Full Spectrum Dominance

By F. William Engdahl – Unbekoming Book Summary

I have learnt so much from Engdahl these last three years.

I’ve highlighted his work in these previous stacks:

1. A Century of War

2. Extremism

3. Berlin-Baghdad Railway

4. Bilderberg

5. "Fossil" Fuel

6. Glyphosate

If there is one book on modern history that I would recommend to anyone, it’s A Century of War, I honestly don’t think you can understand our modern world without it.

It provides excellent visibility on just what this vehicle of Empire is, and the Oligarchy that drives it.

To continue my highlighting and amplification of his work, here is Full Spectrum Dominance.

With thanks and gratitude to F. William Engdahl.

---

---

Full Spectrum Dominance

By F. William Engdahl

Books (williamengdahl.com)

33 Questions & Answers

Question 1: What is the central theme of F. William Engdahl's book "Full Spectrum Dominance"?

The central theme of F. William Engdahl's book "Full Spectrum Dominance" is the US pursuit of global hegemony through military, economic, and political means. The book argues that the US seeks to control the world's resources and maintain its position as the sole superpower by any means necessary, including covert regime change operations, military interventions, and control of vital energy resources.

Question 2: How did the US respond to Russia's proposal for mutual reductions in nuclear weapons after the end of the Cold War?

After the end of the Cold War, when Russia proposed mutual reductions in nuclear weapons, the US responded by secretly pursuing a policy of nuclear primacy. Instead of reciprocating Russia's disarmament efforts, the US sought to gain the ability to launch a first-strike nuclear attack without fear of retaliation, effectively undermining the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) that had maintained a delicate balance during the Cold War.

Question 3: What is the role of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in US foreign policy?

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a US government-funded organization that plays a key role in advancing US foreign policy objectives under the guise of promoting democracy and human rights. The NED funds and supports various NGOs, media outlets, and opposition groups in targeted countries to destabilize governments that are deemed unfriendly to US interests, often leading to covert regime change operations.

Question 4: How did the US use "Color Revolutions" to advance its geopolitical interests in Eurasia?

The US used "Color Revolutions" as a tactic to advance its geopolitical interests in Eurasia by orchestrating regime changes in countries of strategic importance. These revolutions, such as the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, were presented as grassroots pro-democracy movements but were in fact carefully planned and financed by US government agencies and NGOs to install pro-US governments and gain control over key energy routes and resources.

Question 5: What was the significance of the Yukos Affair in Russia under President Putin?

The Yukos Affair was a significant event in Russia under President Putin, as it marked a turning point in Russia's relations with the West. The arrest of Yukos CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky and the state's takeover of the company was seen as a move by Putin to reassert control over Russia's strategic energy assets and prevent them from falling under foreign control. This event signaled Russia's determination to resist US efforts to gain dominance over its energy resources and maintain its sovereignty.

Question 6: How did pipeline politics and energy geopolitics shape US strategy in Eurasia?

Pipeline politics and energy geopolitics played a crucial role in shaping US strategy in Eurasia. The US sought to control key energy routes and resources in the region to maintain its global dominance and prevent the emergence of rival powers such as Russia and China. This involved supporting the construction of pipelines that bypassed Russia, such as the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, and intervening in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq to secure access to oil and gas reserves.

Question 7: What was the role of Andrew Marshall and the Office of Net Assessment in shaping US military strategy?

Andrew Marshall, the long-time director of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, played a key role in shaping US military strategy. Known as the "Yoda" of the Pentagon, Marshall was a proponent of the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) doctrine, which emphasized the use of advanced technology, precision weapons, and information warfare to achieve military dominance. Marshall's ideas had a profound impact on US military planning and were embraced by top officials such as Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

Question 8: How did the Pentagon's Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) doctrine change warfare in the 21st century?

The Pentagon's Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) doctrine changed warfare in the 21st century by emphasizing the use of advanced technology, precision weapons, and information warfare to achieve military dominance. This doctrine led to the development of new weapons systems such as drones, cyber weapons, and space-based assets, as well as a focus on network-centric warfare and the integration of military operations with intelligence and communications systems. The RMA doctrine has shaped US military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other conflicts, and has had a significant impact on modern warfare.

Question 9: What was the purpose of the US Ballistic Missile Defense system in Europe?

The purpose of the US Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system in Europe was to give the US a first-strike nuclear capability against Russia. By deploying BMD systems in countries like Poland and the Czech Republic, the US sought to neutralize Russia's nuclear deterrent and gain a strategic advantage in any potential conflict. This move was seen as highly provocative by Russia and led to increased tensions between the two countries.

