NationStates Jolt Archive

"There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing."

- A US Army intelligence officer.

Read the rest of the article below:

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/97summer/peters.htm

I would particularly welcome commentary on this article from conservatives in the US.

I would particularly welcome commentary on this article from conservatives in the US.

This is a must read for anyone who cares about the future of the world...

I'm surprised the guy who wrote this hasn't been assassinated and the article destroyed...

It is the realization of "1984" -- "perpetual war is perpetual peace"
the idea is that our ruling masters will tank the middle class by wasting our GDP on bombs and aircraft-carriers...

Now, to answer your call:
As a conservative, I must point out this out to you:
"that deft liberal form of imperialism"

you see, conservatives are isolationist... imperialism is a liberal idealogy: the Neo-Cons are not conservatives ~ they are Bolsheviks!

He certainly painted a rosy picture of America. But I'm glad he tied in the cultural aspect. I've often heard that one moment, some one in the Middle East ia burning a flag, and the next day, he's wearing a Yankees cap, drinking a Coke. From what I've read, even some culturally proud nations, like France, accept the realities that the hamburger is as popular as a souflet. To basically sum up Mr. Peter's point, even if we are beaten militarily, America will never die for a long, long time to come. Why? Because we are a large part of the global cuture. Even 2000 years from now, excavations at Hollywood would be useless, because I'm sure that future archaeologists will find our movies addicting, and learn enough from them.

"There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing."

- A US Army intelligence officer.

Read the rest of the article below:

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/97summer/peters.htm

I would particularly welcome commentary on this article from conservatives in the US.

*strokes assault rifle*
What you talking about? Everything is fine...fine...

Hardly surprising news, sounds reasonable. Now I'll go read the link...

"We have entered an age of constant conflict."?


We have always been in an age of constant conflict lol. I don't believe that there's a day gone by in human history when there hasn't been some sort of violent conflict.

Great article, thanks. Peters spoke at the very outset about the importance of managing information. It brought to mind the European exploration of the globe in the early part of the 15th century, the mapmakers. Then, the countries with the best maps controlled destiny. An apt comparison to the power of information in our age.

And, that article was written more than 6 years ago!!

Great article, thanks. Peters spoke at the very outset about the importance of managing information. It brought to mind the European exploration of the globe in the early part of the 15th century, the mapmakers. Then, the countries with the best maps controlled destiny. An apt comparison to the power of information in our age.

And, that article was written more than 6 years ago!!
Of course, as he said, the difference is with managing it. Nothing can remain a secret these days. The important thing is what you do with what you know, not exactly what you know. The world, in that respect, has changed dramatically in the past century.

Well, he is right, to a point. There can never be true peace in the world, human nature wouldn't allow it, it constantly wants to fight for something, from a piece of candy when your a kid, to a that easy bit of land to the east, there can be no peace, unless of course we kill everyone, then there's no worry.

Well, he is right, to a point. There can never be true peace in the world, human nature wouldn't allow it, it constantly wants to fight for something, from a piece of candy when your a kid, to a that easy bit of land to the east, there can be no peace, unless of course we kill everyone, then there's no worry.

The only people that want wars are the people that make billions of dollars to make smart-bombs or make billions of dollars off of the natural resources of an "enemy" (opium, oil supply... ect)

Well, he is right, to a point. There can never be true peace in the world, human nature wouldn't allow it, it constantly wants to fight for something, from a piece of candy when your a kid, to a that easy bit of land to the east, there can be no peace, unless of course we kill everyone, then there's no worry.

The only people that want wars are the people that make billions of dollars to make smart-bombs or make billions of dollars off of the natural resources of an "enemy" (opium, oil supply... ect)

I want war, and run a bar/cafe. :wink: Not all war, of course, but war in some circumstances. I don't own any stock and have earned about 25k over the past 3 years.. Sometimes war is necessary, there's no need to bring classism into that.

"There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing."

- A US Army intelligence officer.

Read the rest of the article below:

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/97summer/peters.htm

I would particularly welcome commentary on this article from conservatives in the US.


He is right about the violence, peace is not coming anytime soon. On everything else is a goddamn nut! Cultural assault? I don't think so! I don't mind other cultures, people like him make America hated! Don't think for one second that Conservatives would support that lunatic!

