portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting global

9.11 investigation

Climate Change,Pentagon's Weather Nightmare,& ANDREW MARSHALL as OZ WIZARD OF 9-11

It seems that Andrew Marshall is the strategist, while front men like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Bush, and others are amanuenses and factotums. In other words, Andrew Marshall is one of the people, like in the Wizard of Oz, of whom you are supposed to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." However, he is pulling the strings and the one making the plans--particularly the plans for the Pentagon's "transformation/revolution" in miltiary affairs, that is moving the US military into a 'quick-global strike in-and-out' organization--using unmanned air vehicles and global satellite surveillance of all kinds. Notice his other concern: global environmental change. The public construction of the 9-11 events as "international terror" link up with the same networks of Marshallites that are concerned with global environmental change. The 9-11 story has provided them with their ONLY justification for the policies they want to implant across the world. Without 9-11, this Marshallite future would be dead on arrival. This is an article about Marshall, from information freely available around the net, with some commentary about connections and appointment in the Bush Administration that were in place for by 9-11-01.
Andrew Marshall, Dir., Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment (Nixon thru Bush II)
Andrew Marshall, Dir., Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment (Nixon thru Bush II)
TENTATIVE TITLE: Forget the Straussians, Meet the Marshallites behind them--and note that Straussians are a subset of the Marshallites


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

Some comments before we begin to set the tone. This quote:

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

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

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

I would put it well within a "Bush Administration mindset" to set these fires in California intentionally, and then attempt to reap the political fallout, because these plans have a HUGE opposition to on the West Coast--further destruction of their forests without any plans for how to recoup the damage to their soil, climates, economies, and their quality of life.

Another huge opposition pre-9-11 was (and still is) the questionable legitimacy of the global corporate form in general as a framework of global development, and the expansion of sweatshops with the demotion of unions, and, in general, the privitization of whole nation-state economies by the IMF and other global bankers--as they hollowing out our citizenship in their biased views of corporate developmentalism and privitization. It seems that 9-11 was used to change the subject here as well, just like the likely intentionally set 'wildfires' were used to justify continued logging and to stifle citizen concern about corporate logging. Is 9-11 and the subsequent 'war on terror' a global arson crime, which, in being called 'wildfire,' is being used to justify domestic crackdowns globally, and push for international wars of energy and water consolidation? Were the 9-11 events an experimental test, to boot, of all these novel technologies that were suddenly politically valid in the 'post 9-11' enviroment. However, the political environment is the same as the pre-9-11 environment, since 9-11 was only more state terror. However, it was state terror of a different sort in terms of its scale: 9-11 was the globe's first Reichstag Fire--the first attempt by international elites to basically set themselves up a fascist international state and surveillance apparatus without any democratic feedback.


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

I quote the UK article:

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

Some more introductory information on Marshall, from a Wired News article, which I put completely below, later:

Named director of the Office of Net Assessment by Richard Nixon and
***reappointed by every president since***, the DOD's most elusive
official has become one of its most influential. Today, Marshall - along
with his star protgs Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz - is ***drafting President
Bush's plan*** to upgrade the military.

It seems he is the strategist while the front men like Rummy and Cheney and others are amanuenses and factotums. In other words, Andrew Marshall is one of the people, like in the Wizard of Oz, of whom you are supposed to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Though he is pulling the strings.



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

Several articles (9), all numbered:


Full article from Wired News:

The Marshall Plan
(Wired News)

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

By Douglas McGray

Andrew Marshall, the Pentagon's 81-year-old futurist-in-chief, fiddles
with his security badge, squints, looks away, smiles, and finally speaks
in a voice that sounds like Gene Hackman trying not to wake anybody. Known
as Yoda in defense circles, Marshall doesn't need to shout to be heard.

Named director of the Office of Net Assessment by Richard Nixon and
reappointed by every president since, the DOD's most elusive official has
become one of its most influential. Today, Marshall - along with his star
protgs Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and
Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz - is drafting President Bush's plan to
upgrade the military. Supporters believe the force he envisions will be
faster and more lethal; critics say it relies on unproven technology. As
US troops gathered overseas, Marshall sat for a rare interview.

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

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

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

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

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

Are there revolutionary developments that don't involve combat?

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

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

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

Has anything happened that surprised you?

The rapidity of the collapse of the Soviet Union surprised me. I thought
they were in trouble, but the rapidity and completeness of the withdrawal
were really striking.

Is there a precedent for one country staying on top through a series of
military revolutions? Or does one country always leapfrog another?

Through most of the 19th century, the British Navy exhibited that kind of
thing. But it was quite interesting the way they did it. They tended to
let other countries, mainly France, do the early experiments and come out
with new kinds of ships. If something looked like a good idea, they could
come in and quickly overtake the innovator. They seemed to do that as a
way of capitalizing on their advantage and saving resources.

