Author Topic: Andrew Marshall - RAND Corporation - RMA proponents are the architects of 9/11  (Read 13743 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Effie Trinket

  • member
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,293

Climate Change, Pentagon’s Weather Nightmare, & ANDREW MARSHALL as OZ WIZARD OF 9-11 author:  various

It seems that Andrew Marshall is the strategist, while front men like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Bush, and others are amanuenses and factotums.  In other words, Andrew Marshall is one of the people, like in the Wizard of Oz, of whom you are supposed to “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” However, he is pulling the strings and the one making the plans—particularly the plans for the Pentagon’s “transformation/revolution” in military affairs, that is moving the US military into a ‘quick-global strike in-and-out’ organization—using unmanned air vehicles and global satellite surveillance of all kinds.

Notice his other concern:  global environmental change.  The public construction of the 9-11 events as “international terror” link up with the same networks of Marshallites that are concerned with global environmental change.  The 9-11 story has provided them with their ONLY justification for the policies they want to implant across the world.  Without 9-11, this Marshallite future would be dead on arrival.  This is an article about Marshall, from information freely available around the net, with some commentary about connections and appointment in the Bush Administration that were in place for by 9-11-01.

Andrew Marshall, Dir., Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment (Nixon thru Bush II)
TENTATIVE TITLE:  Forget the Straussians, Meet the Marshallites behind them—and note that Straussians are a subset of the Marshallites


Below is a and a UK news article about climate change, followed by a very rare interview with Andrew Marshall, Pentagon futurist whose protégés are Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney.  In other words, listen up.  Following this is more information about Andrew Marshall and his associated high-level Bush Administration appointees.

Some comments before we begin to set the tone.

This quote:

As Harvard archeologist Steven LeBlanc has noted, wars over resources were the norm until about three centuries ago.  When such conflicts broke out, 25% of a population’s adult males usually died.  As abrupt climate change hits home, warfare may again come to define human life.

I was flabbergasted by this quote.  Actually we still have wars for resources all the time.  That is what imperialism is all about:  the combination of international military and corporate private interests, particularly if they are the same group. All this means to me is than an archeologist has failed to excavate a few more of the more recent state massacres or war sites for oil or minerals, and he has failed to look at the history of the past 300 years in general.  How many wars for empire or wars to maintain empire are there once we count them up for the Spanish, French, English, Russian, Japanese, Americans, etc.—in the past 300 years alone?

Second, as for the Californian wildfires of 2003 mentioned in the UK article below, I bit my tongue when the author framed it as a ‘natural’ California wildfire, particularly when there are some interesting points about it (pre and after) which leads me to concur with some others that it was likely intentionally set—and allowed to grow—who can say why.  Perhaps it was an experimental test of sorts for the military about one of their scenarios dealing with global climate change.  Plus, if that is so, I do know that the public and the private interactions are very strong here as well:  it has figured prominently in the opportunistic discourse of the Bushes and their kin:  ‘quick, cut the forests down to thin them to save them from fires.’ Destroy them to save them.

That is the same logic used by the Pentagon for Vietnamese peasant villages.  This discourse is being used by Bush teams and Californian logging corporations.  I would put it well within a “Bush Administration mindset” to set these fires in California intentionally, and then attempt to reap the political fallout, because these plans have a HUGE opposition to on the West Coast—further destruction of their forests without any plans for how to recoup the damage to their soil, climates, economies, and their quality of life.

Another huge opposition pre-9-11 was (and still is) the questionable legitimacy of the global corporate form in general as a framework of global development, and the expansion of sweatshops with the demotion of unions, and, in general, the privatization of whole nation-state economies by the IMF and other global bankers—as they hollowing out our citizenship in their biased views of corporate developmentalism and privatization.

It seems that 9-11 was used to change the subject here as well, just like the likely intentionally set ‘wildfires’ were used to justify continued logging and to stifle citizen concern about corporate logging.  Is 9-11 and the subsequent ‘war on terror’ a global arson crime, which, in being called ‘wildfire,’ is being used to justify domestic crackdowns globally, and push for international wars of energy and water consolidation?  Were the 9-11 events an experimental test, to boot, of all these novel technologies that were suddenly politically valid in the ‘post 9-11’ environment.  However, the political environment is the same as the pre-9-11 environment, since 9-11 was only more state terror.  However, it was state terror of a different sort in terms of its scale:  9-11 was the globe’s first Reichstag Fire—the first attempt by international elites to basically set themselves up a fascist international state and surveillance apparatus without any democratic feedback.


Anyway, on to the topic of the larger fire they set, around 9-11:  Here we go.  Who the hell is this Marshall guy?  Ever heard of him?  I quote the UK article:

But what would abrupt climate change really be like?   Scientists generally refuse to say much, citing data deficit.   But recently, renowned Department of Defense planner Andrew Marshall sponsored a groundbreaking effort to come to grips with the question.  A Pentagon legend, Marshall, 82, is known as the Defense Department’s “Yoda”—a balding, bespectacled sage whose pronouncements on looming risks have long had an outsized influence on defense policy.  Since 1973 he has headed a secretive think tank whose role is to envision future threats to national security.  The Department of Defense’s push on ballistic-missile defense is known as his brainchild.  Three years ago Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld picked him to lead a sweeping review on military “transformation,” the shift toward nimble forces and smart weapons.  Some more introductory information on Marshall, from a Wired News article, which I put completely below, later:

Named director of the Office of Net Assessment by Richard Nixon and ***reappointed by every president since***, the DOD’s most elusive official has become one of its most influential.  Today, Marshall - along with his star protégés Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz - is ***drafting President Bush’s plan*** to upgrade the military.  It seems he is the strategist while the front men like Rummy and Cheney and others are amanuenses and factotums.  In other words, Andrew Marshall is one of the people, like in the Wizard of Oz, of whom you are supposed to “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” Though he is pulling the strings.  




I wonder if this Andrew Marshall is related to WWII FDR-confidant General Marshall?

Several articles (9), all numbered:


Full article from Wired News:  The Marshall Plan (Wired News)

For 40 years, the man Pentagon insiders call Yoda has foreseen the future of war - from battlefield bots rolling off radar-proof ships to GIs popping performance pills.  And that was before the war on terror.

By Douglas McGray

Andrew Marshall, the Pentagon’s 81-year-old futurist-in-chief, fiddles with his security badge, squints, looks away, smiles, and finally speaks in a voice that sounds like Gene Hackman trying not to wake anybody.  Known as Yoda in defense circles, Marshall doesn’t need to shout to be heard.  Named director of the Office of Net Assessment by Richard Nixon and reappointed by every president since, the DOD’s most elusive official has become one of its most influential.  Today, Marshall - along with his star protégés Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz - is drafting President Bush’s plan to upgrade the military.  Supporters believe the force he envisions will be faster and more lethal; critics say it relies on unproven technology.  As US troops gathered overseas, Marshall sat for a rare interview.  

picture:  Andrew Marshall, the Pentagon’s 81-year-old futurist-in-chief, originally appointed by Nixon (in my opinion, then, late Nelson Rockfeller proxy)

WIRED:  Until recently, defense planners talked about a “revolution in military affairs.” Now the buzzword is “transformation.” Why the change?  [ed., because the coup has been successful so far?]

MARSHALL:  Transformation is more of an imperative:  We’ve got to transform the force.  I personally don’t like the term.  It tends to push people in the direction of changing the whole force.  You need to be thinking about changing some small part of the force more radically, as a way of exploring what new technologies can really do for you.

What is the next radical change the US will reveal on the battlefield?

