billion was to be invested by China in developing new mining areas.

This was, up to that point, the biggest single contract by China in Africa. In exchange for the infrastructure and mining development, China would get a share of Congo's precious natural resources for its industries 10 million tons of copper and 400,000 tons of cobalt for use in manufacturing batteries, propeller blades, magnets and chemicals. It was a barter deal-what the Chinese called 'win-win'-not aid with strings attached, like Western powers had given DR Congo over the years.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a foreign policy adviser to candidate Obama during his campaign, had stated as far back as 1997 that for the United States, control of Central Eurasia-the region encompassing Afghanistan and Pakistan and their neighbors in the states of the former Soviet Union-was a prime goal of post-Cold War US military and foreign policy. He stated, "whoever either controls or dominates access to the region is the one most likely to win the geopolitical and economic prize."

The war on terror is being used as a pretext and excuse for building up the US and NATO military and organizational machine in the region [Afghanistan and Central Asia] and maintaining its open-ended presence there.

{George W.] Bush had used the events of 9/11 to ram through a paralyzed Congress several pieces of legislation, particularly the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act, which had all but destroyed Constitutional checks and balances, as well as the Bill of Rights.

The US Pentagon ordered 20,000 uniformed troops deployed inside the United States by 2011. They would be trained to "help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe," according to Pentagon officials.

This dramatic shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was backed with troop commitments and funded by Congress. It was a direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, a law dating from the post-Civil War era which explicitly limits the role of the Pentagon to defense of the United States from foreign attack, and forbids the use of combat troops for domestic law enforcement situations. The initial redeployment to the US in October 2008-at a time when the US military was already severely over-extended in Iraq and now Afghanistan-raised the spectre of police state control over expected domestic protests as the economic crisis worsened.

... According to the Federal Government's official Federal Register, new rules would allow certain civilians to call American soldiers into action within the US in order to prevent "environmental damage" or respond to "special events" and "other domestic activities." It was an alarmingly broad and intentionally vague mandate whose true justification was not made clear to the public.

In November 2008 the US Army Strategic Studies Institute issued a document, "Known Unknowns: Unconventional 'Strategic Shocks' in Defense Strategy Development." The document, which received almost no notice, explicitly referred to possible domestic economic and social 'shocks' as being "both the least understood and the most dangerous." It warned, "it would be prudent to add catastrophic dislocation inside the United States or home-grown domestic civil disorder and or violence to this category." It then went on to state, "shock would result" if widespread civil disobedience were to occur inside the United States, "to such an extent that they forced the Department of Defense to radically re-role (sic) for domestic security, population control."

For both Washington and for the rest of the world, the situation had reached a stage of strategic choice whose consequences could spell the end of the American Century from the rot of its own internal policy since the Vietnam War. An end to the obsessive military agenda of the warfare state would not be an easy process, but a necessary one for the survival not only of the world, but also of the United States as a functioning democracy.

Full Spectrum Dominance

Home Page