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

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

For instance?

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

You're known for following technology outside the traditional realm of
national security. Pharmaceuticals, for instance.

People who are connected with neural pharmacology tell me that new classes
of drugs will be available relatively shortly, certainly within the
decade. These drugs are just like natural chemicals inside people, only
with behavior-modifying and performance-enhancing characteristics. One of
the people I talk to jokes that a future intelligence problem is going to
be knowing what drugs the other guys are on.

In an era of terrorism and peacekeeping, are Cold War ideas based on
striking a big enemy from afar and defending against missile attack still

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

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


Douglas McGray interviewed J. Craig Venter in Wired 10.12.




Andrew Marshall

Andrew W. Marshall, "the Pentagon's 81-year-old futurist-in-chief, fiddles
with his security badge, squints, looks away, smiles, and finally speaks
in a voice that sounds like Gene Hackman trying not to wake anybody. Known
as Yoda in defense circles, Marshall doesn't need to shout to be heard.
Named director of the Office of Net Assessment ("the Pentagon's internal
think tank"[1]) by Richard M. Nixon and reappointed by every president
since, the DOD's most elusive official has become one of its most
influential. Today, Marshall - along with his star protgs Vice President
Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz - is drafting President Bush's plan to upgrade the military."
"The Marshall Plan" by Douglas McGray, Wired, February 2003.

"Put in charge of the Bush administration's proposed major military
overhaul by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he has sharply polarized
the defense community. Marshall's allies and proteges revere him, calling
the Office of Net Assessment 'St. Andrew's Prep.' His enemies despise him,
deriding his acolytes as 'Jedi Knights'."[2] (See Andrew Marshall Acolytes
/ Jedi Knights for a listing.)

"Marshall played a major role in, among other things, the
conceptualization of the 'revolution in military affairs' (RMA) and is
currently playing a major role in the Bush administrations defense review
(Quadrennial Defense Review).

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

Robert Dreyfuss and Jason Vest identify Marshall as a neoconservative.[3]

The February 10, 2001, Washington Post article "Bush Review Of Pentagon
Sets Stage for a Shake-Up" by Thomas E. Ricks states that

"The military's opposition to Mr. Marshall's recommendations is 'likely to
be fierce,' predicted a person involved in the review. ...

But Mr. Marshall holds two aces. He has a decades-long relationship with
Mr. Rumsfeld. And the Bush campaign's defense stance, laid out in a speech
at the Citadel in South Carolina in September 1999, relied heavily on
ideas nurtured by Mr. Marshall over the years.

"The publicity-shy Mr. Marshall is something of a legend in national
security circles, both for his longevity and for his far-reaching network
of acolytes across the government, academia and the defense industry. At
79, he is said to be the only current Pentagon official who participated
in virtually the entire Cold War, beginning in 1949 as a nuclear
strategist for Rand Corp., then moving to the Pentagon as a civilian
official in 1973. He has been kept in his current job by every president
since Richard M. Nixon.

"Despite his age and experience, Mr. Marshall's views are hardly
conservative. In recent years, he has gained a reputation as a radical
reformer and has antagonized many top officers."

"'Today, our military is still more organized for Cold War threats than
for the challenges of a new century - for Industrial Age operations,
rather than for Information Age battles,' Mr. Bush said then. It was a
line that could have been taken from any number of reports produced by Mr.
Marshall's office, formally known as 'the Adviser to the Secretary of
Defense for Net Assessment.'"

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

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

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

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

From "Inside the Ring", April 6, 2001:

"If you want to research the writings of Andrew Marshall to see where his
Pentagon strategy review is likely headed, a security clearance is
mandatory. Mr. Marshall, director of the Pentagon's Office of Net
Assessment, rarely publishes his thinking in unclassified forms.

"The key, associates say, is to read the writings of his disciples. Or, as
one Marshall friend framed it in a 'Star Wars' analogy, study the Jedis to
learn the teachings of Yoda.

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

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

"When Mr. Krepinevich writes, as he did recently, that four Trident
submarines should be converted to land-attack missile platforms, it's a
good guess that Mr. Marshall endorses the idea.

"Marshall watchers say his ideas show up in the writings of other
proteges, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and James G.
Roche, a retired Navy officer who is in line to be the next Air Force

"'There's this whole network of Marshallites out there and that's how his
work gets out,' says John Hillen, who has participated in Mr. Marshall's
yearly military study program at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I."

