>Someone posted comments from Noam Chomsky (from ZNet I think) in which he
>mentioned an official Clinton foreign policy document arguing that US
>strategy should appear to be as vindictive and irrational as possible in
>order to scare other countries into doing our bidding. Does anyone have the
>full text of this document, or relevant parts? To me, it is sort of a
>smoking gun, at least when it comes to arguing with my lefty friends who
>say that, since Serbia doesn't have oil, like Iraq, there is no economic
>interest for our intervention and therefore it *must* be humanitarian. I
>would like to be able to produce quotes demonstrating a third alternative:
>a substantial portion of US foreign policy derives its justification from
>the simple need to have the biggest dick in the international community.
>From C.G. Estabrook's forward of April 15:
>Chomsky was also asked: "To what extent could US resort to military force
>in the Balkans be related to Caspian Sea oil and concerns over declining
>reserves, uncertainty about Russia and its former empire, the threat to
>Western interests of increasing conflict in the Balkans, the desire to
>increase the Pentagon budget, or maybe other factors, since the professed
>humanitarian concerns seem `dubious.'"
>
>On the last, "dubious" is too kind. If a Mafia don who runs the local
>branch of Murder Inc. shows some kindness to children, the humanitarian
>concerns don't rise to the level of "dubious" -- and that's even more so
>if he shows his humanitarian concerns by kicking the kid in the face. We
>can put that aside, as sheer hypocrisy.
>
>More plausible, in my view, is just what Clinton, Blair, etc., have been
>saying from the start. It's necessary to ensure the "credibility of NATO."
>But that phrase has to be translated from Newspeak. The US is not
>concerned with the "credibility" of Italy or Holland: rather, with the US
>(and its British attack dog). And what does "credibility" mean? Here we
>can return to the Mafia don. If someone doesn't pay protection money, the
>don has to establish "credibility," to make sure others don't get funny
>ideas about disobeying orders. So what Clinton, et al., are saying is that
>it's necessary to ensure that everyone has proper fear of the global
>enforcer. I think it is also useful to bear in mind the Clinton strategic
>document called "Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence" that's quoted in
>an article of mine in Z a year ago on "Rogue States," the same one Steve
>Shalom reviewed in more detail in a recent post. It advocates that the US
>portray itself as "irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are
>attacked," "part of the national persona we project to all adversaries":
>"It hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational and cool-headed," and
>surely not subordinate to treaty obligations or conditions of world order.
>"The fact that some elements" of the US government "may appear to be
>potentially `out of control' can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing
>fears and doubts within the minds of an adversary's decision makers."
>
>That makes sense for a rogue superpower, with a near monopoly on means of
>violence. The "humanitarian cover" has been used by violent states
>throughout history: we'd probably find it was true of Genghis Khan, if we
>had records. It was surely true of the Crusaders who left a hideous trail
>of death and destruction. In fact, about the only clear exceptions I know
>are in the Biblical tales, which call for outright genocide -- the
>Carthaginian solution -- with no credible motive.
Doug