Well, he is right, to a point. There can never be true peace in the world, human nature wouldn't allow it, it constantly wants to fight for something, from a piece of candy when your a kid, to a that easy bit of land to the east, there can be no peace, unless of course we kill everyone, then there's no worry.


YEAH! Kill everybody! KILL KILL KILL KILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Well, he is right, to a point. There can never be true peace in the world, human nature wouldn't allow it, it constantly wants to fight for something, from a piece of candy when your a kid, to a that easy bit of land to the east, there can be no peace, unless of course we kill everyone, then there's no worry.

The only people that want wars are the people that make billions of dollars to make smart-bombs or make billions of dollars off of the natural resources of an "enemy" (opium, oil supply... ect)

I want war, and run a bar/cafe. :wink: Not all war, of course, but war in some circumstances. I don't own any stock and have earned about 25k over the past 3 years.. Sometimes war is necessary, there's no need to bring classism into that.

"I want war" is the most foolish statement that I have seen yet.

And as to the "constantly wants to fight for something" remark, were you never taught to share? If not, your parents and teachers have done you a disservice.

Sorry TG, I know I am far from the conservative you were seeking, but to see such statements in print, I feel compelled to reply.

The only people that want wars are the people that make billions of dollars to make smart-bombs or make billions of dollars off of the natural resources of an "enemy" (opium, oil supply... ect)

Last I checked, Muslims/Arabs are one of the poorest groups of people in
the world, and they love to cause wars. I don't see them profiting from it.
War is a necessary evil, because people will never be able to just get along with one another. You can see that in a day care center.

Last I checked, Muslims/Arabs are one of the poorest groups of people in the world, and they love to cause wars.

Hmm. Not the slightest hint of massive over-generalisation there, is there? "Muslims/Arabs love to cause wars". Good grief. When the CIA helped to overthrow the democratic government of Iran in the 1950s, and installed the brutal dictatorship of the Shah, the Iranians were just asking for it, right? And when the West aided and abetted Saddam Hussein in his attacks on his own people, to the extent of selling him the chemical weapons, it was the Iraqi people's own fault. The whole long history of Western imperialism in North Africa and the Middle East is purely incidental, because "Muslims/Arabs love to cause wars". I bet they put all that oil under their sand and made us build our economies around it, too.

War is a necessary evil, because people will never be able to just get along with one another. You can see that in a day care center.

Do you know what else you'll see in a daycare centre? Babies, that's what. Is it not possible that we might actually grow up mentally as well as physically?

It is worthy of note that no democracy has ever gone to war with another democracy. This would seem to indicate that most people, when they are actually given the chance to influence the decision, do NOT want war. Perhaps the solution to perpetual global conflict is to spread democracy. Perhaps this is one reason why the USA's military-industrial complex has been so assiduous in overthrowing nascent democracies around the globe. Perhaps it's time the American public started doing something about that.

Hmm. Not the slightest hint of massive over-generalisation there, is there? "Muslims/Arabs love to cause wars".

Okay, I'll withdraw my comment. Arabs have always been a peaceful lot, that only want a peaceful coexistance with Israel and the US. :roll:



Do you know what else you'll see in a daycare centre? Babies, that's what. Is it not possible that we might actually grow up mentally as well as physically?

Well, you noticed my point that mankind lack of respect for others begins at a very young age. I know American schools no longer teach respect for other people, since I have 3 kids in school myself. I also know that most schools in Middle Eastern countries teach absolute hatred towards America/Israel.


It is worthy of note that no democracy has ever gone to war with another democracy. This would seem to indicate that most people, when they are actually given the chance to influence the decision, do NOT want war. Perhaps the solution to perpetual global conflict is to spread democracy. Perhaps this is one reason why the USA's military-industrial complex has been so assiduous in overthrowing nascent democracies around the globe. Perhaps it's time the American public started doing something about that.

I'll agree with you there. In theory, if every country in the world were some form of democracy, there would probably be no war. However, since that's not going to happen, there will always be a war going on somewhere. It's best to be prepared, and even preemptive when necessary.

