www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> .US strategy backgrounder
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 {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net