Question 10: How did the US use "human rights" and "democracy promotion" to advance its interests in China?

The US used "human rights" and "democracy promotion" as tools to advance its interests in China by supporting separatist movements, such as those in Tibet and Xinjiang, and by funding NGOs and media outlets that criticize the Chinese government. These activities were designed to destabilize China internally, limit its economic and military growth, and maintain US dominance in the region. The US also used these issues as leverage in trade negotiations and other disputes with China.

Question 11: What was the role of Tibet in US strategy to control China?

Tibet played a key role in US strategy to control China. By supporting the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan independence movement, the US sought to weaken China's control over its western provinces and create internal instability. The US provided financial and political support to Tibetan separatists and used the issue of human rights in Tibet to criticize and pressure the Chinese government. This strategy was part of a broader effort to contain China's rise and maintain US dominance in Asia.

Question 12: How did the US use the "War on Terror" to expand its military presence in Africa through AFRICOM?

The US used the "War on Terror" as a pretext to expand its military presence in Africa through the creation of the US Africa Command (AFRICOM). By claiming to fight terrorism and promote stability, the US was able to establish military bases and partnerships across the continent, particularly in resource-rich regions such as the Sahel and the Horn of Africa. In reality, AFRICOM's primary purpose was to secure US access to Africa's vast natural resources and counter the growing influence of China and other rivals in the region.

Question 13: What was the geopolitical significance of the US-backed war in Darfur, Sudan?

The US-backed war in Darfur, Sudan had significant geopolitical implications, as it was part of a broader strategy to control the region's oil resources and counter China's growing influence in Africa. Sudan's oil reserves had attracted significant investment from China, and the US saw this as a threat to its own interests. By supporting rebel groups in Darfur and portraying the conflict as a humanitarian crisis, the US sought to destabilize the Sudanese government and gain leverage over the country's oil industry.

Question 14: How did the US use NGOs like the Albert Einstein Institution to orchestrate regime change operations?

The US used NGOs like the Albert Einstein Institution to orchestrate regime change operations by providing training, funding, and support to opposition groups in targeted countries. These NGOs, which claim to promote nonviolent resistance and democracy, in fact serve as front organizations for US intelligence agencies and are used to destabilize governments that are deemed hostile to US interests. The Albert Einstein Institution, for example, played a key role in the "Color Revolutions" in Eastern Europe and has been involved in numerous other regime change operations around the world.

Question 15: What was the role of RAND Corporation in developing US military strategy and doctrine?

The RAND Corporation, a nonprofit think tank funded by the US government and military contractors, played a significant role in developing US military strategy and doctrine. RAND's experts, such as Andrew Marshall and Albert Wohlstetter, were influential in shaping concepts like nuclear deterrence, strategic bombing, and the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA). RAND's research and analysis helped to guide US military planning and decision-making, and its ideas were often adopted by top Pentagon officials and policymakers.

Question 16: How did the US use the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries?

The US used the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries by funding and supporting opposition groups, media outlets, and NGOs that aligned with US interests. The NED, which presents itself as a promoter of democracy and human rights, in reality serves as a tool of US foreign policy and is used to undermine governments that are seen as hostile or uncooperative. Through the NED, the US has funded and orchestrated numerous regime change operations, color revolutions, and other interventions in countries around the world.

Question 17: What was the purpose of the US "Saffron Revolution" in Myanmar?

The purpose of the US-backed "Saffron Revolution" in Myanmar was to destabilize the country's military government and promote regime change. By supporting Buddhist monks and opposition groups, the US sought to create a pro-democracy movement that would install a government more aligned with US interests. The ultimate goal was to gain control over Myanmar's strategic location and natural resources, particularly its oil and gas reserves, and to counter the growing influence of China in the region.

Question 18: How did the Pentagon's "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine shape US military strategy?

The Pentagon's "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine shaped US military strategy by emphasizing the need for total control over all aspects of warfare, including land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. This doctrine called for the development of advanced weapons systems, the integration of military operations with intelligence and communications networks, and the ability to strike anywhere in the world with overwhelming force. Full Spectrum Dominance was seen as essential for maintaining US global hegemony and preventing the rise of potential challengers such as Russia and China.

Question 19: What was the role of Zbigniew Brzezinski in shaping US geopolitical strategy towards Eurasia?