Gore rocks. There's a very conservative comment.

"We have entered an age of constant conflict."?


We have always been in an age of constant conflict lol. I don't believe that there's a day gone by in human history when there hasn't been some sort of violent conflict.
I once read that there's been a British soldier in a combat situation somewhere in the world on every day since Britain was created 2 or 3 centuries ago.

Clappi: "Democracies don't go to war with other democracies" might be true but don't expect us to take from this that democracies are peaceful! No other form of government is more liable to populist moralistic crusading.

It was democratic Britain which declared 2 wars on Germany and which created the most powerful empire of the 19th century (Uk was mostly democratic then).

It was the democratic US which fought the "cold" war for 45 years all over the world. The US also dropped the only 2 atomic bombs ever used in anger killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in the biggest "war crimes" in history. The US has fought imperialist wars against Mexico, Spain, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and countless other nations.

Democratic France was aggressively imperialistic - particularly in North Africa/Middle East - until about 40 or 50 years ago. Hitler achieved power completely legally through the democratic process.

Isreal democratically chooses it's terrorist govt every few years and denies the same "privilage" to it's neighbours.

In the 20th century I'd bet that democratic govts started as many wars, conquered as many nations and confiscated more of it's population's wealth than any other form of govt over a comparable time scale.

Democracy might take the edge off the oppression by getting rid of the worst abuses of power (or rather diverting them onto foreigners) but it makes the abuses all the more permanent and dispicable by cloaking them in the guise of legitimacy and "freedom".

Okay, I'll withdraw my comment. Arabs have always been a peaceful lot, that only want a peaceful coexistance with Israel and the US. :roll:

Is it not possible that "Arabs", like the rest of humanity, cover a vast range of thought and opinion, as well as being influenced by their various histories? The statement that "Muslims/Arabs love to cause wars" is, frankly, nothing short of racist.


Do you know what else you'll see in a daycare centre? Babies, that's what. Is it not possible that we might actually grow up mentally as well as physically?

Well, you noticed my point that mankind lack of respect for others begins at a very young age. I know American schools no longer teach respect for other people, since I have 3 kids in school myself. I also know that most schools in Middle Eastern countries teach absolute hatred towards America/Israel.

Perhaps parents should teach their own children basic human values THEMSELVES. Just a thought. And what evidence do you have for the statement that "most schools in Middle Eastern countries teach absolute hatred towards America/Israel"? Many schools in Middle Eastern countries are nothing more than religious indoctrination centres. This is what you get when most people live in poverty -- a poverty which, to a large degree, is imposed on these nations by their histories. Histories which have been heavily influenced by western imperialism.

Muslim societies are far from blameless. Just as the west is far from blameless in its support for corrupt Middle-Eastern dictatorships.


It is worthy of note that no democracy has ever gone to war with another democracy. This would seem to indicate that most people, when they are actually given the chance to influence the decision, do NOT want war. Perhaps the solution to perpetual global conflict is to spread democracy. Perhaps this is one reason why the USA's military-industrial complex has been so assiduous in overthrowing nascent democracies around the globe. Perhaps it's time the American public started doing something about that.

I'll agree with you there. In theory, if every country in the world were some form of democracy, there would probably be no war. However, since that's not going to happen, there will always be a war going on somewhere. It's best to be prepared, and even preemptive when necessary.

It's certainly not going to happen when the USA and the west in general keeps undermining developing democracies and supporting dictatorships, is it? Yet despite this, democracy has spread. In my lifetime, democracy has established itself in Portugal, Spain, Greece, South Africa, and a whole raft of nations in Eastern Europe. It doesn't always come easy, and it doesn't always last (Pakistan is one example -- and one where CIA support for radical Islamic terrorists is particularly noticable).

By all means "be prepared", but don't try to pretend that the invasion of Iraq was "pre-emptive". What the hell was Saddam going to attack us with? Harsh language?

Clappi: "Democracies don't go to war with other democracies" might be true but don't expect us to take from this that democracies are peaceful! No other form of government is more liable to populist moralistic crusading.

It was democratic Britain which declared 2 wars on Germany and which created the most powerful empire of the 19th century (Uk was mostly democratic then).

