Rand Tries To Salvage National Defense Strategy

Way back in 2022—heady days when the Anglo-Zionists were going to swiftly collapse the hapless Putin’s Russia with our magic sanctions war, dividing and conquering, or, perhaps, conquering and dividing it, the Pentagon came out with what they called a National Defense Strategy. An NDS. This summer, Rand did an appraisal of that NDS in the light of what actually has transpired during the past two years. As Kit Klarenberg recounts, Rand’s findings aren’t pretty:

Collapsing Empire: China and Russia Checkmate US Military

On July 29th, Pentagon-funded “think tank” RAND Corporation published a landmark appraisal of the state of the Pentagon’s 2022 National Defense Strategy (NDS), and current US military readiness, produced by a Congress-created Commission of “non-governmental experts in national security.” Its findings are stark, an unrelentingly bleak analysis of every aspect of the Empire’s bloated, decaying global war machine. In brief, the US is “not prepared” in any meaningful way for serious “competition” with its major adversaries - and vulnerable or even significantly outmatched in every sphere of warfare.

The 2022 NDS was released in October that year, with much fanfare. Its contents bombastically proclaimed to offer a bold, comprehensive roadmap for how the US national security state, and all its divisions, would evolve and adapt to “dramatic changes in geopolitics, technology, economics, and our environment.” Promising to safeguard Washington’s hegemony for “decades to come,” …

Right. A monstrous bureaucracy evolving and adapting to dramatic changes. What’s the punchline? Ah, right at the end: All that evolving and adapting was going to safeguard our global hegemony. I highly recommend Klarenberg’s article, but I intend to take a slightly different approach than his.

Scathing as Rand may be, their appraisal of the NDS doesn’t really offer much of an alternative—Klarenberg recognizes that. In fact, Rand’s findings and recommendations are all geared toward that same delusional NDS goal—safeguarding Anglo-Zionist global hegemony from the perils of the real world. Which is exactly what you’d expect from an appraisal that issues from the dark heart of Anglo-Zionist scheming.

A good place to start is the introductory page: Commission on the National Defense Strategy. In essence, the Commission’s major criticism of the NDS is that it failed to foresee that the Anglo-Zionist Empire would shortly be facing the need to launch a war on the world to maintain its global hegemony—not just Russia, but China and “the Middle East.” Those countries that do not submit to our hegemony are “threats”. Nowhere is there a hint that there should be a reconsideration of the entire scheme of hegemony by force of arms and economic warfare. “National security” turns out, when you read this document, to actually mean “global hegemony.”

The United States confronts the most serious and the most challenging threats since the end of World War II. The United States could in short order be drawn into a war across multiple theaters with peer and near-peer adversaries, and it could lose. The current National Defense Strategy (NDS), written in 2022, does not account for ongoing wars in Europe and the Middle East and the possibility of a larger war in Asia.

Note that well: The US could be “drawn into” multiple wars. As if the US doesn’t initiate wars or pose a threat to other countries. And also note the reference to WW2, because what Rand will recommend is a return to the Cold War architecture in more ways than one. The Commission offers eight findings/recommendations

• The United States faces the most challenging global environment with the most severe ramifications since the end of the Cold War. The trends are getting worse, not better.

• DoD cannot, and should not, provide for the national defense by itself. The NDS calls for an “integrated deterrence” that is not reflected in practice today. A truly “all elements of national power” approach is required to coordinate and leverage resources across DoD, the rest of the executive branch, the private sector, civil society, and U.S. allies and partners.

• …

• The NDS force-sizing construct is inadequate for today’s needs and tomorrow’s challenges. We propose a Multiple Theater Force Construct—with the Joint Force, in conjunction with U.S. allies and partners—sized to defend the homeland and tackle simultaneous threats in the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East.

• U.S. industrial production is grossly inadequate to provide the equipment, technology, and munitions needed today, let alone given the demands of great power conflict.

• The DoD workforce and the all-volunteer force provide an unmatched advantage. However, recruiting failures have shrunk the force and raise serious questions about the all-volunteer force in peacetime, let alone in major combat. The civilian workforces at DoD and in the private sector also face critical shortfalls.

• The Joint Force is at the breaking point of maintaining readiness today. Adding more burden without adding resources to rebuild readiness will cause it to break.

• The United States must spend more effectively and more efficiently to build the future force, not perpetuate the existing one. Additional resources will be necessary. Congress should pass a supplemental appropriation to begin a multiyear investment in the national security innovation and industrial base. Additionally, Congress should revoke the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act spending caps and provide real growth for fiscal year 2025 defense and nondefense national security spending that, at bare minimum, falls within the range recommended by the 2018 NDS Commission. Subsequent budgets will require spending that puts defense and other components of national security on a glide path to support efforts commensurate with the U.S. national effort seen during the Cold War.

In case you didnt’ read between those lines, here’s what they’re talking about.

The US outspends most of the world combined when it comes to the military. That has proven to be inadequate. The US needs to be put on a total war footing, with all sectors of society subordinated to maintenance of global hegemony. It’s time to consider a peacetime draft to make up for “recruiting failures”. We also need to revoke applicable spending caps and revert to “the U.S. national effort seen during the Cold War.”

In other words, in order to maintain the Anglo-Zionist Empire as a global empire, it’s time to tear the mask away on the domestic front and subordinate the entire national life to this project. So, moving on to the Executive Summary …

The key to this whole appraisal is the contention that Russia and China pose threats to the US that the US needs to “match, deter, and overcome.” That’s another way of saying that the US needs to be able to fight a global war against Russia and China (and any allies) simultaneously. Or, put in still another way, the US needs to prepare to send its military half way around the world to fight wars against two major powers. No mention is made of an “or else” scenario. What happens if the US is not prepared to go fight wars against the Eurasian landmass (“the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East“), and instead minds its own business closer to home? That possibility isn’t considered, because global hegemony is what it’s all about.

