del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Third, the attempt to resurrect the conflict in Transnistria fully fits into the US policy of creating problems for Russia wherever possible, forcing Moscow to spread its forces, attention and resources thin on the ground so that it ultimately becomes overstretched and is unable to pursue an independent foreign policy.
Of the various possible explanations of U.S. foreign policy, the most powerful hypothesis is that the Wolfowitz Doctrine in its original undiluted form is the guiding light of U.S. policy. No other competing explanations can rationalize as well as it can the wide range and locations of U.S. government actions, their shifts, their indifference to human life, and their apparent contradictions.
The single most important feature of this doctrine is that it casts the U.S. in a worldwide activist role whose aim is “to deter or defeat attack from whatever source”. And it proposes to accomplish this by precluding “any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests…”
This doctrine is conditioned by two world wars and a cold war. It says “never again”. It looks for a worldwide peace and order made in Washington and backed up by American power. It says that no powerful aggressor or potential aggressor like Germany, Japan or the Soviet Union shall be allowed by the U.S. again to rise and threaten world war or even the world order.
It is one thing to propose utopian goals. It is quite another thing to devise a means for accomplishing them. Attempting a pax Americana in practice is turning into endless warfare without reducing threats. The U.S. government itself has become the largest threat to world peace and regional stability. The U.S. government is producing countervailing forces and weakening America. If no Germany or Japan has arisen again, at least yet, it is not because the U.S. government’s policies have prevented such an occurrence. It is simply because the world’s consciousness has moved on from the ashes of two world wars and the dark tensions of a cold war.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine is extreme. It assumes that the U.S. government has the will, the insight, the wisdom, the moral fiber and the capabilities of recognizing and dealing with threats. It assumes that those on the receiving end of American restrictions, bombs, sanctions, deals, payoffs, loans, wars, institutions and ideas will either accept them or be made to accept them. It assumes away the interests of other nations that diverge from those of the U.S. It assumes that the U.S. government is right for these tasks and can do them right, this despite the fact that the U.S. military has shown itself unable to deal with insurgencies, to mention just one irksome limitation of American power. It’s extreme in its worldwide scope. It turns out that there is no region that cannot be defined as critical to U.S. interests. It also turns out that there is no threat that is to small to be defined as a threat that could grow into a larger threat. Under the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the U.S. looks for enemies, even when they are not either visible or being gestated.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine is activist. It gives the foreign policy establishment in and out of government an open-ended assignment. State and Defense revel in it. It gives the think tanks, the defense establishment, the defense companies, the mercenaries and the intelligence bureaus open-ended possibilities for mischief.
The worst thing about the Wolfowitz Doctrine is that it sounds good. It sounds like a good thing. It sounds like a good thing to do. Presidents and cabinet officers can sign on to it and feel as if they are doing good and right things. How can it not be good to remove “bad guys” who are threats? How can it not be good to defend some foreign nation’s borders from rebels or insurgents? The Vietnam War shows that it can be very bad to attempt to hold a border. Iraq shows that it can be very bad to remove a bad guy and destroy a government. Many, many bad things can happen as a result of attempting to do what seem to be good things to those attempting to implement the Wolfowitz Doctrine.
In practice, as operations in the Middle East show, nothing is as simple as the Wolfowitz Doctrine makes it sound. What’s on paper or in some dreamer’s or planner’s head is not what happens in reality.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine is what has guided U.S. action everywhere, even in the War on Terror. All it took was for Washington to think of terrorism as a massive threat, and 9/11 saw to that. Then it became a simple if crude and unthinking application of the Doctrine to attack Afghanistan and then Iraq. Sanctions on Iran and undermining Iraq easily fell within its scope. So did Libya. Bombing Yugoslavia clearly could be rationalized by this Doctrine. Europe, in this thinking, must somehow be kept pure and free from battles and internal dissensions and struggles, even if it takes a war or two to stop such battles. On paper, there can be no struggles any longer because they are threats to “stability”. The planners become blind to the fact that attempts to enforce stability strictly produce pressures that build up, long-lived insurgencies and new instabilities and grievances.