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

"Andrew Marshall ... was handpicked by Mr. Rumsfeld to guide the strategic
review. Yet Mr. Marshall and his views remain enigmatic. Well-known if not
adored by a tight circle of civilian and military strategists -- the
so-called church of St. Andrew -- Mr. Marshall has been nearly invisible
outside the defense establishment. A RAND Corporation nuclear expert
beginning in 1949, he was brought by Henry Kissinger onto the National
Security Council then appointed by President Nixon to direct the
Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment.

"He has been there ever since, despite efforts by some defense secretaries
to get rid of him. His innocuous-sounding office comes with a big brief:
to assess regional and global military balances and to determine long-term
trends and threats.

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

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

Nicholas Lehman, in "Dreaming About War" published in The New Yorker, July
16, 2001, writes:

"The most important promoter of the R.M.A. in America has been Andrew W.
Marshall, the head of the Pentagon's obscure Office of Net Assessment, a
cult figure in his own right, and one of the most curious and interesting
figures in the defense world. People with decoder rings knew that Bush's
speech at the Citadel had been drafted by Marshall's corps of allies and
that it endorsed Marshall's main ideas.

"Bush promised that, as President, he would order up 'an immediate,
comprehensive review of our military' and give the Secretary of Defense 'a
broad mandate to challenge the status quo.' Sure enough, this February,
only a couple of weeks into the Bush Administration, newspaper stories
reported that the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, would be
conducting a broad review of the military--or, rather, that Andrew
Marshall would be conducting it on his behalf. During the Clinton
Administration, William Sebastian Cohen, as the Secretary of Defense,
tried, without success, to exile the Office of Net Assessment and
Marshall, who is seventy-nine, to the National Defense University. Now, in
2001, it looked as if Andy Marshall was back emphatically so, in a
position of higher influence than at any other point in his long career.

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

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

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

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

From "Missile defence is about money and it's here to stay" by Elaine
Lafferty, Irish Times, July 25, 2001.

Andrew Marshall "was part of a group formed nearly 50 years ago at the
Rand Institute in Santa Monica, California, whose job it was, in the words
of a member named Herman Kahn, a model for Dr. Strangelove, to 'think the
unthinkable'. In other words, they played war games and imagined
horrifying scenarios.

"Since the 1980s Mr Marshall has been a promoter of an idea first posited
in 1982 by Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, then chief of the Soviet general
staff, called RMA, or 'Revolution in Military Affairs'. The RMA, in
general terms, opines that technological advances have changed the very
nature of conventional war. Rather than conflict conducted by ground
troops, the new conventional war will be conducted almost like a nuclear
war, managed by strategic defence and computers at remote locations
targeting missiles at enemies.

"The 'battlefield', as it once was known, would no longer exist. War, in
the RMA lexicon, would be conducted by spy satellites and long-range
missiles, by computer viruses that would disable the enemies' offensive
and defensive systems, and by a 'layered' defence system that would make
the US impenetrable.

"For most of the last decade, and certainly under the Clinton
administration, Mr Marshall and his protgs, who include both Mr Wolfowitz
and the Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, and secretary of the air
force James Roche, languished in various hinterlands, including a stint
for Mr Rumsfeld in the pharmaceutical industry. Mr Marshall ran seminars
at the Naval War College in Rhode Island. Neither technological advances
nor the political climate existed to make the RMA feasible.

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

"The 'Revolution in Military Affairs' Has An Enemy: Politics" by Michael
Cantanzaro, American Enterprise Institute, October 2001:

"Perhaps the most renowned theorist of a revolution in military affairs is
Andrew Marshall. Director of the Pentagon's internal think tank known as
the Office of Net Assessment, and the intellectual leader of Rumsfeld's
review, Marshall has at times been treated as a pariah by the Pentagon
establishment. He is a survivor, though, and at age 79, having worked on
military strategy, for a period longer than the entire Cold War, has
become a cult figure around whom reformers rally. 'Marshall is something
of a revered figure among those who know him and worked for him,' said D.
Robert Worley, a Marshall protege, and now a senior researcher at the
Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, a defense think tank.

"Marshall's career began in 1949 at the California-based RAND Corporation.
For over 20 years, he, along with like-minded thinkers such as Albert
Wohlstetter, Herman Kahn, and James R. Schlesinger (Nixon's defense
secretary), used elaborate war-gaming, incorporating advanced new concepts
in statistics and game theory, to test the best strategies for corralling
the Soviet Union. According to Eliot Cohen, another Marshall acolyte,
Marshall and a team of researchers pushed development of weapons systems
that 'would render obsolete large portions of the Soviet arsenal, or which
would impose disproportionate costs' on Soviet military budgets."

"During the Clinton administration, Defense Secretary William Cohen and
others tried to ostracize Marshall and the Office of Net Assessment. Now,
having caught Rumsfeld's ear, Marshall is a central figure in setting
future Pentagon priorities."