“One future intelligence problem:  knowing what drugs the other guys are on.” [unsure what the Wizard implies here.] One that’s still under way is the emergence of a variety of precision weapons, and also coupling them with sensors.  Another is the ability to coordinate the activities of separate elements of the forces to a level that has never been possible before.  That’s promising, but less far along than precision weapons.  A third is robotic devices:  unmanned vehicles, of which the UAVs are the furthest along, but also similar kinds of devices undersea, and smaller devices that might change **urban warfare** by being able to crawl through buildings.

Are there revolutionary developments that don’t involve combat?

There are ways of psychologically influencing the leadership of another state.  I don’t mean information warfare, but some demonstration of awesome effects, like being able to set off impressive explosions in the sky.  Like, let us show you what we could do to you.  Just visually impressing the person.  

Did 9/11 change your mind about anything?  [I love this pointed question from the Wired news guy after Marshall said this.]

Not much.  It was obvious that we were wide open to attack.  [only because of YOUR standdown.]

Has anything happened that surprised you?   The rapidity of the collapse of the Soviet Union surprised me.

I thought they were in trouble, but the rapidity and completeness of the withdrawal were really striking.  Is there a precedent for one country staying on top through a series of military revolutions?  Or does one country always leapfrog another?   Through most of the 19th century, the British Navy exhibited that kind of thing.  But it was quite interesting the way they did it.  They tended to let other countries, mainly France, do the early experiments and come out with new kinds of ships.  If something looked like a good idea, they could come in and quickly overtake the innovator.  They seemed to do that as a way of capitalizing on their advantage and saving resources.

Isn’t the United States in a similar position now?

That’s probably the case.  But some of the countries that would be candidates to make innovations aren’t doing it.  The Japanese and West Europeans aren’t really making big changes.  The Swedes are an interesting case.  For 200 years their basic problem was the possibility of a large-scale land invasion by the Russians.  They’ve decided that that has gone away.  If anything could happen, it would happen across the Baltic.  So they’re rethinking, given modern technology, how to create a defense largely on sea frontiers.  It’s possible that they will make some innovations that we’ll pick up and capitalize on.

For instance?

They’ve designed three new naval vessels.  One is an air-independent submarine [running on fuel cells rather than nuclear power, which allows it to travel almost silently and remain submerged for extended periods].   They have a surface ship that’s a bit more conventional.  And then a radically new naval vessel called the Visby, which has practically no metal in it other than the engine.  It’s constructed to be very stealthy.

You’re known for following technology outside the traditional realm of national security.  Pharmaceuticals, for instance.   People who are connected with neural pharmacology tell me that new classes of drugs will be available relatively shortly, certainly within the decade.  These drugs are just like natural chemicals inside people, only with behavior-modifying and performance-enhancing characteristics.  One of the people I talk to jokes that a future intelligence problem is going to be knowing what drugs the other guys are on.  In an era of terrorism and peacekeeping, are Cold War ideas based on striking a big enemy from afar and defending against missile attack still relevant?

Yes, if we want to stay in the business of long-range power projection.  And if we play the role of intervening in messy disputes, some of this weaponry is still useful, as it was in Afghanistan.  However, we need ground forces to go in and keep the peace.

Does new technology ultimately make us more or less vulnerable?

A friend of mine, **Yale** economist Martin Shubik, says an important way to think about the world is to draw a curve of the number of people [that] 10 determined men can kill before they are put down themselves, and how that has varied over time.  [charming] His claim is that it wasn’t very many for a long time, and now it’s going up. In that sense, it’s not just the US.   All the world is getting less safe.

Douglas McGray interviewed J.  Craig Venter in Wired 10.12.


Andrew Marshall

Andrew W. Marshall, “the Pentagon’s 81-year-old futurist-in-chief, fiddles with his security badge, squints, looks away, smiles, and finally speaks in a voice that sounds like Gene Hackman trying not to wake anybody.  Known as Yoda in defense circles, Marshall doesn’t need to shout to be heard.  Named director of the Office of Net Assessment (“the Pentagon’s internal think tank” [1]) by Richard M. Nixon and reappointed by every president since, the DOD’s most elusive official has become one of its most influential.  Today, Marshall - along with his star protégés Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz - is drafting President Bush’s plan to upgrade the military.”

“The Marshall Plan” by Douglas McGray, Wired, February 2003.

“Put in charge of the Bush administration’s proposed major military overhaul by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he has sharply polarized the defense community.  Marshall’s allies and protégés revere him, calling the Office of Net Assessment ‘St.  Andrew’s Prep.’ His enemies despise him, deriding his acolytes as ‘Jedi Knights’.”[2] (See Andrew Marshall Acolytes / Jedi Knights for a listing.) “Marshall played a major role in, among other things, the conceptualization of the ‘revolution in military affairs’ (RMA) and is currently playing a major role in the Bush administrations defense review (Quadrennial Defense Review).

Much of the work of ONA is highly classified, and it has been difficult to understand just what is involved in ‘net assessment’.” Autumn 2001.

Robert Dreyfuss and Jason Vest identify Marshall as a neoconservative.[3] The February 10, 2001, Washington Post article “Bush Review Of Pentagon Sets Stage for a Shake-Up” by Thomas E.  Ricks states that “The military’s opposition to Mr. Marshall’s recommendations is ‘likely to be fierce,’ predicted a person involved in the review.  ...

But Mr. Marshall holds two aces.  He has a decades-long relationship with Mr. Rumsfeld.  And the Bush campaign’s defense stance, laid out in a speech at the Citadel in South Carolina in September 1999, relied heavily on ideas nurtured by Mr. Marshall over the years.  “The publicity-shy Mr. Marshall is something of a legend in national security circles, both for his longevity and for his far-reaching network of acolytes across the government, academia and the defense industry.  At 79, he is said to be the only current Pentagon official who participated in virtually the entire Cold War, beginning in 1949 as a nuclear strategist for Rand Corp., then moving to the Pentagon as a civilian official in 1973.  He has been kept in his current job by every president since Richard M. Nixon.

“Despite his age and experience, Mr. Marshall’s views are hardly conservative.  In recent years, he has gained a reputation as a radical reformer and has antagonized many top officers.” “’Today, our military is still more organized for Cold War threats than for the challenges of a new century - for Industrial Age operations, rather than for Information Age battles,’ Mr. Bush said then.  It was a line that could have been taken from any number of reports produced by Mr. Marshall’s office, formally known as ‘the Adviser to the Secretary of Defense for Net Assessment.’”

Jason Vest, “The Dubious Genius of Andrew Marshall, American Prospect, February 15, 2001:

“...according to [author] Ken Silverstein, if there’s a good description of Marshall it’s that he’s, ‘one of the most effective pork-seeking missiles ever deployed by the military brass.’ While this may be overstating matters a bit, given Marshall’s desire to gut a slew of conventional weapons programs, it seems to ring true if you’re interested in national missile defense.  As a key witness before Donald Rumsfeld’s Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, Marshall played no small role in convincing the commission—whose findings have been cogently criticized by numerous analysts—that a real threat is imminent.

“’Though Rumsfeld’s commission made no recommendation whatsoever on National Missile Defense, it dealt with the issue very artfully,’ says Jonathan Pollack.  ‘In fact, if that commission had a methodology, it was a very Marshallian methodology—you can posit these circumstances, and if you posit the following it’s feasible this next thing could happen.’

National Missile Defense deployment should, Pollack adds, be looked at under the larger rubric on the—currently in vogue—doctrine of ‘homeland defense,’ which focuses on protection from ballistic missiles and terrorism, and offers a lot of moneymaking potential to defense contractors.  ‘This is going to be a gravy train,’ he says.”