The motive behind the Wolfowitz Doctrine is pure and noble: peace. The problem is that peace isn’t produced by a superpower enforcing it. The Doctrine lacks a foundation in reality. What happens is that impure motives invariably mix with the pure motive. Americans in government like to win. They like to be number 1. They look upon those nations who are less materially wealthy as inferior. Americans in government are impatient, arrogant and crude in their dealings with others. They are prone to make threats and employ sanctions. They think in military terms. Many impurities come to be mixed with the idea of a noble selfless superpower enforcing peace that the Wolfowitz Doctrine presumes.
The U.S. claims defense of the world order is its motive, but how can that be separated from what has to appear as an attempt to dominate? The Wolfowitz Doctrine requires dominance for its implementation. This is an internal contradiction that cannot be erased. A world policemen cannot operate without being a dominant force.
Other explanations of U.S. behavior don’t measure up as well, and I am not alone in having tried them on for size at one time or another. The other explanations include pathological leaders, evil leaders, ignorant leaders, an ignorant public, imperialism, defending the dollar, pro-Zionism and pro-Israel, and controlling oil supply. Each of these may play some role from time to time. Some of them are mixed in with applying the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Some of them are implausible, not being able to explain the full range of events.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine seems like common sense, which is why it finds support among Americans and American leaders. Yet hidden within its counsels are grave defects, and these are being exposed as the Doctrine is implemented. Activism or interventionism, if you will, is a keystone to the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Look what it has gotten us. This is because the Doctrine makes idealistic and heroic assumptions that fly in the face of realities of how the world works. This Doctrine makes mountains out of molehills. It has done this with terrorism, blowing it way, way out of proportion. This produced more terrorists or Muslim jihadists. It has done this with foreign strongmen and dictators, making them out to be huge and enormous threats that we and their peoples could not handle without war. Nonsense! Removing them has resulted in massive instability. The Wolfowitz Doctrine has made a big deal out of protecting oil supplies and allying with Saudi Arabia. This completely blew up the problem of oil security way out of proportion. The U.S. produced 6 billion barrels of oil in World War 2 without a hitch. It currently sits on 30 billion barrels of reserves, excluding the government’s cache. There is no conceivable major threat to U.S. security on the scope of a world war coming from anywhere on the entire planet. There is no reason on earth why the U.S. has to be frightened of oil supplies having to travel in narrow waters near Iran and Saudi Arabia. These government-held ideas are wild exaggerations, approaching paranoia. They show only that the government is incapable of implementing the Wolfowitz Doctrine without severe prejudice or going off the deep end.
Many aspects of U.S. foreign policy look mad and irrational. This is because they are attempting to take the Wolfowitz Doctrine to extremes under which it falls apart. It is one thing to face up to a clear and present danger or an enemy whose intentions endanger our security. It is very different to attempt to create a world in which no such dangers ever can arise because the U.S. is going to stamp them out when they are no more than glints in a potential enemy’s eyes or when they involve arbitrary assessments of some revolution somewhere, some hostilities somewhere, some terrorist act somewhere, some dictator somewhere, some massacre somewhere, some infringement of gay or women’s rights somewhere, some religious fanaticism somewhere, some emission of carbon somewhere, some nasty language somewhere or some border infringement somewhere. And all of this falls or can fall under the blanket of the Wolfowitz Doctrine.
Good riddance to the Wolfowitz Doctrine.
Email Michael S. Rozeff
Cependant, désormais d’autres groupes ethniques ont été encouragés par les affrontements, ils 
Ce qui compte le plus ici n’est pas de savoir si les Philippines peuvent gagner (ce qui est hautement improbable), mais le fait qu’elles puissent devenir une ‘Ukraine d’Asie du Sud-Est’, faussement dépeintes par les médias mainstream comme victimes d’une grande puissance non-occidentale (alors qu’en réalité les rôles ont été inversés) et partiellement sacrifiées afin de servir de cri de ralliement pour la concrétisation de la CEC. Non seulement la CEC serait-elle formalisée par un tel scénario, mais tous les partenaires officiels et non-officiels des Philippines pourraient également inonder la Mer de Chine du Sud de leur soutien, y établissant peut-être même une présence permanente de facto (même si il y est plutôt fait référence comme étant une présence ‘
Durante su conferencia en el Teatro Bogotá, Borón con su característica capacidad dialéctica y didáctica a la vez, mostró cómo en Colombia se lleva a cabo un proceso de paz con un actor armado como las Farc en medio de un mundo convulsionado por múltiples conflictos, originados en buena medida por el declive del imperialismo estadounidense.
