"They have designed and distributed a map where national borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist empire."
Donald Rumsfeld
"The United States is a nation engaged in what will be a long war."
"It will take unity of effort to win the long war in which our Nation is engaged."
"As we continue in the fifth year of this long global war, the ideas and proposals in this document are provided as a roadmap for change, leading to victory."
"The Department of Defense conducted the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) in the fourth year of a long war, a war that is irregular in its nature."
"This wartime construct, described in detail later in this Report, makes adjustments to better capture the realities of a long war by..."
"Giving greater emphasis to the war on terror and irregular warfare activities, including long-duration unconventional warfare, counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and military support for stabilization and reconstruction efforts."
"Since 2001 the U.S. military has been continuously at war, but fighting a conflict that is markedly different from wars of the past. The enemies we face are not nation-states but rather dispersed non-state networks. In many cases, actions must occur on many continents in countries with which the United States is not at war. Unlike the image many have of war, this struggle cannot be won by military force alone, or even principally. And it is a struggle that may last for some years to come. On any given day, nearly 350,000 men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces are deployed or stationed in approximately 130 countries. They are battle-hardened from operations over the past four years, fighting the enemies of freedom as part of this long war. They maintain the Nation’s treaty obligations and international commitments. They protect and advance U.S. interests and values. They are often asked to be protectors of the peace and providers of relief. They are a force for good."
Ho ho ho...
"Like Afghanistan, Iraq is a crucial battleground in the long war against terrorism."
"As more Iraqi units gain confidence and operational experience, they will increasingly take the lead in security operations. This example is a model for the future: helping others to help themselves is critical to winning the long war."
"The long war against terrorist networks extends far beyond the borders of Iraq and Afghanistan and includes many operations characterized by irregular warfare – operations in which the enemy is not a regular military force of a nation-state."
"Today, efforts large and small on five continents demonstrate the importance of being able to work with and through partners, to operate clandestinely and to sustain a persistent but low-visibility presence. Such efforts represent an application of the indirect approach to the long war."
"The Military Departments have also begun more intensive cultural and language training, which over time will create a more culturally aware, linguistically capable force, better able to forge victory in the long war."
"The long war has also seen U.S. forces taking on greater roles at home. Immediately following the 9/11 attacks, U.S. forces were called upon to assist in securing the homeland."
"The Department applied these lessons over the course of the QDR as it identified changes to the mix of joint capabilities and the enterprise-wide reforms needed to fight the long war."
"The United States, its allies and partners, will not win this long war in a great battle of annihilation. Victory can only be achieved through the patient accumulation of quiet successes and the orchestration of all elements of national and international power."
"Long-duration, complex operations involving the U.S. military, other government agencies and international partners will be waged simultaneously in multiple countries around the world, relying on a combination of direct (visible) and indirect (clandestine) approaches."
"Maintaining a long-term, low-visibility presence in many areas of the world where U.S. forces do not traditionally operate will be required."
"In the post-September 11 world, irregular warfare has emerged as the dominant form of warfare confronting the United States, its allies and its partners; accordingly, guidance must account for distributed, long-duration operations, including unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and stabilization and reconstruction operations."
"For the foreseeable future, steady-state operations, including operations as part of a long war against terrorist networks, and associated rotation base and sustainment requirements, will be the main determinant for sizing U.S. forces."
"For example, Operational Availability assessed the availability of forces prior to, during and following major combat operations, as well as to meet routine missions and the increased demands of the long war."
"It is reorganizing its combat and support forces into modular brigade-based units – including brigade combat teams (BCTs) and the support brigades to sustain them – to increase breadth and depth for the long war."
"To win the long war, the Department of Defense must reshape the defense enterprise in ways that better support the warfighter and are appropriate for the threat environment."
"Recent operational experiences highlight capabilities and capacities that the Department must instill in the Total Force to prevail in a long, irregular war while deterring a broad array of challenges."
"The traditional, visible distinction between war and peace is less clear at the start of the 21st century. In a long war, the United States expects to face large and small contingencies at unpredictable intervals. To fight the long war and conduct other future contingency operations, joint force commanders need to have more immediate access to the Total Force. In particular, the Reserve Component must be operationalized, so that select Reservists and units are more accessible and more readily deployable than today."
