brian carroll on Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:09:51 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> .US strategy backgrounder |
[this is a preface for BLACKFLAG OPERATIONS outside the .US, which is to provide context for a map of the Mideast Circuit and a plan for turning things around. there are some big inversions in basic assumptions related to such an approach and thus the following words seek to preempt the conflicts of ideas, so that it separates out a clear plan with a complex situation in which it is placed. as such, the following is attempting to convey that .US grand strategy itself is failing, not just the latest .US administration, though it is failing catastrophically in how it is going about governing, and that another approach (based on another logic, and another representation of reality, no less) will offer a view that is basically an inversion of what now is going on, in terms of decision-making and perspective. and it may be a bit startling and it may be considered to be against the existing goals-- and this is to suggest that, if trying to get to place 'B' that this is a feasible/viable way of moving in such a direction, whereas the existing approach is unable to even find any movement in relation to these very same ideals. and so it could be debated, the legitimacy of such an approach, though I wanted to dispel a sense that there is a shift 'in direction' of the 'ends' - which is a better world which exists in peaceful relations, should that be achievable in ways more realistic than approached today. as such, this is part of the bureaucracy of words in relation to ideas that people make decisions based on, historically, and provides a bit of context to offer additional details as to why this approach (next post/map/plan) is both viable and responsible, in-line with traditional values and historical ideals of the .US as a constitutional democracy and its governance, both internally and externally, in the world and its affairs.] if accepting that the binary ideology of the 'War of Terror' only leads to more war and limited options as to how to proceed via its debilitating bias as to equating .US decision-making with a Neoconservative worldview, it becomes apparent how a change in this overriding black-and-white logic can transform this basic situation. it is by allowing a 'gray-area' to exist, and modeling it, that other interconnections can be seen that were not previously allowed in decision-making. and, in this way, the situation in the Mideast can be seen in ecological terms beyond the boundaries of nation-states, where the region could be considered as a circuitboard in which machineries of state and peoples are short-circuiting. and thus, to question what can be done about it. it becomes a showdown between dueling realities, one which is based on the binary "War of Terror" which is failing to model the situation accurately, and a paradoxical "Mideast Peace" which is complex and multilinear. so too, it could be said that the existing .US flag with all its colors represents the failure of the "War of Terror" to accurately model events as they exist, beyond false constructs -- whereas the .US BLACKFLAG would be symbolic of this failure, and a beginning point in which to engage the reality of events as they now exist. (it is to attempt to say that, this duel of flags is also the duel of logics and how to model current events: and ultimately what this duel of flags is about is a duel about the nature of reality and its symbolic representation. that is, is it based on lies and fiction and ungrounded, or is it based in truth, facts, logic, and reasoning? the BLACKFLAG thus would establish the latter as the foundation upon which to restart .US decision-making in its policy so that 'the truth is on its side' and truth and reality are not divorced from eachother, as now exists.) the most important point to make is that basic .US grand strategy (historical) is cataclysmic failure and it is unsustainable to continue on this path, and it is increasingly likely that what currently exists as extensions of this strategy will also not be able to sustain the current failures, and will have to be dealt with sooner rather than later. as such, either the .US will undergo total collapse whereby its core processes cannot function to sustain themselves, less their internationalist extensions around the world, and that if this were to totally collapse under its own weight, that even these extensions would begin rapid deterioration - which becomes chaos if this is the existing ordering which is based on leveraging imbalances between nations. as such, if a collapse were to occur, there may be little left to regain much of the ordering that had existed at world-scale, and could automatically usher in new and more complex conflicts by the sheer nature of nations competing at world- scale. else, this situation could be dealt with in a controlled- collapse to soft-landing/redirection of hat exists, into an improved and evolved formation whereby greater ordering could be established in a shared world circuitry, by which to evolve new multipolar world organization and infrastructural ordering in which the problems of nationalism (and the .UN) could be reconfigured in a new relation of states at this world-scale, based on human-rights, and taking into account governance of machineries of state, in relation to citizens, etc.