From “Inside the Ring”, April 6, 2001:

“If you want to research the writings of Andrew Marshall to see where his Pentagon strategy review is likely headed, a security clearance is mandatory.  Mr. Marshall, director of the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, rarely publishes his thinking in unclassified forms.  “The key, associates say, is to read the writings of his disciples.  Or, as one Marshall friend framed it in a ‘Star Wars’ analogy, study the Jedis to learn the teachings of Yoda.

“One Jedi is Andrew F.  Krepinevich, a former Army officer who worked with Mr. Marshall in the Net Assessment Office, a bastion of futuristic brainstorming.

“Mr. Krepinevich, who directs the private Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, has taken on added importance.  He is working on the Pentagon’s future strategy study group headed by Mr. Marshall.  It is one of about 12 panels assembled by Defense Secretary Donald H.  Rumsfeld to plot a new course for the U.S.  military.

“When Mr. Krepinevich writes, as he did recently, that four Trident submarines should be converted to land-attack missile platforms, it’s a good guess that Mr. Marshall endorses the idea.  “Marshall watchers say his ideas show up in the writings of other protégés, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and James G.  Roche, a retired Navy officer who is in line to be the next Air Force secretary.
“’There’s this whole network of Marshallites out there and that’s how his work gets out,’ says John Hillen, who has participated in Mr. Marshall’s yearly military study program at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I.”

“The Illusion of a Grand Strategy” by James Der Derian, New York Times, May 25, 2001:

“Andrew Marshall ...  was handpicked by Mr. Rumsfeld to guide the strategic review.  Yet Mr. Marshall and his views remain enigmatic.  Well-known if not adored by a tight circle of civilian and military strategists—the so-called church of St.  Andrew—Mr. Marshall has been nearly invisible outside the defense establishment.  A RAND Corporation nuclear expert beginning in 1949, he was brought by Henry Kissinger onto the National Security Council then appointed by President Nixon to direct the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment.  “He has been there ever since, despite efforts by some defense secretaries to get rid of him.  His innocuous-sounding office comes with a big brief:  to assess regional and global military balances and to determine long-term trends and threats.

“Insiders say Mr. Marshall was behind some of the key strategic decisions of the Reagan years.  His strategy for a protracted nuclear war—based on weapons modernization, protection of governmental leaders from a first strike and an early version of Star Wars—effectively beggared the Soviet war machine.  He advocated providing Afghan resistance fighters with the highly effective Stinger missiles.  He tagged AIDS as a national security issue.

“Supporters call Mr. Marshall iconoclastic and delphic; his detractors prefer paranoiac or worse.  No one has ever called him prolix.  At a future-war seminar that he sponsored, Mr. Marshall mumbled a few introductory words and then sat in silence, eyebrows arched, arms folded, for the remaining two days.  His only intervention came at the end.  He suggested that when it came to the future, it would be better to err on the side of being unimaginative.  After that experience, I better understood why he has been called the Pentagon’s Yoda.”
Nicholas Lehman, in “Dreaming About War” published in The New Yorker, July 16, 2001, writes:

“The most important promoter of the R.M.A.  in America has been Andrew W.  Marshall, the head of the Pentagon’s obscure Office of Net Assessment, a cult figure in his own right, and one of the most curious and interesting figures in the defense world.  People with decoder rings knew that Bush’s speech at the Citadel had been drafted by Marshall’s corps of allies and that it endorsed Marshall’s main ideas.  “Bush promised that, as President, he would order up ‘an immediate, comprehensive review of our military’ and give the Secretary of Defense ‘a broad mandate to challenge the status quo.’ Sure enough, this February, only a couple of weeks into the Bush Administration, newspaper stories reported that the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, would be conducting a broad review of the military—or, rather, that Andrew Marshall would be conducting it on his behalf.

During the Clinton Administration, William Sebastian Cohen, as the Secretary of Defense, tried, without success, to exile the Office of Net Assessment and Marshall, who is seventy-nine, to the National Defense University.  Now, in 2001, it looked as if Andy Marshall was back emphatically so, in a position of higher influence than at any other point in his long career.

“Marshall is the last active member in government of a cadre of strategic thinkers that took form more than fifty years ago at the original think tank, the RAND Corporation, in Santa Monica, California.  The best-known member of the group, and still a hero to conservatives, was Albert Wohlstetter; other members were Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers; Herman Kahn, a model for dr. Strangelove; and James Schlesinger, later the Secretary of Defense and the man who, in 1973, created the Office of Net Assessment and installed Marshall as its head.  All these people were involved in what Kahn liked to call ‘thinking the unthinkable’; that is, working through precise scenarios, based on game theory and statistics, for what would happen in the event of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.  There was particular emphasis on how the United States might survive a first strike and still be able to launch a second strike.

“In his early years at the Pentagon, Marshall concerned himself with other matters.  In the eighties, he performed studies concluding that the Soviet Union had become much weaker than most people imagined it to be.  For the past decade and a half, every July at the Naval War College, in Newport, Rhode Island, he has conducted his celebrated ‘summer studies,’ in which invited experts spend a week pondering a question posed by him.

“Marshall, a small, bald man with wire-rimmed spectacles who dresses in the manner of an unreconstructed nineteen-fifties organization man, has a peculiarly strong mystique.  For a defense intellectual, he hasn’t published much, and in public settings he doesn’t say much, either, often mumbling in a low voice, or questioning but not answering, or simply saying he has nothing to add to the discussion.  The medium through which he works is his protégés, who are extremely loyal.  These days, the people he knows in high places include Rumsfeld; the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz; the Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage (a principal author of Bush’s speech at the Citadel); and the Secretary of the Air Force, James Roche, who worked for Marshall in the seventies.

“The Revolution in Military Affairs, Marshall’s main cause for the past ten years, can be seen as a return to his RAND roots.  There is a substantial R.M.A.  literature, and one should be cautious about attributing all its main points to Marshall, but most of it posits a version of conventional war that would be waged in much the same way as nuclear war, with strategists at remote computer screens targeting precision missile strikes.  The R.M.A.  has been up and running—in seminar rooms, at least—for long enough now that it has a language all its own (such as ‘deep-strike architecture,’ ‘systems of systems,’ ‘info dominance,’ and ‘asymmetric competitors’), which, like all insider jargon, has the effect of pushing non-members away.”

From “Missile defence is about money and it’s here to stay” by Elaine Lafferty, Irish Times, July 25, 2001.  Andrew Marshall “was part of a group formed nearly 50 years ago at the Rand Institute in Santa Monica, California, whose job it was, in the words of a member named Herman Kahn, a model for dr. Strangelove, to ‘think the unthinkable’.  In other words, they played war games and imagined horrifying scenarios.  “Since the 1980s Mr Marshall has been a promoter of an idea first posited in 1982 by Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, then chief of the Soviet general staff, called RMA, or ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’.  The RMA, in general terms, opines that technological advances have changed the very nature of conventional war.

Rather than conflict conducted by ground troops, the new conventional war will be conducted almost like a nuclear war, managed by strategic defence and computers at remote locations targeting missiles at enemies.  “The ‘battlefield’, as it once was known, would no longer exist.  War, in the RMA lexicon, would be conducted by spy satellites and long-range missiles, by computer viruses that would disable the enemies’ offensive and defensive systems, and by a ‘layered’ defence system that would make the US impenetrable.  “For most of the last decade, and certainly under the Clinton administration, Mr Marshall and his protégés, who include both Mr Wolfowitz and the Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, and secretary of the air force James Roche, languished in various hinterlands, including a stint for Mr Rumsfeld in the pharmaceutical industry.  Mr Marshall ran seminars at the Naval War College in Rhode Island.  Neither technological advances nor the political climate existed to make the RMA feasible.