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


"At the broadest level of national policy, discussions of US strategy for
competing with the Soviet Union began in the late 1940s, when our
relations with the Soviets began to change fundamentally for the worse and
there was little or no prospect of a favorable turn of events in the
foreseeable future. Studied interest in systematic planning for competing
with the Soviets over the long term waned until 1968, when Andrew W.
Marshall replaced James Schlesinger as director of strategic studies at
RAND. Marshalls quest for a framework for structuring and giving direction
to RANDs program of strategic studies led to his report Long Term
Competition with the Soviets: A Framework for Strategic Analysis,
published in 1972. This document was a seminal contribution to US
strategic thinking in the postWorld War II era. It reflects the strong
influence of Marshalls interest, beginning in the early 1960s, in the
subject of organizational behavior and in the efforts at the Harvard
Business School to develop the field of business policy and strategy" [5]

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

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

Note: "Since 1973 he has headed a secretive think tank whose role is to
envision future threats to national security." One could wonder what this
group was thinking about during the first eight months of 2001, while they
had access to the extensive Hart-Rudman Task Force on Homeland Security


Please see listing of Andrew Marshall Acolytes / Jedi Knights. [below]


Other Disinfopedia Resources

Bush doctrine
global warming
nuclear weapons
preemptive war

External Links

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

Thomas Parker, High-Tech to the Rescue in the Persian Gulf, Middle East
Quarterly/Middle East Forum, June 1999: "Defense intellectuals tend to
support the revolution in military affairs and its quest for a new
generation of weapons systems; in contrast, those with vested interests to
protect are skeptical. RMA advocates include senior Reagan and Bush
officials such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle (both now advising
Governor George W. Bush), Richard Armitage (author of a recent
Congressionally-mandated study on the subject), Eliot Cohen of Johns
Hopkins University, and Zalmay Khalilzad of RAND. Andrew Marshall, the
head of the Department of Defense's Office of Net Assessment, an in-house
think tank, has pushed hard for the RMA; while he had a close relationship
with former secretaries of defense Cheney and Perry, his office was almost
moved outside of the Pentagon under Secretary Cohen."
Ken Silverstein, The Man From ONA, The Nation, October 25, 1999.

Bill Keller, The Fighting Next Time, Why War?, March 10, 2002: "But
Marshall's real public face is the legion of prolific R.M.A. proteges in
policy institutes and universities whose work he has sponsored. His
consistent theme (and theirs) for at least a decade has been that the
nature of warfare is in for one of its periodic upheavals as nations
adjust to two major developments. ... One is the perfection of long-range
precision strike weapons that enable armies to fight from great distances
and that make massive, conspicuous platforms like carriers and air bases
more vulnerable. As our adversaries acquire more accurate missiles,
Marshall argues, wars will probably be fought either from long range or by
quick and comparatively small units that get in and out quickly. The other
change is the emergence of information warfare, in which the most valuable
assets are more powerful sensors--satellites, airborne cameras, handheld
global positioning system equipment, robotic snoopers--that give the
advantage to the side that can better read the battlefield and more
quickly disseminate information to its commanders."

Bruce Berkowitz, War in the Information Age, Hoover Institution, Spring,
2002: "These technologies are turning over many traditional notions about
how to wage war. Much of this new thinking can be traced to the Pentagon's
Office of Net Assessment and its director, Andrew Marshall. Although
little known to the general public, the office has often been much more
influential than its obscure title suggests. It is an in-house think tank
for DOD charged with looking 10 or 20 years into the future, sizing up the
threats the United States will face, and analyzing how we will match them.
... In the early 1990s, Marshall began to speak about a 'revolution in
military affairs' (RMA). This revolution was driven mainly by the great
changes that were under way in information technology. As a result of
these changes, military forces would be able to have a better picture of
the adversary and would be able to strike at him with precision weapons
from great distance. The military would also need to become more mobile
because large, stationary forces would be too vulnerable. ... Over the
course of three decades, many promising majors, lieutenant commanders, and
GS-13 civilians have done a tour through the Office of Net Assessment.
These officers are now generals, admirals, and members of the Pentagons
Senior Executive Service and have considerable influence in drafting war
plans and designing new weapons programs."

George Lewis, Pentagon Defense Strategist Previews Future Warfare,
University of Kentucky Public Relations, July 11, 2002.