** that, in this crisis, there is an opportunity to evolve new global institutional framework to transcend the limitations that now exist, and to go beyond the .UN and nationalism, using the .US redirection of policies as a way to do this in an environment that goes beyond considering these events only in terms of nation-states. and instead, it is to consider the shared human interest in dealing with problems that exist at world-scale, as with global warming, poverty, illiteracy, genocide, and decide to make this our attempt to change the course of human development on the planet, at world scale, together, beginning with .US moves in this direction... as such, this is to say that basic .US grand strategy is required to change if the world is to live in peace and not in endless war - in terms of decisions related to how to get from A -> B at the world- scale, if B is to engage policy issues as they exist at world-scale, yet beyond the problems of nationalism and bureaucracy. it thus becomes a duel between warmaking and peacemaking as a route for moving the machineries of state. and, in the current world environment, that this existing method of the 'war of terror' is short-circuiting, as is the basis for this war and its origin in the conflicts between .IL and .PS and issues yet to be resolved by the .UN nor by internationalism, - and possibly irresolvable by these formations, as they created the situation in which the current decline _is ushering in World War III, automatically, until the basic configuration is changed. this is to say that the current global environment is modeled on its being out-of-balance and in terms of nationalism (and colonialism, imperialism, fascism, etc) that this may be considered a 'good thing', relatively speaking, according to a given position. say, with the .US as a superpower. unless, of course, this position changes, and the imbalances start to work both ways, which is what is the price that is and will be exacted upon .US grand strategy which now forces reconciliation of a failed unipolar ideology in a multipolar reality, and how to navigate such a situation. which becomes impossible if the captain refuses to change direction of the ship of state, and thus, as it crashes and is breached and begins to sink, this is somehow declared as a validation to continue into to sink into this grave as if divine mission: the shipwreck of state as governance. a 'choice' exists between directions, and acknowledging where the state exists is necessary so as to navigate beyond this situation and not to sink entirely, and make it back to safer waters and to eventually to a new shore on the shared horizon. it is proposed that it is self-evident that this shared horizon is not the 'War of Terror' which is a Neoconservative construction which serves to promote and extend their ideology, and it is instead 'mideast peace' which would transform the existing situation from one of waves of turbulent chaos to one in which ships of state can progress through a shared ordering, and thus all proceed to a new horizon, in which peacemaking and prosperity of the 'world ship' of state becomes the basis for governance at world scale, and not nationalist competition as it current exists, and necessitates war, even by fiat of the .UN itself. as a context then, for .US grand strategy, then, it would be to say that the 'historical trajectory' of the .US as a dominator of world affairs and as a singular 'superpower' are ideologically unhelpful to navigating in such a situation as it now exists, and a different mindset which is based on cooperation and shared endeavors which engage world issues in a shared world perspective would be much more useful and helpful, at home and abroad, if to secure energy supplies, decrease pollution, address climate change, among myriad other issues which are currently beyond the reasoning and logic of those in the engine rooms of these ships of state. or, 'chips' of state, whathaveyou. where the transistors/individuals now exist primarily in binary logic and cannot engage paradoxical situations and thus bias the decision-making to certain limited views and patterns which work against the very issues seeking to be addressed-- thus creating the problem that is trying to be resolved. and, as such, that changing the basic logic, and thus the reality, would given new options by which to proceed as the processing of states are linked in with eachother in a shared circuitry, etc. the point of trying to envision it in such ways is to make tangible the fact that the basic conception that exists and is failing to engage this situation is divorced from the reality of events themselves, in a tangible sense which models the situation in an intelligent way that can allow for cybernetic feedback and adaptation in the environment, and instead it is this lack of modeling this situation, conceptually, that everything exists instead in terms of the events it creates that need to be described: crashes, shipwrecks, and short-circuiting as the status-quo route, and the result of staying on the present course- ultimately toward only increasing entropy and destruction. so, as grand strategy, it is an issue of a historical failure and also a failure of present .US administration which takes this to the level of extreme bloodsport, and then calls it political art, and beyond description. this is simply not good enough. millions are suffering as a result of this maladaptive and unenlightened .US strategy, and hundreds of thousands are dying - and this is said to be the freedom the .US gifts the world. and instead of such an approach, based on destruction, there is the potential for 'building' this new ordering based in infrastructure, and electromagnetic infrastructure in particular which becomes an architectural order which can begin forming these new relations in this circuitry, using tools, buildings, and systems to concretize these ideas into material form, to solidify the goals into something that will endure through