“What a difference a vote in Florida can make.  During the campaign Mr Bush had promised an ‘immediate, comprehensive review of our military’.  And just weeks into the new administration, Mr Rumsfeld ordered exactly that, to be carried out by .  .  .  Mr Marshall!”

“The ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’ Has An Enemy:  Politics” by Michael Cantanzaro, American Enterprise Institute, October 2001:

“Perhaps the most renowned theorist of a revolution in military affairs is Andrew Marshall.  Director of the Pentagon’s internal think tank known as the Office of Net Assessment, and the intellectual leader of Rumsfeld’s review, Marshall has at times been treated as a pariah by the Pentagon establishment.  

He is a survivor, though, and at age 79, having worked on military strategy, for a period longer than the entire Cold War, has become a cult figure around whom reformers rally.  ‘Marshall is something of a revered figure among those who know him and worked for him,’ said D.  Robert Worley, a Marshall protégé, and now a senior researcher at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, a defense think tank.  “Marshall’s career began in 1949 at the California-based RAND Corporation.   For over 20 years, he, along with like-minded thinkers such as Albert Wohlstetter, Herman Kahn, and James R.  Schlesinger (Nixon’s defense secretary), used elaborate war-gaming, incorporating advanced new concepts in statistics and game theory, to test the best strategies for corralling the Soviet Union.

According to Eliot Cohen, another Marshall acolyte, Marshall and a team of researchers pushed development of weapons systems that ‘would render obsolete large portions of the Soviet arsenal, or which would impose disproportionate costs’ on Soviet military budgets.”  “During the Clinton administration, Defense Secretary William Cohen and others tried to ostracize Marshall and the Office of Net Assessment.  Now, having caught Rumsfeld’s ear, Marshall is a central figure in setting future Pentagon priorities.”

Andrew Marshall “grew up in Detroit and received a graduate degree in economics from the University of Chicago.  He took a job at the RAND Corporation in 1949 and worked with nuclear intellectuals such as Herman Kahn and Albert Wohlstetter.  While there, Marshall and several colleagues played an important if hidden role in the 1960 presidential election when they served as advisers to John F.  Kennedy and devised the bogus ‘missile gap,’ which JFK used to pillory Richard Nixon.”[4]

“At the broadest level of national policy, discussions of US strategy for competing with the Soviet Union began in the late 1940s, when our relations with the Soviets began to change fundamentally for the worse and there was little or no prospect of a favorable turn of events in the foreseeable future.  Studied interest in systematic planning for competing with the Soviets over the long term waned until 1968, when Andrew W.  Marshall replaced James Schlesinger as director of strategic studies at RAND.  Marshalls quest for a framework for structuring and giving direction to RANDs program of strategic studies led to his report Long Term Competition with the Soviets:  A Framework for Strategic Analysis, published in 1972.

This document was a seminal contribution to US strategic thinking in the postWorld War II era.  It reflects the strong influence of Marshalls interest, beginning in the early 1960s, in the subject of organizational behavior and in the efforts at the Harvard Business School to develop the field of business policy and strategy” [5]

From Fortune Magazine, January 26, 2004, by David Stipp:

What would abrupt climate change really be like?  Scientists generally refuse to say much about that, citing a data deficit.  But recently, renowned Department of Defense planner Andrew Marshall sponsored a groundbreaking effort to come to grips with the question.  A Pentagon legend, Marshall, 82, is known as the Defense Department’s “Yoda”—a balding, bespectacled sage whose pronouncements on looming risks have long had an outsized influence on defense policy.  Since 1973 he has headed a secretive think tank whose role is to envision future threats to national security.

The Department of Defense’s push on ballistic-missile defense is known as his brainchild.  Three years ago Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld picked him to lead a sweeping review on military “transformation,” the shift toward nimble forces and smart weapons.  Note:  “Since 1973 he has headed a secretive think tank whose role is to envision future threats to national security.” One could wonder what this group was thinking about during the first eight months of 2001, while they had access to the extensive Hart-Rudman Task Force on Homeland Security report.  Please see listing of Andrew Marshall Acolytes / Jedi Knights.  [below]

Other Disinfopedia Resources
Bush doctrine
global warming
nuclear weapons
preemptive war

External Links

Net Book:  Zalmay Khalilzad, John White, Andrew Marshall, “Strategic Appraisal:  The Changing Role of Information in Warfare” (full report), RAND Corporation, 1999.  “Explores the opportunities and vulnerabilities inherent in the increasing reliance on information technology.” The Definition of Strategic Assessment.  In particular, scroll down to the section on “Department of Defense Net Assessments.”  Past Revolution, Future Transformations, RAND Corporation, 1999.  Complete book online.  Also see Bibliography for names and article related to ONA and Andrew Marshall.

Thomas Parker, High-Tech to the Rescue in the Persian Gulf, Middle East Quarterly/Middle East Forum, June 1999:  “Defense intellectuals tend to support the revolution in military affairs and its quest for a new generation of weapons systems; in contrast, those with vested interests to protect are skeptical.  RMA advocates include senior Reagan and Bush officials such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle (both now advising Governor George W.  Bush), Richard Armitage (author of a recent Congressionally-mandated study on the subject), Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins University, and Zalmay Khalilzad of RAND.  Andrew Marshall, the head of the Department of Defense’s Office of Net Assessment, an in-house think tank, has pushed hard for the RMA; while he had a close relationship with former secretaries of defense Cheney and Perry, his office was almost moved outside of the Pentagon under Secretary Cohen.”

Ken Silverstein, The Man From ONA, The Nation, October 25, 1999.

Bill Keller, The Fighting Next Time, Why War?, March 10, 2002:

“But Marshall’s real public face is the legion of prolific R.M.A. protégés in policy institutes and universities whose work he has sponsored.  His consistent theme (and theirs) for at least a decade has been that the nature of warfare is in for one of its periodic upheavals as nations adjust to two major developments.  ...  One is the perfection of long-range precision strike weapons that enable armies to fight from great distances and that make massive, conspicuous platforms like carriers and air bases more vulnerable.  As our adversaries acquire more accurate missiles, Marshall argues, wars will probably be fought either from long range or by quick and comparatively small units that get in and out quickly.  The other change is the emergence of information warfare, in which the most valuable assets are more powerful sensors—satellites, airborne cameras, handheld global positioning system equipment, robotic snoopers—that give the advantage to the side that can better read the battlefield and more quickly disseminate information to its commanders.”

Bruce Berkowitz, War in the Information Age, Hoover Institution, Spring, 2002:  “These technologies are turning over many traditional notions about how to wage war.  Much of this new thinking can be traced to the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment and its director, Andrew Marshall.  Although little known to the general public, the office has often been much more influential than its obscure title suggests.  It is an in-house think tank for DOD charged with looking 10 or 20 years into the future, sizing up the threats the United States will face, and analyzing how we will match them.

...  In the early 1990s, Marshall began to speak about a ‘revolution in military affairs’ (RMA).  This revolution was driven mainly by the great changes that were under way in information technology.  As a result of these changes, military forces would be able to have a better picture of the adversary and would be able to strike at him with precision weapons from great distance.  The military would also need to become more mobile because large, stationary forces would be too vulnerable.  ...  Over the course of three decades, many promising majors, lieutenant commanders, and GS-13 civilians have done a tour through the Office of Net Assessment.