Amrish Sehgal, China and the Doctrine of Asymmetrical Warfare, BHARAT
RAKSHAK MONITOR, July/August 2003: "That some of Andrew Marshall's worst
fears are coming true is already evident. Japan's economy has been in the
doldrums for the last 7 years. Its biggest market, USA, is itself locked
in the throes of a recession. Given the major onslaught of Korean
companies, perhaps the only large markets left to Japan are India and
China. India's market for range of products that Japan makes,
unfortunately for Japan, is already highly competitive, consumer oriented
and service-intensive. China on the other hand is still somewhat of a
command economy and is as large, if not larger, a market than India.
Moreover, political considerations in China allow a better deal to be
given to Japan than to South Korea. Indeed, China is going all out to woo
Japan Inc. The day is not too far away when China emerges as Japan's
largest investment market and trading partner. Chinese political pressure
upon Japan to distance itself from USA can certainly be envisioned at such
a juncture."

James G. Roche, Serving the Patriots of America's Air Force. Remarks at
the Order of the Sword Induction Ceremony, Andrews Air Force Base, Md.
September 13, 2003: "I also want to point out that one of my most
important mentors is here tonight. He is my mentor, Bill Bodie's mentor,
General Lance Lord's mentor, and he is Brigadier General Rich Hassan's
mentor -- Andrew Marshall, one of the finest men in the Department of
Defense. Andy was the head of the Office of Net Assessment when Admiral
Farragut was around and was appointed to the job by General George
Washington just before he relinquished command of the Continental Army. He
celebrated his 50th wedding anniversary last night. And ladies and
gentlemen, tonight is his 82nd birthday. He is still working full time at
our Pentagon. General John Jumper and I have often relied on one of his
many sayings to help you cope with tough times. He once said to me, 'There
simply are limits to the stupidity any one may can prevent.' General
Jumper and I call upon that time after time."

Edit this page | Discuss this page | Page history | What links here |
Related changes

Disinfopedia | About Disinfopedia | Recent changes |
This page has been accessed 353 times. This page was last modified 02:34,
3 Feb 2004. This page is available under the GNU FDL.

Disinfopedia is a project of PR Watch / Center for Media & Democracy
520 University Ave., Suite 227, Madison, WI 53703; phone (608) 2609713;
email  editor@prwatch.org



on Roche, a Bush appointee:

Roche receives Order of the Sword

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

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

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

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

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

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

During the ceremony, Roche was presented with a copy of the citation, a
painting by German artist Hans Roth featuring images of the secretary
during his tenure with the Air Force, and a scroll with the names of those
who attended. He also received a symbolic "Alfonso the 10th"-style sword,
crafted in Toledo, Spain.

"Fellow airmen, I am genuinely humbled to stand before you tonight and
accept this honor," Roche said. "I can assure you that tonight, your
decision to honor me with this modern order of chivalry has left me at
quite a loss to express my profound sense of pride, humility and also

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

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

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

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

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



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



Andrew Marshall Acolytes / Jedi Knights

The following is a listing of Andrew Marshall Acolytes / "Jedi" Knights:

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

Asterisk indicates that the individual is also considered a Specialist in
"Revolution in Military Affairs".