Le « corporate power » des entreprises transnationales, par la voix de ses représentations, affirmera à l'unisson qu'il prend les bonnes décisions, tant pour ces entreprises que pour l'humanité toute entière. Mais il suffit d'un minimum de regard critique pour constater que si, dans le court terme, certaines de ces décisions sont favorables au développement, non seulement de ces entreprises, mais de l'humanité, ce n'est pas le cas globalement. Un accord général s'est désormais établi, tout au moins entre les scientifiques, pour montrer que ces décisions conduisent à des catastrophes, en matière de réchauffement climatique, de disparition des écosystèmes et même de l'humanité en général, désormais menacée de surpeuplement, d'inégalités dans le développement et autres maux qui pourraient se révéler mortels. Même en ce qui concerne les réseaux numériques, si souvent vantés, on peut constater qu'ils encouragent autant le développement de nouvelles criminalités que celui de la culture. 
L'objectif de la CR est d'aligner les lois présentes et à venir de l'UE et des USA pour “réduire les charges inutiles, les duplications et les divergences des régulations et règles affectant le commerce et les investissements”. Si des efforts pour une telle CR paraissent logiques et justifiées à première vue, une lecture plus attentive des propositions conduisent à s'alarmer considérablement des procédures et de leurs conséquences. 
US policy has been to keep the infectious, troublesome Iranians isolated and contained, rather as Europe’s reactionary powers did with revolutionary France at the end of the 18th century. While the reason given by Washington was Iran’s alleged nuclear threat, the sanctions regime was really aimed at fatally weakening Iran’s economy and provoking the overthrow of the Islamic government and its replacement by tame Beverly Hills Iranian exiles.
Le 17 mars, à Pékin. Martin Schulz, le président du Parlement européen a qualifié de « bonne chose » les 
As part of an ongoing effort to hold accountable those responsible for violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, the U.S. Department of the Treasury today imposed sanctions on eight Ukrainian separatists and one pro-separatist Russian entity and its leaders pursuant to E.O. 13660 for being responsible for or complicit in actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine, for being leaders of such entities, or for asserting governmental authority over a part or region of Ukraine without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine. Additionally, Treasury today designated and blocked the assets of one bank pursuant to E.O. 13685 for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine, and three individuals pursuant to E.O. 13660 for the misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine. These sanctions follow similar action taken by the European Union and Canada on February 16. We continue to work to remain in lockstep with our international partners in our efforts to incentivize a diplomatic resolution to the crisis in Ukraine.
Russian National Commercial Bank (RNCB) is being designated today pursuant to E.O. 13685 for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine. RNCB had no presence in the Crimea region of Ukraine prior to its occupation and attempted annexation by Russia and Russian authorities have used the bank to facilitate its illegal efforts to incorporate Crimea into the Russian Federation. Following the annexation, RNCB bought or took over branches of retreating banks and now operates the largest banking network in Crimea.
On March 18 the Secretary General of NATO denounced the peace settlement between Russia and Georgia that ended Georgia’s military assault on South Ossetia. The NATO Secretary General said that NATO rejects the settlement because it “hampers ongoing efforts by the international community to strengthen security and stability in the region.” Look closely at this statement. It defines the “international community” as Washington’s NATO puppet states, and it defines strengthening security and stability as removing buffers between Russia and Georgia so that Washington can position military bases in Georgia directly on Russia’s border.
The Regime in Washington is 
Brezhnevite language was recited by US Commissar for War Chuck Hagel during a surrealistic speech last October in which he claimed that the US and NATO “must deal with a revisionist Russia – with its modern and capable army – on NATO’s doorstep.”
De nombreuses personnes connaissent le général Wesley Clark comme l’homme qui a quasiment déclenché la troisième Guerre mondiale, lorsqu’il a donné l’ordre aux Britanniques de tirer sur les forces de maintien de la paix russes qui avaient atterri à Pristina, la capitale du Kosovo, avant l’arrivée des Américains. On rapporte que le commandant britannique de la KFOR, le général Sir Mike Jackson, aurait répondu: «Je ne commencerai pas la troisième Guerre mondiale pour vous».