These officers are now generals, admirals, and members of the Pentagons Senior Executive Service and have considerable influence in drafting war plans and designing new weapons programs.” George Lewis, Pentagon Defense Strategist Previews Future Warfare, University of Kentucky Public Relations, July 11, 2002.

Offline Effie Trinket

  • member
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,293
Amrish Sehgal, China and the Doctrine of Asymmetrical Warfare, BHARAT RAKSHAK MONITOR, July/August 2003:

“That some of Andrew Marshall’s worst fears are coming true is already evident.  Japan’s economy has been in the doldrums for the last 7 years.  Its biggest market, USA, is itself locked in the throes of a recession.  Given the major onslaught of Korean companies, perhaps the only large markets left to Japan are India and China.  India’s market for range of products that Japan makes, unfortunately for Japan, is already highly competitive, consumer oriented and service-intensive.  China on the other hand is still somewhat of a command economy and is as large, if not larger, a market than India.

Moreover, political considerations in China allow a better deal to be given to Japan than to South Korea.  Indeed, China is going all out to woo Japan Inc.  The day is not too far away when China emerges as Japan’s largest investment market and trading partner.  Chinese political pressure upon Japan to distance itself from USA can certainly be envisioned at such a juncture.”

James G. Roche, Serving the Patriots of America’s Air Force.  Remarks at the Order of the Sword Induction Ceremony, Andrews Air Force Base, md. September 13, 2003:

“I also want to point out that one of my most important mentors is here tonight.  He is my mentor, Bill Bodie’s mentor, General Lance Lord’s mentor, and he is Brigadier General Rich Hassan’s mentor—Andrew Marshall, one of the finest men in the Department of Defense.  Andy was the head of the Office of Net Assessment when Admiral Farragut was around and was appointed to the job by General George Washington just before he relinquished command of the Continental Army.  He celebrated his 50th wedding anniversary last night.  And ladies and gentlemen, tonight is his 82nd birthday.  He is still working full time at our Pentagon.  General John Jumper and I have often relied on one of his many sayings to help you cope with tough times.  He once said to me, ‘There simply are limits to the stupidity any one may can prevent.’ General Jumper and I call upon that time after time.”

on Roche, a Bush appointee:
Roche receives Order of the Sword

ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE, md. - Secretary of the Air Force Dr. James G. Roche was inducted into the Order of the Sword during a ceremony here Sept.  13.

Roche became the eighth Air Force-level inductee into the order, and the second secretary, since the “Royal Order of the Sword” ceremony was revised, updated and adopted by Air Force noncommissioned officers in 1967.

ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE, Md.—Staff Sgts. Daniel Perry (front) and Ray Bradshaw bear the Air Force sword for the Order of the Sword ceremony Sept.  13.  Several hundred airmen gathered here to honor and pay tribute to the 20th secretary of the Air Force, dr. James G.  Roche.  The Order of the Sword is the highest honor Air Force noncommissioned officers can give to an individual and is patterned after two orders of chivalry founded during the Middle Ages in Europe.  Perry is assigned to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, and Bradshaw is assigned to Kadena Air Base, Japan. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Jim Varhegyi)

Among the crowd of more than 800 present at the ceremony were former Secretary F.  Whitten Peters, himself an Order of the Sword inductee, and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper.  A number of former chief master sergeants of the Air Force also attended the event and were joined by the man who currently holds the position.

“The thoughts that come to mind are those that speak of a great compassion and care he has for our airmen,” said Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force Gerald R. Murray.  “It is a common sight to see our secretary surrounded by airmen at a base or a venue asking them how they are, what concerns they have and what can be done better in our Air Force.

Airmen know that when he asks, he also listens, and when warranted, he acts to make changes to make lives better and help us to do our mission more efficiently, Murray said.

During the ceremony, Roche was presented with a copy of the citation, a painting by German artist Hans Roth featuring images of the secretary during his tenure with the Air Force, and a scroll with the names of those who attended.  He also received a symbolic “Alfonso the 10th”-style sword, crafted in Toledo, Spain.  “Fellow airmen, I am genuinely humbled to stand before you tonight and accept this honor,” Roche said.  “I can assure you that tonight, your decision to honor me with this modern order of chivalry has left me at quite a loss to express my profound sense of pride, humility and also delight.

Roche also praised the enlisted force for the work they do for the Air Force and for the country.

“The success of our Air Force in accomplishing our mission, and the rightful position of respect that we hold in the hearts and minds of the American people, is because of you, and the more than 700,000 active duty, Guard and reservists you represent,” Roche said.  “The American people trust your competence in conflict.  Can there be a higher level of trust?  I can’t think of one.”

One of the secretary's accomplishments during his tenure with the Air Force was allowing senior enlisted airmen to enroll in the Air Force Institute of Technology.  He also struck an agreement with Army officials to provide the Air Force with nearly 8,000 Army guardsmen to backfill critically short security requirements, as well as secured 100-percent tuition assistance for airmen.  He allowed first sergeants to extend their special duty tour beyond three years and established a new standard for junior-enlisted dormitories.

Roche’s induction into the Order of the Sword comes as members of Congress begin to consider his nomination to become Secretary of the Army.  President George W. Bush announced his decision to nominate Roche for the Army's top post May 7.

The Order of the Sword, a military ceremony, has been conducted since its original inception in 1522.  It is conducted by noncommissioned officers to honor those who have made significant contributions to the enlisted corps.  CTLOPEZ (Publication date, September 15, 2003)


“Prior to this appointment, Secretary Roche held several executive positions with Northrop Grumman Corp., including Corporate Vice President and President, Electronic Sensors and Systems Sector.  Prior to joining Northrop Grumman in 1984, he was Democratic Staff Director of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee.  “Secretary Roche has served as a member of the Secretary of Defense’s Defense Policy Board and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute of Strategic Studies.  1983 to 1984 and as the State Department’s principal deputy director of the policy planning staff.  He was also a senior professional staff member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from 1979 to 1981 and served as assistant director of the Office of Net Assessment [i.e., Andrew Marshall himself] in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 1975 to 1979.


Andrew Marshall Acolytes / Jedi Knights

The following is a listing of Andrew Marshall Acolytes / “Jedi” Knights:  Richard Armitage [Powell/Armitage connect very close]

John Arquilla* (RAND)
Jeffrey Barnett
Thomas P.M. Barnett* (RAND)
Stephen Biddle*
James Blackwell
Rebecca Caudill[1]
Dick Cheney [ex-CEO Halliburton, Def.  Sec for Bush I, drug trade]
Daniel R. Coats[2]
Eliot Cohen*
Owen Cote* (MIT)
Fred Downey[3]
Emily Goldman* (UC Davis)
Charles Herzfeld
John Hillen
Fred C. Ikle
Herman Kahn
Zalmay Khalilzad [who was placed as Afghan puppet dictator]
Andrew F. Krepinevich*
Jon Lellenberg
Martin C. Libicki*
Thomas G. Mahnken
Mark D. Mandeles
J.J. Martin
Michael E. O’Hanlon* Brookings Institution
Richard N. Perle [black pearl of the neocons, Israeli gov policy planner]
George E. Pickett
Michael Pillsbury
Jeffrey Record* (Air War College)
Harold Rhode
James G. Roche [Sec.of Air force,ex-Northrop Grumman CEO (Global Hawk/UAVs)]
Stephen Peter Rosen
Dennis B. Ross
Henry S. Rowen
Donald H. Rumsfeld [Nixon to the present, government advisor, pharma CEO]
James R. Schlesinger
Larry Seaquist
Henry D. Sokolski
Chuck Spinney* (DOD)
Michael G. Vickers*
Barry Watts
Cindy Williams*
Paul D. Wolfowitz [Dep. Def.  Sec under Rumsfeld]
D.  Robert Worley
David S. Yost
Dov S. Zakheim

Asterisk indicates that the individual is also considered a Specialist in “Revolution in Military Affairs”. III.