> Climate Collapse: The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare.
> Monday, January 26, 2004
> By David Stipp
> Global warming may be bad news for future generations, but let's face it,
> most of us spend as little time worrying about it as we did about al Qaeda
> before 9/11. Like the terrorists, though, the seemingly remote climate risk
> may hit home sooner and harder than we ever imagined. In fact, the prospect
> has become so real that the Pentagon's strategic planners are grappling
> with it.
> The threat that has riveted their attention is this: Global warming, rather
> than causing gradual, centuries-spanning change, may be pushing the climate
> to a tipping point. Growing evidence suggests the ocean-atmosphere system
> that controls the world's climate can lurch from one state to another in
> less than a decade--like a canoe that's gradually tilted until suddenly it
> flips over. Scientists don't know how close the system is to a critical
> threshold. But abrupt climate change may well occur in the not-too-distant
> future. If it does, the need to rapidly adapt may overwhelm many
> societies--thereby upsetting the geopolitical balance of power.
> Though triggered by warming, such change would probably cause cooling in
> the Northern Hemisphere, leading to longer, harsher winters in much of the
> U.S. and Europe. Worse, it would cause massive droughts, turning farmland
> to dust bowls and forests to ashes. Picture last fall's California
> wildfires as a regular thing. Or imagine similar disasters destabilizing
> nuclear powers such as Pakistan or Russia--it's easy to see why the
> Pentagon has become interested in abrupt climate change.
> Climate researchers began getting seriously concerned about it a decade
> ago, after studying temperature indicators embedded in ancient layers of
> Arctic ice. The data show that a number of dramatic shifts in average
> temperature took place in the past with shocking speed--in some cases, just
> a few years.
> The case for angst was buttressed by a theory regarded as the most likely
> explanation for the abrupt changes. The eastern U.S. and northern Europe,
> it seems, are warmed by a huge Atlantic Ocean current that flows north from
> the tropics--that's why Britain, at Labrador's latitude, is relatively
> temperate. Pumping out warm, moist air, this "great conveyor" current gets
> cooler and denser as it moves north. That causes the current to sink in the
> North Atlantic, where it heads south again in the ocean depths. The sinking
> process draws more water from the south, keeping the roughly circular
> current on the go.
> But when the climate warms, according to the theory, fresh water from
> melting Arctic glaciers flows into the North Atlantic, lowering the
> current's salinity--and its density and tendency to sink. A warmer climate
> also increases rainfall and runoff into the current, further lowering its
> saltiness. As a result, the conveyor loses its main motive force and can
> rapidly collapse, turning off the huge heat pump and altering the climate
> over much of the Northern Hemisphere.
> Scientists aren't sure what caused the warming that triggered such
> collapses in the remote past. (Clearly it wasn't humans and their
> factories.) But the data from Arctic ice and other sources suggest the
> atmospheric changes that preceded earlier collapses were dismayingly
> similar to today's global warming. As the Ice Age began drawing to a close
> about 13,000 years ago, for example, temperatures in Greenland rose to
> levels near those of recent decades. Then they abruptly plunged as the
> conveyor apparently shut down, ushering in the "Younger Dryas" period, a
> 1,300-year reversion to ice-age conditions. (A dryas is an Arctic flower
> that flourished in Europe at the time.)
> Though Mother Nature caused past abrupt climate changes, the one that may
> be shaping up today probably has more to do with us. In 2001 an
> international panel of climate experts concluded that there is increasingly
> strong evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past 50
> years is attributable to human activities--mainly the burning of fossil
> fuels such as oil and coal, which release heat-trapping carbon dioxide.
> Indicators of the warming include shrinking Arctic ice, melting alpine
> glaciers, and markedly earlier springs at northerly latitudes. A few years
> ago such changes seemed signs of possible trouble for our kids or
> grandkids. Today they seem portents of a cataclysm that may not
> conveniently wait until we're history.
> Accordingly, the spotlight in climate research is shifting from gradual to
> rapid change. In 2002 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report
> concluding that human activities could trigger abrupt change. Last year the
> World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, included a session at which
> Robert Gagosian, director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in
> Massachusetts, urged policymakers to consider the implications of possible
> abrupt climate change within two decades.
> Such jeremiads are beginning to reverberate more widely. Billionaire Gary
> Comer, founder of Lands' End, has adopted abrupt climate change as a
> philanthropic cause. Hollywood has also discovered the issue--next summer
> 20th Century Fox is expected to release The Day After Tomorrow, a
> big-budget disaster movie starring Dennis Quaid as a scientist trying to
> save the world from an ice age precipitated by global warming. Fox's flick
> will doubtless be apocalyptically edifying. But what would abrupt climate
> change really be like?
> Scientists generally refuse to say much about that, citing a data deficit.
> But recently, renowned Department of Defense planner Andrew Marshall
> sponsored a groundbreaking effort to come to grips with the question. A
> Pentagon legend, Marshall, 82, is known as the Defense Department's
> "Yoda"--a balding, bespectacled sage whose pronouncements on looming risks
> have long had an outsized influence on defense policy. Since 1973 he has
> headed a secretive think tank whose role is to envision future threats to
> national security. The Department of Defense's push on ballistic-missile
> defense is known as his brainchild. Three years ago Defense Secretary
> Donald Rumsfeld picked him to lead a sweeping review on military
> "transformation," the shift toward nimble forces and smart weapons.
> When scientists' work on abrupt climate change popped onto his radar
> screen, Marshall tapped another eminent visionary, Peter Schwartz, to write
> a report on the national-security implications of the threat. Schwartz
> formerly headed planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group and has since consulted
> with organizations ranging from the CIA to DreamWorks--he helped create
> futuristic scenarios for Steven Spielberg's film Minority Report. Schwartz
> and co-author Doug Randall at the Monitor Group's Global Business Network,
> a scenario-planning think tank in Emeryville, Calif., contacted top climate
> experts and pushed them to talk about what-ifs that they usually shy away
> from--at least in public.
> The result is an unclassified report, completed late last year, that the
> Pentagon has agreed to share with FORTUNE. It doesn't pretend to be a
> forecast. Rather, it sketches a dramatic but plausible scenario to help
> planners think about coping strategies. Here is an abridged version:
> A total shutdown of the ocean conveyor might lead to a big chill like the
> Younger Dryas, when icebergs appeared as far south as the coast of
> Portugal. Or the conveyor might only temporarily slow down, potentially
> causing an era like the "Little Ice Age," a time of hard winters, violent
> storms, and droughts between 1300 and 1850. That period's weather extremes
> caused horrific famines, but it was mild compared with the Younger Dryas.
> For planning purposes, it makes sense to focus on a midrange case of abrupt
> change. A century of cold, dry, windy weather across the Northern
> Hemisphere that suddenly came on 8,200 years ago fits the bill--its
> severity fell between that of the Younger Dryas and the Little Ice Age. The
> event is thought to have been triggered by a conveyor collapse after a time
> of rising temperatures not unlike today's global warming. Suppose it
> recurred, beginning in 2010. Here are some of the things that might happen
> by 2020:
> At first the changes are easily mistaken for normal weather