Please bear in mind that a democracy is one which grants universal suffrage, and offers its citizens a valid range of choices. Britain, by this measure, was not democratic until 1928, when men and women got the vote on an equal basis (all men didn't get the vote until 1918). So an undemocratic Britain declared war on an even more undemocratic Germany in 1914, as a result of a catastrophic failure of European power-diplomacy. A democratic Britain declared war on a hideous, evil, despotic Germany in 1939. In both cases, Germany was hardly blameless. The British declaration of war on Nazi Germany was NOT "populist moralistic crusading" -- something you'll find a lot more of under dictatorships. Just take a look at censorship in China, say, or the old Soviet Union, or Franco's Spain, or Pinochet's Chile. Take a look at the state-sponsored murder of civilians in those countries, too.

It was the democratic US which fought the "cold" war for 45 years all over the world. The US also dropped the only 2 atomic bombs ever used in anger killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in the biggest "war crimes" in history. The US has fought imperialist wars against Mexico, Spain, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and countless other nations.

The US did fight the Cold War against the totalitarian Soviet Union. I have my problems with America, but there is no doubt in my mind that I was born on the right side of the Iron Curtain. The USA has fought imperialist wars, although arguably not that many as a democracy. Vietnam (to an extent) and Iraq II: The Revenge are the only two I can think of.

Democratic France was aggressively imperialistic - particularly in North Africa/Middle East - until about 40 or 50 years ago. Hitler achieved power completely legally through the democratic process.

Again, France was not a democracy until the early 20th century and, like other European countries, was saddled with a pre-democratic Imperial legacy. And Hitler did not achieve power through the democratic process: with 1/3 of the vote, he manipulated the tense political situation and engineered a coup.

Isreal democratically chooses it's terrorist govt every few years and denies the same "privilage" to it's neighbours.

Israel, too, has its problems. However, the greatest -- the only -- hope for peace between Israel and its neighbours is through a democratic process on all sides.

In the 20th century I'd bet that democratic govts started as many wars, conquered as many nations and confiscated more of it's population's wealth than any other form of govt over a comparable time scale.

I'll take that bet. Do you have anything to back up this claim?

Democracy might take the edge off the oppression by getting rid of the worst abuses of power (or rather diverting them onto foreigners) but it makes the abuses all the more permanent and dispicable by cloaking them in the guise of legitimacy and "freedom".

Garbage. In the absense of a functional anarchy, democracy is the best deal going. It requires work, though: it is necessary for the electorate to be vigilant, informed and thoughtful. The current degeneration of democracy in the UK into a 4- or 5-yearly beauty contest is a matter of grave concern. We're becoming like the USA, where only the centre-right or hard-right can win. By thus disenfranchising large chunks of the electorate -- by removing from large demographic groups the option to vote for anyone that will adequately represent their interests -- we run the risk of sliding into oligarchy and corporatism. If that happens, then you'll really see some abuse of power, believe me.

Is it not possible that "Arabs", like the rest of humanity, cover a vast range of thought and opinion, as well as being influenced by their various histories? The statement that "Muslims/Arabs love to cause wars" is, frankly, nothing short of racist.

I hate the Arab culture in the middle east because of the myriad of problems that it causes in the world. I do not hate any particular race of people, or any single person for that matter (except Hillary Clinton :P ).
If hating a culture makes me a racist, I guess I'll have to be okay with that.


Perhaps parents should teach their own children basic human values THEMSELVES. Just a thought.

Very true. Unfortunately, that's not happening very much in America anymore. The parents are just as bad as, if not worse than, the kids!


And what evidence do you have for the statement that "most schools in Middle Eastern countries teach absolute hatred towards America/Israel"? Many schools in Middle Eastern countries are nothing more than religious indoctrination centres.

Kinda answered your own question there.
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are the first 3 countries that come to mind. "Students" spend their days chanting versus from the Koran, and learning how evil the US is.


It's certainly not going to happen when the USA and the west in general keeps undermining developing democracies and supporting dictatorships, is it?


I'll have to plead ignorance on this one. What legitimate democracy has the US undermined?

We have supported dictatorships when it met our needs, but only until
their usefulness ran out.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Perhaps parents should teach their own children basic human values THEMSELVES. Just a thought.