Climate Collapse: The Pentagon’s Weather Nightmare.
Monday, January 26, 2004
By David Stipp

Global warming may be bad news for future generations, but let’s face it, most of us spend as little time worrying about it as we did about al Qaeda before 9/11.  Like the terrorists, though, the seemingly remote climate risk may hit home sooner and harder than we ever imagined.  In fact, the prospect has become so real that the Pentagon’s strategic planners are grappling with it.  The threat that has riveted their attention is this: Global warming, rather than causing gradual, centuries-spanning change, may be pushing the climate to a tipping point.  Growing evidence suggests the ocean-atmosphere system that controls the world’s climate can lurch from one state to another in less than a decade—like a canoe that’s gradually tilted until suddenly it flips over.  Scientists don’t know how close the system is to a critical threshold.  But abrupt climate change may well occur in the not-too-distant future.  If it does, the need to rapidly adapt may overwhelm many societies—thereby upsetting the geopolitical balance of power.

Though triggered by warming, such change would probably cause cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, leading to longer, harsher winters in much of the U.S.  and Europe.  Worse, it would cause massive droughts, turning farmland to dust bowls and forests to ashes.  Picture last fall’s California wildfires as a regular thing.  Or imagine similar disasters destabilizing nuclear powers such as Pakistan or Russia—it’s easy to see why the Pentagon has become interested in abrupt climate change.

Climate researchers began getting seriously concerned about it a decade ago, after studying temperature indicators embedded in ancient layers of Arctic ice.  The data show that a number of dramatic shifts in average temperature took place in the past with shocking speed—in some cases, just a few years.

The case for angst was buttressed by a theory regarded as the most likely explanation for the abrupt changes.  The eastern U.S.  and northern Europe, it seems, are warmed by a huge Atlantic Ocean current that flows north from the tropics—that’s why Britain, at Labrador’s latitude, is relatively temperate.  Pumping out warm, moist air, this “great conveyor” current gets cooler and denser as it moves north.  That causes the current to sink in the North Atlantic, where it heads south again in the ocean depths.  The sinking process draws more water from the south, keeping the roughly circular current on the go.

But when the climate warms, according to the theory, fresh water from melting Arctic glaciers flows into the North Atlantic, lowering the
current’s salinity—and its density and tendency to sink.  A warmer climate also increases rainfall and runoff into the current, further lowering its saltiness.  As a result, the conveyor loses its main motive force and can rapidly collapse, turning off the huge heat pump and altering the climate over much of the Northern Hemisphere.

Scientists aren’t sure what caused the warming that triggered such collapses in the remote past.  (Clearly it wasn’t humans and their factories.) But the data from Arctic ice and other sources suggest the atmospheric changes that preceded earlier collapses were dismayingly similar to today’s global warming.  As the Ice Age began drawing to a close about 13,000 years ago, for example, temperatures in Greenland rose to levels near those of recent decades.  Then they abruptly plunged as the conveyor apparently shut down, ushering in the “Younger Dryas” period, a 1,300-year reversion to ice-age conditions.  (A dryas is an Arctic flower that flourished in Europe at the time.)

Though Mother Nature caused past abrupt climate changes, the one that may be shaping up today probably has more to do with us.  In 2001 an international panel of climate experts concluded that there is increasingly strong evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities—mainly the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal, which release heat-trapping carbon dioxide.

Indicators of the warming include shrinking Arctic ice, melting alpine glaciers, and markedly earlier springs at northerly latitudes.  A few years ago such changes seemed signs of possible trouble for our kids or grandkids.  Today they seem portents of a cataclysm that may not conveniently wait until we’re history.

Accordingly, the spotlight in climate research is shifting from gradual to rapid change.  In 2002 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report concluding that human activities could trigger abrupt change.  Last year the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, included a session at which Robert Gagosian, director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, urged policymakers to consider the implications of possible abrupt climate change within two decades.

Such jeremiads are beginning to reverberate more widely.  Billionaire Gary Comer, founder of Lands’ End, has adopted abrupt climate change as a philanthropic cause.  Hollywood has also discovered the issue—next summer 20th Century Fox is expected to release The Day After Tomorrow, a big-budget disaster movie starring Dennis Quaid as a scientist trying to save the world from an ice age precipitated by global warming.  Fox’s flick will doubtless be apocalyptically edifying.  But what would abrupt climate change really be like?  Scientists generally refuse to say much about that, citing a data deficit.

But recently, renowned Department of Defense planner Andrew Marshall sponsored a groundbreaking effort to come to grips with the question.  A Pentagon legend, Marshall, 82, is known as the Defense Department’s “Yoda”—a balding, bespectacled sage whose pronouncements on looming risks have long had an outsized influence on defense policy.  Since 1973 he has headed a secretive think tank whose role is to envision future threats to national security.  The Department of Defense’s push on ballistic-missile defense is known as his brainchild.  Three years ago Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld picked him to lead a sweeping review on military “transformation,” the shift toward nimble forces and smart weapons.

When scientists’ work on abrupt climate change popped onto his radar screen, Marshall tapped another eminent visionary, Peter Schwartz, to write a report on the national-security implications of the threat.  Schwartz formerly headed planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group and has since consulted with organizations ranging from the CIA to DreamWorks—he helped create futuristic scenarios for Steven Spielberg’s film Minority Report.  Schwartz and co-author Doug Randall at the Monitor Group’s Global Business Network, a scenario-planning think tank in Emeryville, Calif., contacted top climate experts and pushed them to talk about what-ifs that they usually shy away from—at least in public.

The result is an unclassified report, completed late last year, that the Pentagon has agreed to share with FORTUNE.  It doesn’t pretend to be a forecast.  Rather, it sketches a dramatic but plausible scenario to help planners think about coping strategies.  Here is an abridged version:

A total shutdown of the ocean conveyor might lead to a big chill like the Younger Dryas, when icebergs appeared as far south as the coast of Portugal.  Or the conveyor might only temporarily slow down, potentially causing an era like the “Little Ice Age,” a time of hard winters, violent storms, and droughts between 1300 and 1850.  That period’s weather extremes caused horrific famines, but it was mild compared with the Younger Dryas.

For planning purposes, it makes sense to focus on a midrange case of abrupt change.  A century of cold, dry, windy weather across the Northern Hemisphere that suddenly came on 8,200 years ago fits the bill—its severity fell between that of the Younger Dryas and the Little Ice Age.  The event is thought to have been triggered by a conveyor collapse after a time of rising temperatures not unlike today’s global warming.  Suppose it recurred, beginning in 2010.  Here are some of the things that might happen by 2020:

At first the changes are easily mistaken for normal weather variation—allowing skeptics to dismiss them as a “blip” of little importance and leaving policymakers and the public paralyzed with uncertainty.  But by 2020 there is little doubt that something drastic is happening.  The average temperature has fallen by up to five degrees Fahrenheit in some regions of North America and Asia and up to six degrees in parts of Europe.  (By comparison, the average temperature over the North Atlantic during the last ice age was ten to 15 degrees lower than it is today.) Massive droughts have begun in key agricultural regions.  The average annual rainfall has dropped by nearly 30% in northern Europe, and its climate has become more like Siberia’s.

