I Am Apollyon: Imperial America's Strategy Goals

Yesterday I was alerted to a fascinating article by John Walsh, dating back to the weeks before the US forced Russia into war in Ukraine:

WWII redux: The endpoint of US policy

The threatened peoples of East Asia and Europe can stop the US drive to restore its global domination

The alert to this year and a half article came from a post at Anti-War that contained a Youtube interview with Walsh, in which the interviewer sought Walsh’s perspective on the state of geopolitical affairs looking back to that article.

Walsh’s argument is pretty straightforward. The American Empire arose as a result of WW2, which involved the devastation of rivals in both the West (Britain, Germany, Russia, etc.) and the East (Japan, China). That devastation left a vacuum that a relatively small but highly influential coterie of geopolitical strategists—the founders of our Deep State in a strategic sense—were determined to fill. Today, arguably to a great extent through our ruling oligarchy’s fecklessness, the American Empire faces geopolitical challenges all round the Eurasian land mass which it hasn’t faced since about 1992.

The difficulty that the American Empire faces in its drive to regain its hegemonic heights is that it is unable to defeat either Russia or China in a straight up conventional war—much less an alliance of Russia and China. Thus the strategy of a repetition of WW2 in which Russia and China exhaust themselves in war with neighboring countries (Ukraine in the West, Taiwan and Japan in the East), while the American Empire fuels the conflicts but maintains a distance.

Here are two summations of Walsh’s theses, from each of the two links above:

“This is not going to be a war of Ukraine and Russia. This is going to be a European war, a full-fledged war.” So spoke Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky just days after berating the US for beating the drums of war.  

It is not hard to imagine how Zelensky’s words must have fallen on those European ears that were attentive. His warning surely conjured up images of World War II when tens of millions of Europeans and Russians perished.

…

The United States is stoking tensions in both Europe and East Asia, with Ukraine and Taiwan as the current flashpoints on the doorsteps of Russia and China, which are the targeted nations. 

…

To make sense of this and react properly, we must be very clear-eyed about the goal of the US. Neither Russia nor China has attacked or even threatened the US. Nor are they in a position to do so – unless one believes that either is ready to embark on a suicidal nuclear war.  

Why should the US elite and its media pour out a steady stream of anti-China and anti-Russia invective? Why the steady eastward march of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization since the end of the first Cold War? The goal of the US is crystal clear – it regards itself as the Exceptional Nation and entitled to be the No 1 power on the planet, eclipsing all others.  

This goal is most explicitly stated in the well-known Wolfowitz Doctrine drawn shortly after the end of the first Cold War in 1992. It proclaimed that the United States’ “first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet union or elsewhere….” 

It stated that no regional power must be allowed to emerge with the power and resources “sufficient to generate global power.” It stated frankly that “we must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global power” (emphasis mine).

The Wolfowitz Doctrine is but the latest in a series of such proclamations that have proclaimed global domination as the goal of US foreign policy since 1941, the year before the US entered World War II. This lineage is documented clearly in a book by the Quincy Institute’s Stephen Wertheim, “Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of US Global Supremacy.”

And in more of a nutshell:

At the end of WWII, the US emerged in a position to dominate the world. This was described at the time as the beginning of the "America Century." In the face of China’s peaceful rise and now the rise of the Global South, US domination of the globe is fading. In response the US is driving the world to a repeat of WWII – despite the risk of nuclear Armageddon. The goal is to leave all other major powers devastated, with the US once again emerging relatively unscathed and standing alone as global hegemon, the same as the outcome of WWII.

Note that Walsh is explicit that the Neocon “Wolfowitz Doctrine” is but the latest formulation of the notion of American global hegemony as the proper goal of US foreign policy. In the interview referenced above he traces the development of that idea back to 1940, and also posits the strategy of using “isolationism” as a strawman/boogeyman to marginalize alternative ideas for America’s most desirable role in world affairs.

In what follows I will simply present the seminal writings that drove the hegemonic view of American Empire, based on a zero-sum view of world affairs and the notion that such hegemony is to be obtained and maintained by military force, in the last analysis. I do this with the idea of inducing readers to reflect on and evaluate our current confrontational policies toward Russian and China, and to view these current policies as arising from a worldview that has roots in the years preceding US entry into WW2. That worldview has powered our Deep State’s conduct of foreign policy, including the usurpation of Congressional policy supervision with the mandates of a globalist US proxy—the UN.

We’ll start with Henry Luce. Luce was the author of a widely hailed and influential article, The American Century. Here is the intro to Wikipedia’s discussion:

Luce, the son of a [Presbyterian] missionary [in China], in a February 17, 1941 Life magazine editorial urged the United States to forsake isolationism for a missionary's role, acting as the world's Good Samaritan and spreading democracy.[7] He called upon the US to enter World War II to defend democratic values.