Very true. Unfortunately, that's not happening very much in America anymore. The parents are just as bad as, if not worse than, the kids!


And what evidence do you have for the statement that "most schools in Middle Eastern countries teach absolute hatred towards America/Israel"? Many schools in Middle Eastern countries are nothing more than religious indoctrination centres.

Kinda answered your own question there.
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are the first 3 countries that come to mind. "Students" spend their days chanting versus from the Koran, and learning how evil the US is.

To be honest, Arabs don't have to be taught in schools to hate America.
You have to remember that, from an Arab perspective, much of what the USA does is evil, or at least decidedly anti-Arab. Many hate the USA because of its uncritical support for Israel -- a running sore that will poison Arab-western relationships until it's sorted out. Many more hate America because of America's historical and continued support for corrupt, despotic, anti-democratic Middle-Eastern regimes like the Shah of Iran, the House of Saud, and Saddam Hussein, to name but a few. American support for the extremist wing of the Afghani Mujahaddin, which became the Taliban, hardly stands out as a beacon of hope and goodwill, either. Nor the training and arming of Al-Qaeda.

Partly, it's because -- with little or no experience of it themselves -- they don't understand how (particularly American) democracy works. It is often thought that, because successive American governments pursue these foreign policies, the American people must support and approve of them. It's not commonly appreciated that US elections seldom deal with foreign policy at all: to Arab eyes, it looks like democracy isn't something the USA wants to share.


It's certainly not going to happen when the USA and the west in general keeps undermining developing democracies and supporting dictatorships, is it?


I'll have to plead ignorance on this one. What legitimate democracy has the US undermined?

1953: Operation Ajax. With support from the UK, the CIA orchestrated the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, and installed the Shah's police state. Not unreasonably, the Iranian people have held something of a grudge since then.

1954: The CIA engineers the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Guatemala; 30 years of military dictatorship, repression, and violence follow.

1965: Johnson sends 22,000 troops to the Dominican Republic to combat the constitutional forces trying to regain power.

1973: The CIA helps overthrow the democratic government of Allende in Chile in favor of a bloody dictatorship under General Pinochet.

1980s: The USA funds and supports the drug-dealing, murderous Contra terrorist insurgents attacking the democratically elected government of Nicaragua. Proving that not all Americans lack a sense of irony, they channel money, drugs and weapons through Iran to facilitate the butchery of thousands of Nicaraguan civilians. (BTW, is it true that Fox News sent Ollie North to Iraq as a war correspondent, teamed up with Geraldo? Or was this a satirical joke I heard? I tell you, man, it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference.)

Time and my lack of total recall here at the keyboard prevent me including CIA shenanigans in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and the UK, or the catastrophic missed opportunity in Cuba once Castro's forces had driven out Batista's Mafia regime.

We have supported dictatorships when it met our needs, but only until their usefulness ran out.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Unfortunately, too often "your needs" were merely what was convenient to US Big Business. United Fruit and the Metal Box Company, to name but two, have peculiarly bloody histories, especially in Central and South America.

I admit that, during the Cold War, America and the West probably made some dodgy deals as part of a larger conflict -- just as we allied ourselves with Stalin against Hitler. The main one that springs to mind was the (mainly US) training, arming and encouragement of fundamentalist Islamic terror groups -- a sensible if cynical thing to do in a Cold War against an enemy with a large, often oppressed, Islamic population. Having sown the wind, though, we are now reaping the whirlwind.