Violent storms are increasingly common as the conveyor becomes wobbly on its way to collapse.  A particularly severe storm causes the ocean to break through levees in the Netherlands, making coastal cities such as the Hague unlivable.  In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento River area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from north to south.

Megadroughts afflict the U.S., especially in the southern states, along with winds that are 15% stronger on average than they are now, causing widespread dust storms and soil loss.  The U.S.  is better positioned to cope than most nations, however, thanks to its diverse growing climates, wealth, technology, and abundant resources.  That has a downside, though: It magnifies the haves-vs.-have-nots gap and fosters bellicose finger-pointing at America.

Turning inward, the U.S.  effectively seeks to build a fortress around itself to preserve resources.  Borders are strengthened to hold back starving immigrants from Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean islands—waves of boat people pose especially grim problems.

Tension between the U.S.  and Mexico rises as the U.S.  reneges on a 1944 treaty that guarantees water flow from the Colorado River into Mexico.  America is forced to meet its rising energy demand with options that are costly both economically and politically, including nuclear power and onerous Middle Eastern contracts.  Yet it survives without catastrophic losses.

Europe, hardest hit by its temperature drop, struggles to deal with immigrants from Scandinavia seeking warmer climes to the south.  Southern Europe is beleaguered by refugees from hard-hit countries in Africa and elsewhere.  But Western Europe’s wealth helps buffer it from catastrophe.

Australia’s size and resources help it cope, as does its location—the conveyor shutdown mainly affects the Northern Hemisphere.  Japan has fewer resources but is able to draw on its social cohesion to cope—its government is able to induce population-wide behavior changes to conserve resources.

China’s huge population and food demand make it particularly vulnerable.  It is hit by increasingly unpredictable monsoon rains, which cause devastating floods in drought-denuded areas.  Other parts of Asia and East Africa are similarly stressed.  Much of Bangladesh becomes nearly uninhabitable because of a rising sea level, which contaminates inland water supplies.  Countries whose diversity already produces conflict, such as India and Indonesia, are hard-pressed to maintain internal order while coping with the unfolding changes.  As the decade progresses, pressures to act become irresistible—history shows that whenever humans have faced a choice between starving or raiding, they raid.  

Imagine Eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populations, invading Russia—which is weakened by a population that is already in decline for access to its minerals and energy supplies.  Or picture Japan eyeing nearby Russian oil and gas reserves to power desalination plants and energy-intensive farming.  Envision nuclear-armed Pakistan, India, and China skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land.  Or Spain and Portugal fighting over fishing rights—fisheries are disrupted around the world as water temperatures change, causing fish to migrate to new habitats.

Growing tensions engender novel alliances.  Canada joins fortress America in a North American bloc.  (Alternatively, Canada may seek to keep its abundant hydropower for itself, straining its ties with the energy-hungry U.S.)  North and South Korea align to create a technically savvy, nuclear-armed entity.  Europe forms a truly unified bloc to curb its immigration problems and protect against aggressors.  Russia, threatened by impoverished neighbors in dire straits, may join the European bloc.  Nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable.  Oil supplies are stretched thin as climate cooling drives up demand.  Many countries seek to shore up their energy supplies with nuclear energy, accelerating nuclear proliferation.

Japan, South Korea, and Germany develop nuclear-weapons capabilities, as do Iran, Egypt, and North Korea.  Israel, China, India, and Pakistan also are poised to use the bomb.  The changes relentlessly hammer the world’s “carrying capacity”—the natural resources, social organizations, and economic networks that support the population.  Technological progress and market forces, which have long helped boost Earth’s carrying capacity, can do little to offset the crisis—it is too widespread and unfolds too fast.

As the planet’s carrying capacity shrinks, an ancient pattern reemerges:  the eruption of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies.  As Harvard archeologist Steven LeBlanc has noted, wars over resources were the norm until about three centuries ago.  When such conflicts broke out, 25% of a population’s adult males usually died.  As abrupt climate change hits home, warfare may again come to define human life.

Over the past decade, data have accumulated suggesting that the plausibility of abrupt climate change is higher than most of the scientific community, and perhaps all of the political community, are prepared to accept.  In light of such findings, we should be asking when abrupt change will happen, what the impacts will be, and how we can prepare—not whether it will really happen.  In fact, the climate record suggests that abrupt change is inevitable at some point, regardless of human activity.  Among other things, we should:

“Speed research on the forces that can trigger abrupt climate change, how it unfolds, and how we’ll know it’s occurring.”

“Sponsor studies on the scenarios that might play out, including ecological, social, economic, and political fallout on key food-producing regions.”

“Identify “no regrets” strategies to ensure reliable access to food and water and to ensure our national security.”

“Form teams to prepare responses to possible massive migration, and food and water shortages.”

“Explore ways to offset abrupt cooling—today it appears easier to warm than to cool the climate via human activities, so there may be “geo-engineering” options available to prevent a catastrophic temperature drop.”

In sum, the risk of abrupt climate change remains uncertain, and it is quite possibly small.  But given its dire consequences, it should be elevated beyond a scientific debate.  Action now matters, because we may be able to reduce its likelihood of happening, and we can certainly be better prepared if it does.  It is time to recognize it as a national security concern.

The Pentagon’s reaction to this sobering report isn’t known—in keeping with his reputation for reticence, Andy Marshall declined to be interviewed.  But the fact that he’s concerned may signal a sea change in the debate about global warming.  At least some federal thought leaders may be starting to perceive climate change less as a political annoyance and more as an issue demanding action.  If so, the case for acting now to address climate change, long a hard sell in Washington, may be gaining influential support, if only behind the scenes.  Policymakers may even be emboldened to take steps such as tightening fuel-economy standards for new passenger vehicles, a measure that would simultaneously lower emissions of greenhouse gases, reduce America’s perilous reliance on OPEC oil, cut its trade deficit, and put money in consumers’ pockets.  Oh, yes—and give the Pentagon’s fretful Yoda a little less to worry about.,15114,582584,00.html 8.

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

•   Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
•   Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years
•   Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Saturday February 21 2004
The Guardian

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.  A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020.  Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies.  The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

‘Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,’ concludes the Pentagon analysis.  ‘Once again, warfare would define human life.’

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists.  Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.  The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades.  He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change ‘should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern’, say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.  An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is ‘plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately’, they conclude.  As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like.  Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon.  They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously.  Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America’s public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair’s chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President’s position on the issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK’s leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.  He said that the Pentagon’s internal fears should prove the ‘tipping point’ in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: ‘If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.’

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon’s dire warnings could no longer be ignored.  ‘Can Bush ignore the Pentagon?  It’s going be hard to blow off this sort of document.  Its hugely embarrassing.  After all, Bush’s single highest priority is national defence.  The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative.  If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act.  There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,’ added Watson.

‘You’ve got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you’ve got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars.  It’s pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,’ said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.  Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain.  By 2020 ‘catastrophic’ shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war.  They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.  Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos.  ‘This is depressing stuff,’ he said.  ‘It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.’

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening.  ‘We don’t know exactly where we are in the process.  It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,’ he said.  ‘The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable.  It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.’  So dramatic are the report’s scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections.  Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem.  Scientists disillusioned with Bush’s stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.

The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry’s cause.  Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment.  Dubbed ‘Yoda’ by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence’s push on ballistic-missile defence.

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change.  ‘It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.’

Symons said the Bush administration’s close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office.  ‘This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,’ he added.

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited


Key findings of the Pentagon
Saturday February 21 2004
The Guardian

•   Future wars will be fought over the issue of survival rather than religion, ideology or national honour.