"Developing broader linguistic capability and cultural understanding is also critical to prevail in the long war and to meet 21st century challenges."
"Supporting the rule of law and building civil societies where they do not exist today, or where they are in their infancy, is fundamental to winning the long war."
"Recognizing that stability, security and transition operations can be critical to the long war on terrorism, the Department issued guidance in 2005 to place stability operations on par with major combat operations within the Department."
"Close cooperation with these partners in the long war on terrorism, as well as in efforts to counter WMD proliferation and other non-traditional threats, ensures the continuing need for these alliances and for improving their capabilities."
"The United States will work to strengthen allied capabilities for the long war and countering WMD."
"Bringing all the elements of U.S. power to bear to win the long war requires overhauling traditional foreign assistance and export control activities and laws."
"In particular, winning the long war requires strengthening the Department’s ability to train and educate current and future foreign military leaders at institutions in the United States."
"Victory in the long war ultimately depends on strategic communication by the United States and its international partners."
"Finally, by emphasizing greater cultural awareness and language skills, the QDR acknowledges that victory in this long war depends on information, perception, and how and what we communicate as much as application of kinetic effects."
"The War on Terrorism – a war of long duration – differs from the kind of conflict for which the Department traditionally prepared."
Quadrennial Defense Review Report 2006
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
George W. Bush [May 24, 2005]
"So, d'ya reckon this is gonna be a long war?"
"Uhn... dunno. Do you?"
"Dunno."
"Yeah."
"Who cares anyway?"
"Yeah. Who cares?"
"Unless we invest in our defence and security, our homelands will be at risk."
Donald Rumsfeld
Public concern over Iran's nuclear program has risen dramatically in the past few months. Today, 27% of Americans cite Iran as the country that represents the greatest danger to the United States. In October, just 9% pointed to Iran as the biggest danger to the U.S., while there was far more concern over Iraq, China and North Korea. Nearly two-thirds (65%) believe that Iran's nuclear program is a major threat to the U.S., placing it on par with North Korea's nuclear program, and far ahead of China's emerging power among possible threats to the United States.
Overwhelming numbers believe that if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons it would likely launch attacks on Israel (72%), and the U.S. or Europe (66%). There is even greater agreement that a nuclear-armed Iran would be likely to provide nuclear weapons to terrorists (82%).
The public is clearer in its view of the potential threat posed by Iran than in what to do about it. More Americans worry that we will wait too long than act too quickly in dealing with Iran's nuclear problem.
The Pew Research Center | Iran a Growing Danger, Bush Gaining on Spy Issue
The second is the representation of the new security paradigm as the "long war", a phrase that has crept into Pentagon-speak over the past two years and is now being used as a pithy successor to the "cold war" as encapsulating the US defence outlook (in London on 6 January, the deputy director of US central command, Brigadier-General Mark Kimmitt, delivered a speech outlining the US's reconfigured military strategy in what he also called "the long war".)
The term is hugely convenient in that it simplifies everything into a "them and us" global confrontation, awarding the current adversary the same role that the Soviet Union occupied between 1946 and 1991. The implication is that the United States is again engaged in a major confrontation in which it deserves sustained support, and that it is as unacceptable to be "against" the long war as it once was to be "against" the cold war.
Paul Rogers | The world as a battlefield
And who better than to sum up this page than John Pilger?
Next month, Iran is scheduled to shift its petrodollars into a euro-based bourse. The effect on the value of the dollar will be significant, if not, in the long term, disastrous. At present the dollar is, on paper, a worthless currency bearing the burden of a national debt exceeding $8trn and a trade deficit of more than $600bn. The cost of the Iraq adventure alone, according to the Nobel Prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz, could be $2trn. America's military empire, with its wars and 700-plus bases and limitless intrigues, is funded by creditors in Asia, principally China.
That oil is traded in dollars is critical in maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency. What the Bush regime fears is not Iran's nuclear ambitions but the effect of the world's fourth-biggest oil producer and trader breaking the dollar monopoly. Will the world's central banks then begin to shift their reserve holdings and, in effect, dump the dollar? Saddam Hussein was threatening to do the same when he was attacked.
John Pilger | Iran: the next war