centuries even, yet the existing state of affairs is ideologically opposed to the basic notion of a shared responsibility to be addressing such world concerns, even of its own public citizens, which have been turned into its subjects. it is this aspect of the .US government as it now exists - that this 'transparent codevelopment' of Mideast Peace through development of electromagnetic infrastructure and architectural ordering are placed outside the special interests of corporate government, and it is here that the ideals of democracy are demoted to those of a dictatorship and its narrow worldview. thus, while an organic approach to 'solving' the existing crises is put on the table, the Neoconservatives ignore all these options so as to continue to move in the pre-planned direction, regardless of facts or public will. it is to say that 'decison-making' is so biased and distorted that this public reality is basically censored out of .US governance and its relation to the world, and that this is how the .US ship of state is being governed/steered in this very moment. in other words, basically, the wheel has been broken off, and the masts are snapped and the sails are ripped and the hull is cracked and it is taking on water and it is noticeably sinking and the waves are only increasing in size and then Captain Ahab still stands on the deck, pointing at the whale, and demanding to pursue it into the depths of total oblivion. (this may be a allegory as to the end of imperial America as an idea, in terms of the limits of modernism, machines, ideas, versus another reality altogether, that may exist in another scale of (cosmic) planning.) in any case, this is the context in which BLACKFLAG OPS (outside.US) are being proposed::: ---- **preface: it is proposed that what is going on in world affairs and with the .US in its current predicament is an indictment not only of the latest .US administration's approach to decision-making (in an historically broken bureaucratic system, no less, whereby this machinery of state is not functioning in the human interest, by default) -- it is further to propose that the basic .US strategy as a nation in the world is, itself, unsustainable in a fundamental and basic way, and that the current events are also an indication of a worldview and projection of national power that is unsustainable at the world-scale, given the complexity of events - and thus, what may have been manageable in terms of having a world-wide basing structure may collapse under its own weight if the basic functioning of the system cannot sustain its core missions, less its extensions around the globe as satellite projects of the existing 'international' alliance of western countries. and that this necessitates questioning the .UN in relation to this dynamic of nationalism with it, which it almost seems to foster as a result of not being able to supersede it with a superior way of functioning beyond nationalist power, competition, and conquest which ultimately leads to breakdown in 'international governance' which ends in nations going to war with eachother, a mission the .UN was to prevent. yet if this is not functioning in a way that can 'fix' the existing problems between nations in an international community, then it would become an issue whereby the .UN could itself become the raison d'?tre for World War III - if it was to be taken as the status quo way of dealing with situations. for this reason, while there may be an issue of the .US 'falling' from this historical and nationalist supremacy (of imperial ambitions which failed in seeking attainment) -- that this 'controlled fall' under guidance in a State of Emergency could become a way of opening up this question of world organization and shared global ordering (of infrastructure, say) which goes beyond the .UN and its limitations which places everything in a context of nations, and could instead become the foundation for a 'world congress' or a series of large-scale building projects in many countries around the world, to develop a new global institution based on multipolar world organization which is balanced in a shared ecology, and to utilize the current situation to put shared agendas (of all other nations in the world, with competing/cooperating interests) into something that goes beyond nationalist agendas, and redefines/recontextualizes the basic structural relation between peoples beyond 'nations' -- such as, using 'human rights' and 'states' and 'citizenry' as the way in which to model issues and reason beyond bureaucratic mindsets stuck in unchanging historical perspectives that make the question and necessity of 'governance' at the world-scale moot in the context of the .UN and its bureaucracy which is now winding itself down... thus, issues such as how NATO would relate to this new world-scale of shared issues yet outside nationalist definition (of religion or economic agendas) - could allow multiple forces (say, .IN, .RU, .CN, .US, .SA, other) to bring help to stabilize Darfur, without making this into a political-economic issue of nations which compete for other agendas at the same time. that is, taking bias out of the existing circuitry, and seeking to rebalance it by looking at it as a total ecology/circuitry, and how to get things done that need doing, yet right now are impossible, given the way things exist in world-organization. thus, the following is to be moving in such a direction, as a suggestion... GUANTANAMO BAY PRISON // public service announcement OPEN for international human rights & Red Cross inspections CLOSE for violating human rights in the name of democracy ----- End forwarded message ----- # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net