•   By 2007 violent storms smash coastal barriers rendering large parts of the Netherlands inhabitable.  Cities like The Hague are abandoned.  In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento river area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from north to south.

•   Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change with an average annual temperature drop of 6F.  Climate in Britain becomes colder and drier as weather patterns begin to resemble Siberia.

•   Deaths from war and famine run into the millions until the planet’s population is reduced by such an extent the Earth can cope.

•   Riots and internal conflict tear apart India, South Africa and Indonesia.

•   Access to water becomes a major battleground.  The Nile, Danube and Amazon are all mentioned as being high risk.

•   A ‘significant drop’ in the planet’s ability to sustain its present population will become apparent over the next 20 years.

•   Rich areas like the US and Europe would become ‘virtual fortresses’ to prevent millions of migrants from entering after being forced from land drowned by sea-level rise or no longer able to grow crops.  Waves of boatpeople pose significant problems.

•   Nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable.  Japan, South Korea, and Germany develop nuclear-weapons capabilities, as do Iran, Egypt and North Korea.   Israel, China, India and Pakistan also are poised to use the bomb.

•   By 2010 the US and Europe will experience a third more days with peak temperatures above 90F.  Climate becomes an ‘economic nuisance’ as storms, droughts and hot spells create havoc for farmers.

•   More than 400m people in subtropical regions at grave risk.

•   Europe will face huge internal struggles as it copes with massive numbers of migrants washing up on its shores.  Immigrants from Scandinavia seek warmer climes to the south.  Southern Europe is beleaguered by refugees from hard-hit countries in Africa.

•   Mega-droughts affect the world’s major breadbaskets, including America’s Midwest, where strong winds bring soil loss.

•   China’s huge population and food demand make it particularly vulnerable.

Bangladesh becomes nearly uninhabitable because of a rising sea level, which contaminates the inland water supplies.

Offline Effie Trinket

  • member
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,293

Revolution in Military Affairs

The military concept of Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) is a theory about the future of warfare, often connected to technological and organizational recommendations for change in the United States military and others.

Especially tied to modern information, communications, and space technology, RMA is often linked to current discussions under the label of Transformation and total systems integration in the US military.


The original theorizing was done by the Soviet Armed Forces in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly by Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov. The U.S. initially became interested in it through Andrew Marshall, the head of the Office of Net Assessment, a Department of Defense think tank. It slowly gained credence within official military circles, and other nations began exploring similar shifts in organization and technology.

Interest in RMA and the structure of future United States armed forces is strong within the China's People's Liberation Army and incorporated to current Chinese strategic military doctrine. Many other militaries have researched and considered RMA as an organizational concept, including Canada, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore, Republic of China (Taiwan), India, Russia and Germany. However, the infrastructure and investment demands are very expensive for many countries and nations unwilling to invest substantial sums in defense.

Renewed interest was placed on RMA theory and practice after what many saw as a stunning, one-sided victory by the United States in the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq. American dominance through superior satellite, weapons-guiding, and communications technology emphasized the enormous relative power of the US through technological advances, even against an Iraqi military that was by no means an insignificant rival.

After the Kosovo War where the United States did not lose a single life, others suggested that war had become too sterile, creating an almost "Virtual War." Consequently, the U.S. failure to capture Osama bin Laden and the Iraqi insurgency led some to question RMA's build-up as a military nirvana. U.S. foes may increasingly resort to asymmetrical warfare to counter the advantages of RMA.

In 1997, the United States Army mounted an exercise code-named "Force 21", to test the application of digital technologies in warfare. The goal of Force 21 was to improve the communications and logistics through the application of computers and information technology generated in the private sector and adapted for military use.

The specific aims were to increase awareness of one's own position on the battlefield and to have a clear sense of the enemy's position, in pursuit of the following goals: (1) increased lethality, (2) increased control of the tempo of warfare, (3) the reduction of instances caused by friendly fire, with improvement in Identification Friend or Foe.

Areas of focus

One of the central problems in understanding the current debate over RMA is due to many theorists' use of the term as referring to the revolutionary technology itself, which is the driving force of change. Concurrently, other theorists tend to use the term as referring to revolutionary adaptations by military organisations that may be necessary to deal with the changes in technology. Other theorists place RMA more closely inside the specific political and economic context of globalization and the end of the Cold War.

When reviewing the gamut of theories, three fundamental versions of RMA come to the forefront. The first perspective focuses primarily upon changes in the nation-state and the role of an organised military in using force. This approach highlights the political, social, and economic factors worldwide, which might require a completely different type of military and organisational structure to apply force in the future.

Authors such as RAND's Sean J. A. Edwards (advocate of BattleSwarm tactics), Carl H. Builder and Lt. Col. Ralph Peters emphasized the decline of the nation-state, the nature of the emerging international order, and the different types of forces needed in the near future.

The second perspective — most commonly assigned the term RMA — highlights the evolution of weapons technology, information technology, military organization, and military doctrine among advanced powers. This "System of Systems" perspective on RMA has been ardently supported by Admiral William Owens, former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who identified three overlapping areas for force assets. These are intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, command, control, communications and intelligence processing, and precision force.

Advanced versions of RMA incorporate other sophisticated technologies, including unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), nanotechnology, robotics, and biotechnology. Recently, the RMA debate focussed on "network-centric warfare" which is a doctrine that aims to connect all troops on the battlefield.

Finally, the third concept is that a "true" revolution in military affairs has not yet occurred or is unlikely to. Authors such as Michael O’Hanlon and Frederick Kagan, point to the fact much of the technology and weapons systems ascribed to the contemporary RMA were in development long before 1991 and the Internet and information technology boom.

Several critics point out that a "revolution" within the military ranks might carry detrimental consequences, produce severe economic strain, and ultimately prove counterproductive. Such authors tend to profess a much more gradual "evolution" in military affairs, as opposed to a rapid revolution.
See also

    * Network-centric warfare (NCW), a modern military doctrine
    * Military intelligence (MI)
    * C4ISR and C4ISTAR
    * Information warfare
    * Electronic warfare
    * Airborne Warning and Control System
    * Communications satellite
    * Spy satellite
    * Swarming (military)
    * Precision-guided munition

US Military specific:

    * Transformation of the United States Army, the future-concept of the US Army's modernization plan
    * Battle Command Knowledge System
    * Future Combat Systems
    * Information Awareness Office (IAO), was established by DARPA
    * DoDAF
    * Global Information Grid
    * E-8 Joint STARS
    * Joint Tactical Information Distribution System
    * Tactical Digital Information Link


Marshall, Mattis To Lead QDR 'Red Team'
Published: 15 May 2009 11:44

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced this week he has tapped two prominent defense thinkers to head the team that will challenge the conclusions of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).

The secretary told lawmakers this week that Andrew Marshall, the longtime director of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, and Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, U.S. Joint Forces Command chief, will lead what he calls his "QDR red team."

"I think Jim Mattis is one of the most creative and thoughtful military minds anywhere, and I think the combination of Andy Marshall and Jim Mattis, basically, red teaming ... both the scenarios and the QDR itself [will ensure] we're not the prisoners of a bureaucratic group-think of people who have done this work forever," Gates told the House Armed Services Committee on May 13.

Marshall has headed Net Assessment, often called the Pentagon's in-house think tank, since its creation in 1973. He was appointed by President Richard Nixon. Marshall also led the red team, which will play devil's advocate during the Pentagon's strategic review, during the 2006 QDR process.

Offline Effie Trinket

  • member
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,293