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a prominent US geostrategist and former National Security Advisor, played a key role in shaping US geopolitical strategy towards Eurasia. Brzezinski argued that control over Eurasia was essential for maintaining US global primacy, and he advocated for a policy of preventing the emergence of any rival power that could challenge US dominance in the region. He was a strong proponent of NATO expansion, the "Color Revolutions," and other interventionist policies designed to extend US influence and control over key countries and regions in Eurasia.

Question 20: How did the US use "strategic shocks" and "catastrophic events" to advance its military agenda?

The US used "strategic shocks" and "catastrophic events" as pretexts for advancing its military agenda and expanding its global reach. Events such as the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Iraq War, and the "Color Revolutions" in Eastern Europe were exploited by the US to justify military interventions, regime change operations, and the expansion of US military bases and presence around the world. By presenting these events as existential threats to US security and interests, the US was able to mobilize public support and resources for its military campaigns and geopolitical objectives.

Question 21: What was the significance of the US recognition of Kosovo's independence for Balkan geopolitics?

The US recognition of Kosovo's independence had significant implications for Balkan geopolitics, as it set a precedent for the redrawing of borders and the creation of new states in the region. By supporting Kosovo's secession from Serbia, the US sought to extend its influence and control over the Balkans and to counter the influence of Russia, which had traditionally been a key ally of Serbia. The recognition of Kosovo also served to further fragment and destabilize the region, creating opportunities for the US to intervene and shape political outcomes in its favor.

Question 22: How did US policy towards Afghanistan aim to encircle Russia and China?

US policy towards Afghanistan aimed to encircle Russia and China by establishing a permanent military presence in the country and using it as a base for power projection across Central Asia. By occupying Afghanistan, the US gained a strategic foothold in the heart of Eurasia, allowing it to monitor and potentially disrupt the activities of its geopolitical rivals. The US also sought to control Afghanistan's vast mineral resources and to use the country as a transit route for energy pipelines that would bypass Russia and China, thus enhancing US economic and strategic dominance in the region.

Question 23: What was the role of drug trafficking in US military operations in Afghanistan?

Drug trafficking played a significant role in US military operations in Afghanistan, as the US turned a blind eye to the massive increase in opium production that occurred under its occupation. Despite official claims of fighting a "war on drugs," the US military and intelligence agencies actively collaborated with warlords and drug traffickers who were allied with the US-backed government in Kabul. The profits from the drug trade helped to finance US military operations and to buy the loyalty of local power brokers, while also destabilizing the country and undermining efforts to establish effective governance and rule of law.

Question 24: How did the US use the September 11, 2001 attacks to justify a global "War on Terror"?

The US used the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as a pretext for launching a global "War on Terror" that has served to justify military interventions, regime change operations, and the expansion of US power and influence around the world. By presenting the attacks as an existential threat to US security and way of life, the US was able to mobilize public support and resources for a massive military buildup and a series of wars and interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries. The "War on Terror" has also been used to justify the erosion of civil liberties, the expansion of surveillance and security state powers, and the pursuit of geopolitical objectives that have little to do with fighting terrorism.

Question 25: What was the role of oil and energy geopolitics in shaping US military interventions in the Middle East?

Oil and energy geopolitics played a central role in shaping US military interventions in the Middle East, as the US sought to maintain control over the region's vast hydrocarbon resources and to prevent the emergence of any rival power that could challenge its dominance. The US has a long history of supporting authoritarian regimes and intervening militarily in the Middle East to secure access to oil and gas reserves, and to protect the interests of US energy companies. The invasion of Iraq in 2003, for example, was driven in large part by the desire to control Iraq's vast oil wealth and to establish a permanent US military presence in the heart of the Middle East.

Question 26: How did the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans manipulate intelligence to justify the 2003 Iraq War?

The Pentagon's Office of Special Plans (OSP) played a key role in manipulating intelligence to justify the 2003 Iraq War by cherry-picking and exaggerating evidence of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs and links to terrorist groups. The OSP, which was set up by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and led by neoconservative ideologues such as Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, worked to bypass the normal intelligence analysis process and to feed questionable and often fabricated intelligence directly to top policymakers in the Bush administration. This intelligence was used to build public support for the war and to provide a false justification for the US invasion of Iraq, which was in fact driven by geopolitical and economic interests rather than any genuine threat to US security.

Question 27: What was the role of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in shaping US foreign policy?

