November 9th, 2011 • 6:10 PM
WWIII vs Pacific Alliance

Intervention at the National Defense University Symposium -- WWIII vs Pacific Alliance

by Creighton Cody Jones

On October 8th, Cody Jones and Liona Fan-Chiang attended the National Defense University Symposium: “Forging an American Grand Strategy.” We went in with the intention of communicating Lyndon LaRouche's assessment of the current danger of an emerging plunge towards WWIII, counterposed to the potential for global recovery through the Pacific orientation. Specifically, LaRouche said that we have reached a period where normal warfare will not function any longer. We have to shift to an approach of giving people what they lack. We have to compel them to adapt, by demonstrating the potential of where they could be.

In order to accomplish this, the military function must transform itself to a space function. It must ask: How do we protect mankind? We have to look at the threats of nearby space. Consider this recent asteroid passing us. This one wasn't a threat, but it awakens us to the fact that in the future there will be threats from space. This is what the Russians are discussing with their SDE. We need a new military with a can-do-all capability -- an enhanced engineering approach. Can we put a temporary station on Mars?

We were only able to communicate a portion of this throughout the event. Cody was able to address the gathering of military, intelligence, defense department, and academic figures, during the packed-house luncheon, after the opening speech, of little substance, by Michele Flournoy, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Cody said that in the wake of the ongoing collapse of the trans-Atlantic financial system, two paths are being presented: the first is a Pacific alliance with Russia and China based on co-operation in advanced science and infrastructure development, typified by the Russian proposal for the SDE in the tradition of the SDI (Cody went into some detail on this in his remarks, and discussed advances taking place in China, particularly in the domain of nuclear power and space exploration), while the other path is the one which sees the U.S. supporting a preemptive strike on Iran, which given its recent moves towards joining the SCO, would put us in direct conflict with Russia and China and thus thermonuclear World War.

The speaker responded that she didn't think these were the only policy alternatives, and gave some wishy-washy commentary. While this was the official response, things were different in private discussions: the war threat posed by the increased tensions around the murder of the captured Qaddafi and the threats on Iran were on peoples' minds, and therefore there was agreement that the lack of even mentioning of these matters was daunting. Despite private misgivings, Cody's remarks were largely met with shocked faces and much tension, as though is simply wasn't something to be said out loud.

The two LPAC representatives again interjected after a speech by Dr. Michael Mandelbaum, Director of the American Foreign Policy Program, Johns Hopkins Univ. (a real academic fascist), who discussed some garbage about conflicting identities of the U.S., including one which he promotes. His assessment was that the US is world's government, and that we must meet the challenge of keeping popular support for that role, while we cut back their Social Security and Medicare, which we necessarily must do to meet our deficit reduction requirements.

Cody was able to ruffle his feathers a bit, first by being with LaRouche, second by stating that his speech was “disturbing,” and third by telling him that he failed to mention the key characteristic of U.S. identity, that of being a frontier nation - from conquering the wild west, to landing on the moon - and that this was achieved by pushing the frontiers of scientific and technological advance, and that he left this type of vision and perspective out of the discussion. Mandelbaum's response was to try to hurry the question along, and then to gloss over it with some sophistry. Several people from both military as well as other government institutions responded positively to the interventions.

What was clear (and this actually became an explicit theme during many of the presentations), was that “no one really knows what is meant by a ‘grand strategy,’ or how to define one.” It went even further when the chair of one of the panels asked the panel of historians and professors, “who is responsible for defining the grand strategy for America,” to which they responded with deafening silence, and no one could give a clear response. For such military and institutional figures, who have never served under real leadership (and have never been governed by an optimistic mission orientation for the nation, such as we had under Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy, et al.), but who instead have a British puppet who intends to reduce the world's population as Commander-in-Chief, this is a near impossible question for them to answer.

Thus in this vacuum, as you might expect, the only ones besides us who could give an outline of a grand strategy were imperialists. Whether people wanted to admit or not, their repeated calls for a historical strategy with a fifty to one hundred year development perspective can only be answered by Lyndon LaRouche. It's clear that our role in both leading a mobilization to stop WWIII as well as in defining a real mission for the nation and the species as a whole is unique and indispensable.

* Please follow the Commenting Guidlines.

ABOUT THE BASEMENT

The Basement Project began in 2006 as a core team of individuals tasked with the study of Kepler's New Astronomy, laying the scientific foundations for an expanded study of the LaRouche-Riemann Science of Physical Economics. Now, that team has expanded both in number, and in areas of research, probing various elements and aspects of the Science of Physical Economy, and delivering in depth reports, videos, and writings for the shaping of economic policy.

LATEST FORUM DISCUSSIONS

PEDAGOGY PACKAGES

CONTACT THE BASEMENT