Nor is the proposition that Russia and China present threats to the US examined at all. China “has largely negated the U.S. military advantage in the Western Pacific.” Is there any evidence that China intends to attack and conquer the Philippines? Japan? South Korea? Indonesia? Vietnam? That would be the “Western Pacific,” right? The truth is that the “Western Pacific” that the Commission is talking about happens to be Chinese home waters—but there is no argumentation presented to explain why the US needs to have a “military advantage” over China in Chinese home waters. Nor is any compelling reason presented for going to war with China to preserve US military dominance in Chinese home waters.

Likewise, Russia is said to present a “renewed menace,” but no mention is made of aggressive Anglo-Zionist expansion toward the heart of Russia’s home territories. No mention is made of Anglo-Zionist trampling on Russian national interests in territories that are historically and culturally linked to Russia, and have been for hundreds of years. In point of fact, Russia’s unquestionably potent military is not primarily designed for force projection or expeditionary wars. Rather, it is largely designed for defensive purposes, spurred by the alarmingly aggressive designs of the Anglo-Zionists.

Faced with the Russian and Chinese reaction to open threats from the Anglo-Zionists, the Commission does not suggest any renewed effort at understanding, any outreach for accommodation. They see only a zero sum game. Any increase in influence on the part of the largest economy in the world (China) and the country with the greatest store of natural resources (Russia) must be rolled back by whatever means are necessary—and those means are seen as primarily military. They do recognize that the US cannot win a war against these two countries. Therefore they stress the need for “allies” to hem the Eurasian countries in—they say this in all seriousness, after the dismal performance of NATO countries in the current war on Russia and the downward spiral of the EU economies. Nevertheless, the Commission makes no bones about this—it’s all about global dominance. Repeat: global dominance. This is all about preparing for war in “multiple theaters,” meaning, everywhere in the world simultaneously. Ultimately, this is a Force Construct to preserve a Neocolonial world order in which the Anglo-Zionist Empire maintains a stranglehold over natural resources, and those maintains a boot on the neck of any would be upstart nations—like China. The Anglo-Zionist Empire will assign each nation its role in that Neocolonial order:

The Commission finds that the U.S. military lacks both the capabilities and the capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in combat.

The Commission finds that the U.S. defense industrial base (DIB) is unable to meet the equipment, technology, and munitions needs of the United States and its allies and partners. A protracted conflict, especially in multiple theaters, would require much greater capacity ...

The U.S. public ... have not internalized the costs of the United States losing its position as a world superpower.

The 2022 NDS force construct does not sufficiently account for global competition or the very real threat of simultaneous conflict in more than one theater.11 We propose a Multiple Theater Force Construct ...

The United States must engage globally with a presence—military, diplomatic, and economic—to maintain stability and preserve influence worldwide, including across the Global South, ...

Wow. How to accomplish that? Once you get past all the word salad, the Commission ends up with two key ideas. First, a massive mobilization of the entire nation—which will entail “fundamental changes” and a type of totalitarianism—and second, Money. And lots of it.

The nation must also consider the possibility that future conflict could overwhelm the capacity of the active-duty force and should plan now to better prepare the reserve components and, potentially, a broader mobilization.14 More broadly, we support calls for increased levels of public and civil service to help provide a renewed sense of engagement and patriotism among the American people.

Both Putin and Xi have sought to renew the spiritual bases of their respective countries and to inspire a love for their national cultures—in plain terms, they have sought unifying principles and and a sense of national purpose in a return to tradition. That leads to “patriotism”, love of country. Putin has done so by appealing, with considerable success, to Orthodoxy as providing the core values of Russian culture and national life. Xi in China has promoted a return, in effect, to the unifying national and cultural principles of Confucianism.

By contrast, the entire concept of “the West”, as currently understood across broad swaths of society, embodies a virulent war on tradition and hatred for the Western past. We see everywhere a war on the spiritual principles that traditional pre-Reformation Western society was based on. The Commission appeals to “patriotism”, but in an America whose ruling class routinely derides those who hold to its founding principles and traditions as “deplorables,” “bitter clingers”, and “garbage” what can “patriotism” actually mean? For our Anglo-Zionist ruling class, America is a “propositional nation” which has rejected its Christian founding. Patriotism, in our current cultural crisis, can only devolve into a willingness to enlist in the Anglo-Zionist scheme to travel the world and impose American hegemony by force of arms or force of sanctions. Meanwhile, the cultural war at home continues.

For anyone who thinks I’m a bit over the top here, the Commission concludes with its ringing call to arms—a call for unity in a totalitarian style of state centered on the military. “Accompanied by … other fundamental changes.”

During the Cold War, including the Korean War and Vietnam War, DoD spending ranged from 4.9 percent to 16.9 percent of GDP (Figure S.1). The comparison to that period is apt in terms of the magnitude of the threat, risks of strategic instability and escalation, and need for U.S. global presence.

The biggest difference between today and the Cold War is in the homeland. The Cold War demanded a national mobilization for military service, an economy geared more toward production for national security, and a unity of effort across government (including Congress) behind shared security missions that are missing today. Defense spending in the Cold War relied on top marginal income tax rates above 70 percent and corporate tax rates averaging 50 percent.16 Using the Cold War as a benchmark for spending should be accompanied by acknowledging the other fundamental changes that could supplement America’s efforts to deter threats and prepare for the future.

Don’t dismiss all this as pie in the sky schemes of a bureaucratic think tank. Rand really does give you an insight into what the Anglo-Zionist ruling class has in mind for the American future. We the People serve their plans. Our “representatives” have been bought off. What may head all this off is the coming economic and financial reckoning.