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neoconservative think tank founded in 1997, played a significant role in shaping US foreign policy in the years leading up to and following the September 11, 2001 attacks. PNAC's members, who included many future high-ranking officials in the Bush administration such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, advocated for a more aggressive and militaristic US foreign policy that would seek to maintain and expand US global dominance through the use of force. PNAC's policy recommendations, which included regime change in Iraq, the expansion of US military power, and the prevention of the emergence of any rival superpower, had a major influence on the Bush administration's foreign policy decisions and helped to shape the "War on Terror" and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Question 28: How did the US use "democracy promotion" to interfere in the internal affairs of Venezuela?

The US used "democracy promotion" as a cover for interfering in the internal affairs of Venezuela and seeking to undermine and overthrow the government of Hugo Chavez. Through organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the US provided funding and support to Venezuelan opposition groups and media outlets that were working to destabilize the Chavez government. The US also supported a failed coup attempt against Chavez in 2002, and has continued to impose economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure on Venezuela in an effort to bring about regime change and install a government more friendly to US interests. These actions have been justified in the name of promoting democracy and human rights, but in reality they serve to undermine Venezuelan sovereignty and self-determination.

Question 29: What was the purpose of the US Africa Command (AFRICOM)?

The purpose of the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) was to expand US military presence and influence in Africa and to secure US strategic interests on the continent. Established in 2007, AFRICOM was presented as a way to promote stability, security, and development in Africa through military-to-military partnerships and humanitarian assistance. However, its real purpose was to counter the growing influence of China and other rivals in Africa, to secure access to the continent's vast natural resources, and to establish a network of military bases and alliances that would allow the US to project power and intervene in African affairs. AFRICOM has been involved in a range of military operations and training exercises across Africa, and has been criticized for militarizing US policy towards the continent and undermining African sovereignty and self-determination.

Question 30: How did the US use "strategic denial" to block China's access to vital resources in Africa?

The US used "strategic denial" to block China's access to vital resources in Africa by using its military and economic power to prevent Chinese companies from gaining control over key mineral and energy assets on the continent. Through AFRICOM and other military and intelligence programs, the US has sought to establish a dominant presence in resource-rich regions of Africa and to cultivate alliances with local governments and militaries that would allow it to control and exploit these resources. The US has also used its influence in international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF to pressure African governments to reject Chinese investment and to adopt policies favorable to US interests. By denying China access to African resources, the US hopes to limit China's economic and military growth and to maintain its own global dominance.

Question 31: What was the role of private military contractors like Blackwater in US foreign policy?

Private military contractors like Blackwater (later renamed Xe Services and then Academi) played a significant role in US foreign policy by providing armed security services, military training, and other support to US military and intelligence operations around the world. These contractors operated with little oversight or accountability, and were often used to carry out sensitive and controversial missions that the US government wanted to keep at arm's length. Blackwater, in particular, was notorious for its aggressive tactics and human rights abuses, including the killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. The use of private military contractors allowed the US to expand its military presence and influence around the world without the need for official troop deployments or congressional approval, and to avoid public scrutiny and legal consequences for its actions.

Question 32: How did the Obama administration continue the military policies of the Bush administration?

The Obama administration largely continued the military policies of the Bush administration, despite promises of change and a new approach to foreign policy. Obama maintained and even expanded many of the controversial programs and practices of the "War on Terror," including drone strikes, indefinite detention, and the use of military commissions to try terrorism suspects. He also surged troops into Afghanistan and launched new military interventions in Libya, Syria, and other countries, often without congressional approval or clear legal justification. While Obama did take some steps to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he also presided over a massive expansion of US special operations forces and covert military actions around the world. Overall, the Obama administration's foreign policy was characterized by a continuation of the militaristic and interventionist approach of the Bush years, albeit with a more multilateral and rhetorically restrained veneer.

Question 33: What are the dangers of the US pursuing a policy of "nuclear primacy" against Russia and China?

The dangers of the US pursuing a policy of "nuclear primacy" against Russia and China are profound and potentially catastrophic. Nuclear primacy refers to the ability of one nuclear power to launch a first-strike attack that would destroy the other side's nuclear forces before they could be used, thus leaving the attacker with a monopoly on nuclear violence. The US pursuit of nuclear primacy through the development of new offensive weapons, missile defense systems, and other technologies is deeply destabilizing and increases the risk of a nuclear war. By seeking to gain a decisive advantage over Russia and China, the US is essentially abandoning the principles of deterrence and mutual assured destruction that have helped to prevent nuclear war for decades. This could lead to a new arms race, as Russia and China seek to counter US advances, and could increase the likelihood of a nuclear conflict erupting through miscalculation or accident. In a world with thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, the pursuit of nuclear primacy is a recipe for unimaginable destruction and suffering.

---

---

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

For COVID vaccine injury

Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.