I hope that resonates with readers, in the sense that it calls up American political attempts to provide a high rhetorical flourish to sell our wars around the world.

Now here is an excerpt from pp. 7-8 of “The American Century”, in which we find what Walsh characterizes as the first enunciation of what we now know as the Rules-Based Order—we call the shots.

And so we now come squarely and closely face to face with the issue which Americans hate most to face. It is that old, old issue with those old, old battered labels –the issue of Isolationism versus Internationalism.

…

Let us face that issue squarely now. If we face it squarely now – and if in facing it we take full and fearless account of the realities of our age – then we shall open the way, not necessarily to peace in our daily lives but to peace in our hearts.

…

In the field of national policy, the fundamental trouble with America has been, and is, that whereas their nation became in the 20th Century the most powerful and the most vital nation in the world, nevertheless Americans were unable to accommodate themselves spiritually and practically to that fact. Hence they have failed to play their part as a world power – a failure which has had disastrous consequences for themselves and for all mankind. And the cure is this: to accept wholeheartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful and vital nation in the world and in consequence to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.

Let that sink in: “for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.” For all the high sounding rhetoric, there’s ultimately no sugar coating that bottom line. The Rules-Based Order in a nutshell. Americans may not see that, but the rest of the world assuredly does. We have been shielded from the brutal truth by high flown rhetoric and thousands of miles of ocean.

“For such purposes as we see fit” leaves entirely open the question of what our purposes may be or how we may appropriately achieve them. Emphatically our only alternative to isolationism is not to undertake to police the whole world nor to impose democratic institutions on all mankind including the Dalai Lama and the good shepherds of Tibet.

America cannot be responsible for the good behavior of the entire world. But America is responsible, to herself as well as to history, for the world-environment in which she lives. Nothing can so vitally affect America’s environment as America’s own influence upon it, and therefore if America’s environment is unfavorable to the growth of American life, then America has nobody to blame so deeply as she must blame herself.

In its failure to grasp this relationship between America and America’s environment lies the moral and practical bankruptcy of any and all forms of isolationism. It is most unfortunate that this virus of isolationist sterility has so deeply infected an influential section of the Republican Party. For until the Republican Party can develop a vital philosophy and program for America’s initiative and activity as a world power, it will continue to cut itself off from any useful participation in this hour of history. And its participation is deeply needed for the shaping of the future of America and of the world.

To be “on the right side of history,” says Luce, to use the cant phrase we hear so often these days, America must exert itself actively to shape the “world-environment” into an environment favorable to American interests. We do this simply because America is “the most powerful and vital nation in the world.” What could go wrong?

George Kennan (quoted orally by Walsh) followed up on those ideas a few years later, in 1948:

Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. Our real task in the coming period is to maintain this position of disparity. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction.

So, retain our disproportionate wealth following WW2 by dispensing with “the luxury of altruism” and do-goodism. Dispense with sentimental notions of benefitting the rest of the world.

We conclude with the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the must systematic formulation of this Rules-Based Order led by the US and functioning for the benefit of the US. Here are excerpts from the Wikipedia article linked above. Note that these excerpts are from the earliest formulation (2/1992), which were substantially revised in the direction of a more nuanced presentation:

Superpower status

The doctrine announces the U.S.'s status as the world's only remaining superpower following the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War and proclaims its main objective to be retaining that status.

Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.

Of course, this begs the questions: What is a rival? How do we define and identify rivalry and/or hostility? This paragraph is a formula for a US military that roams the world on a search and destroy mission for potential rivals—because why wait for the full emergence of “a new rival”.

U.S. primacy

The doctrine establishes the U.S.'s leadership role within the new world order.

The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.

Unilateralism

The doctrine downplays the value of international coalitions.

Like the coalition that opposed Iraqi aggression, we should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished. Nevertheless, the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S. will be an important stabilizing factor.

Preventive Intervention

The doctrine stated the U.S's right to intervene when and where it believed necessary.

While the U.S. cannot become the world's policeman, by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations.

Russian threat

The doctrine highlighted the possible threat posed by a resurgent Russia.

We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others... We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States.

Middle East and Southwest Asia[edit]

The doctrine clarified the overall objectives in the Middle East and Southwest Asia.

In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil. We also seek to deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways. As demonstrated by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, it remains fundamentally important to prevent a hegemon or alignment of powers from dominating the region. This pertains especially to the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, we must continue to play a role through enhanced deterrence and improved cooperative security.

Francis Fukuyama famously presented a triumphalistic version of these ideas in his book, The End Of History—the end of history was the beginning of everlasting US hegemony under our Rules-Based Order. The unraveling of that relatively short-lived order—from a world historical perspective—is what we are witnessing.