Now that the Cold War is over, though, we have absolutely no excuse. However, because we have spent the last 50+ years running a war economy, we have -- as Eisenhower warned -- created a vast, powerful, pro-war constituency, which actively seeks conflict all over the world. The "War on Terror" is, to them, perfect: an unwinnable, unloseable war, one that will keep the state funding flowing to their factories and agencies for ever. This is why we are being driven to perpetual war: money. And this is what we have to fight against.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality is a mistake the United States has been making since day one. We allied ourselves with the French during the Revolution, and by John Adams' (the senior) administration, we were fighting an undeclared naval war against them.
During the American Civil War, the southern states were seriously courting both the British and French (and, had they gotten rid of slaves before Gettysburg, an alliance could have come about). Some historians speculate that had the Confederacy, with the help of the British and French, maintained independence from the northern states, there may have been an American front of World War I with the Confederate States allied to the British, French, Russians, Arabs, etc. and the United States allied to the Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, Ottoman Turks, et al.
Of course, the temporary alliance with Stalin against Hitler during World War II has already been mentioned. But afterwards, when the USSR and USA became bitter enemies, Americans who volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil War against Franco prior to World War II were looked down upon for being "prematurely anti-fascist."
There's also the whole thing with arming the Arab world to keep them from going Communist. Ironically my father, who worked for a couple different intelligence organizations, was a cryptologist and an Arab linguist. However, the extent of his spying was to make sure the Arabs weren't courting the Russians, and he was retired from the intelligence community for roughly 20 years before Muslim extremists recently became enemy number 1.

And in case anyone was wondering, I consider myself "slightly conservative."

Hmm. Not the slightest hint of massive over-generalisation there, is there? "Muslims/Arabs love to cause wars".

Okay, I'll withdraw my comment. Arabs have always been a peaceful lot, that only want a peaceful coexistance with Israel and the US. :roll:
That retort was lame. You got owned. Owned with a P!

The author of the article under the link makes a few good points but misses the big picture more often than not.

For instance, he seems to believe in a culural struggle in which the "West" and particularly the US are the agressors and wiling participants. I've never traveled abroad but I've never heard of guns to heads at McDonalds anywhere in the world or arms being twisted to force people see American movies or head-phones being glued to ears to force people to listen to American music. In fact, whenever America produces things intentionally to export American culture those things always fail, Euro-Disney case and point. Americans produce things that entertain Americans, the rest of you seem to like them as well. The conflicted way in which the world handles American culture and entertainment doesn't, in my view, demonstrate the vile nature of Americans but the hypocrisy of the rest of the world. You claim you hate the US and everything we are but you love American movies and music and games and US dollars... ect. ect. This "cultural struggle" is less of our making than it is of the world's inability to come to grips with us. And those who see American films and T.V. and think those are an acurate representation of the US deseve thier ignorance and beg for thier obscurity and inifference in the eyes of Americans.

Next, there is the underlying theme in the article that "non-competitive cultures" are victims. Who is forcing them to cling to centuries old doctorines? Why do they have less access to imformation? Why do they have less control over the fate of themselves and thier nations? The main culture used as an example by the author, the Muslim Arabs, would seem to me to be one of the best places in the world for democracy to take hold. They are overwhelmingly racialy homogeneous.They are nearly exclusively of the same religion and background. Thier nations sit atop mineral wealth that the rest of theworld dreams of.The impediments that restrained deomdracy in Europe and the US don't exist there. Yet they continue to live under the thumbs of a few. Why? Because of a nation 3000 miles away? I don't think so. Does it stem from thier own inflexibility? That's the only explanation I can see.

Lastly, there is the idea that infantry with information technology will replace the Airforce and Navy. Planes give one or two men the power to project more force than hundreds on the ground can. Planes also give men the ability to travel great distances very quickly. Ships allow men to project force over great distances and linger in hostile areas for long durations in relative safety. The soldier on the ground is and will for the foreseeible future be the heart of every miltary force in the world, he cannot stand alone against a numerically superior force, whoch the US always seems to face.

He did have one thing right though, peace is not coming. Everything that is obvious(technology, education, communications, philosophy) have changed. The only thing that hasn't changed hides in plain sight because we are invisible to ourselves. People are the constant. People never change.

Having read the entire article, I, as a Conservative, wonder why the viewpoint of Conservatives was asked for in the first place. This is an article that was written in the middle of Clintons second term and as such reflects more on what the Liberal response would be.
As for my impression, towards this article, I find it to be poorly written, making far too much use of doublespeak. If taken as a whole, it appears to be the ramblings of a very Anti-American mind. It tries to make similarities between the two main political parties, in the US, that are simply not there. The main purpose behind this appears to be able to say that America will be the downfall of the world as we know it.
This is an example of a very disturbed mind coming up with a way to blame the US for all the misdeeds of the world.