> variation--allowing skeptics to dismiss them as a "blip" of little
> importance and leaving policymakers and the public paralyzed with
> uncertainty. But by 2020 there is little doubt that something drastic is
> happening. The average temperature has fallen by up to five degrees
> Fahrenheit in some regions of North America and Asia and up to six degrees
> in parts of Europe. (By comparison, the average temperature over the North
> Atlantic during the last ice age was ten to 15 degrees lower than it is
> today.) Massive droughts have begun in key agricultural regions. The
> average annual rainfall has dropped by nearly 30% in northern Europe, and
> its climate has become more like Siberia's.
> Violent storms are increasingly common as the conveyor becomes wobbly on
> its way to collapse. A particularly severe storm causes the ocean to break
> through levees in the Netherlands, making coastal cities such as the Hague
> unlivable. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento River
> area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from
> north to south.
> Megadroughts afflict the U.S., especially in the southern states, along
> with winds that are 15% stronger on average than they are now, causing
> widespread dust storms and soil loss. The U.S. is better positioned to cope
> than most nations, however, thanks to its diverse growing climates, wealth,
> technology, and abundant resources. That has a downside, though: It
> magnifies the haves-vs.-have-nots gap and fosters bellicose finger-pointing
> at America.
> Turning inward, the U.S. effectively seeks to build a fortress around
> itself to preserve resources. Borders are strengthened to hold back
> starving immigrants from Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean
> islands--waves of boat people pose especially grim problems. Tension
> between the U.S. and Mexico rises as the U.S. reneges on a 1944 treaty that
> guarantees water flow from the Colorado River into Mexico. America is
> forced to meet its rising energy demand with options that are costly both
> economically and politically, including nuclear power and onerous Middle
> Eastern contracts. Yet it survives without catastrophic losses.
> Europe, hardest hit by its temperature drop, struggles to deal with
> immigrants from Scandinavia seeking warmer climes to the south. Southern
> Europe is beleaguered by refugees from hard-hit countries in Africa and
> elsewhere. But Western Europe's wealth helps buffer it from catastrophe.
> Australia's size and resources help it cope, as does its location--the
> conveyor shutdown mainly affects the Northern Hemisphere. Japan has fewer
> resources but is able to draw on its social cohesion to cope--its
> government is able to induce population-wide behavior changes to conserve
> resources.
> China's huge population and food demand make it particularly vulnerable. It
> is hit by increasingly unpredictable monsoon rains, which cause devastating
> floods in drought-denuded areas. Other parts of Asia and East Africa are
> similarly stressed. Much of Bangladesh becomes nearly uninhabitable because
> of a rising sea level, which contaminates inland water supplies. Countries
> whose diversity already produces conflict, such as India and Indonesia, are
> hard-pressed to maintain internal order while coping with the unfolding
> changes.
> As the decade progresses, pressures to act become irresistible--history
> shows that whenever humans have faced a choice between starving or raiding,
> they raid. Imagine Eastern European countries, struggling to feed their
> populations, invading Russia--which is weakened by a population that is
> already in declinefor access to its minerals and energy supplies. Or
> picture Japan eyeing nearby Russian oil and gas reserves to power
> desalination plants and energy-intensive farming. Envision nuclear-armed
> Pakistan, India, and China skirmishing at their borders over refugees,
> access to shared rivers, and arable land. Or Spain and Portugal fighting
> over fishing rights--fisheries are disrupted around the world as water
> temperatures change, causing fish to migrate to new habitats.
> Growing tensions engender novel alliances. Canada joins fortress America in
> a North American bloc. (Alternatively, Canada may seek to keep its abundant
> hydropower for itself, straining its ties with the energy-hungry U.S.)
> North and South Korea align to create a technically savvy, nuclear-armed
> entity. Europe forms a truly unified bloc to curb its immigration problems
> and protect against aggressors. Russia, threatened by impoverished
> neighbors in dire straits, may join the European bloc.
> Nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. Oil supplies are stretched thin
> as climate cooling drives up demand. Many countries seek to shore up their
> energy supplies with nuclear energy, accelerating nuclear proliferation.
> Japan, South Korea, and Germany develop nuclear-weapons capabilities, as do
> Iran, Egypt, and North Korea. Israel, China, India, and Pakistan also are
> poised to use the bomb.
> The changes relentlessly hammer the world's "carrying capacity"--the
> natural resources, social organizations, and economic networks that support
> the population. Technological progress and market forces, which have long
> helped boost Earth's carrying capacity, can do little to offset the
> crisis--it is too widespread and unfolds too fast.
> As the planet's carrying capacity shrinks, an ancient pattern reemerges:
> the eruption of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy
> supplies. As Harvard archeologist Steven LeBlanc has noted, wars over
> resources were the norm until about three centuries ago. When such
> conflicts broke out, 25% of a population's adult males usually died. As
> abrupt climate change hits home, warfare may again come to define human life.
> Over the past decade, data have accumulated suggesting that the
> plausibility of abrupt climate change is higher than most of the scientific
> community, and perhaps all of the political community, are prepared to
> accept. In light of such findings, we should be asking when abrupt change
> will happen, what the impacts will be, and how we can prepare--not whether
> it will really happen. In fact, the climate record suggests that abrupt
> change is inevitable at some point, regardless of human activity. Among
> other things, we should:
> " Speed research on the forces that can trigger abrupt climate change, how
> it unfolds, and how we'll know it's occurring.
> " Sponsor studies on the scenarios that might play out, including
> ecological, social, economic, and political fallout on key food-producing
> regions.
> " Identify "no regrets" strategies to ensure reliable access to food and
> water and to ensure our national security.
> " Form teams to prepare responses to possible massive migration, and food
> and water shortages.
> " Explore ways to offset abrupt cooling--today it appears easier to warm
> than to cool the climate via human activities, so there may be
> "geo-engineering" options available to prevent a catastrophic temperature
> drop.
> In sum, the risk of abrupt climate change remains uncertain, and it is
> quite possibly small. But given its dire consequences, it should be
> elevated beyond a scientific debate. Action now matters, because we may be
> able to reduce its likelihood of happening, and we can certainly be better
> prepared if it does. It is time to recognize it as a national security
> concern.
> The Pentagon's reaction to this sobering report isn't known--in keeping
> with his reputation for reticence, Andy Marshall declined to be
> interviewed. But the fact that he's concerned may signal a sea change in
> the debate about global warming. At least some federal thought leaders may
> be starting to perceive climate change less as a political annoyance and
> more as an issue demanding action.
> If so, the case for acting now to address climate change, long a hard sell
> in Washington, may be gaining influential support, if only behind the
> scenes. Policymakers may even be emboldened to take steps such as
> tightening fuel-economy standards for new passenger vehicles, a measure
> that would simultaneously lower emissions of greenhouse gases, reduce
> America's perilous reliance on OPEC oil, cut its trade deficit, and put
> money in consumers' pockets. Oh, yes--and give the Pentagon's fretful Yoda
> a little less to worry about.
>  http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,582584,00.html


> Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
> --Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
> --Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
> --Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
> Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
> Saturday February 21 2004
> The Guardian
> Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe
> costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
> A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The
> Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas
> as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict,
> mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
> The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to
> the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and
> secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global
> stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to
> its contents.
> 'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the
> Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'
> The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has
> repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they
> will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national
> defence is a priority.
> The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew
> Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the
> past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at
> transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
> Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US
> national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant
> and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of
> the California-based Global Business Network.
> An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would
> challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered
> immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a
> rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.
> Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body
> of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit
> its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy
> Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency
> (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further
> example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.
> Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the
> catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening
> phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to
> global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.
> A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice
> their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the
> US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that
> American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced
> with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of
> touch.
> One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of
> the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief
> scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue
> as indefensible.
> Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John
> Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government
> and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall
> Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal
> fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept
> climatic change.
> Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office -
> and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that
> of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message,
> then this is an important document indeed.'
> Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire
> warnings could no longer be ignored.
> 'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of
> document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest
> priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group,
> generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to
> national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups
> the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,'
> added Watson.
> 'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the
> Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty
> scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said
> Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.
> Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher
> population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water
> and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the
> planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought
> widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations
> that could soon be repeated.
> Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate
> change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It
> is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to
> point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'
> Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster
> happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could
> start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.
> 'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable.
> It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'
> So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove
> vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to
> accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with
> Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report
> in his campaign.
> The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry's
> cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank
> dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net
> Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast
> experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence's
> push on ballistic-missile defence.
> Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that
> the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House
> trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of
> why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'
> Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy
> and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was
> received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring
> the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil
> companies,' he added.
> Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited
> ---------------


> Key findings of the Pentagon
> Saturday February 21 2004
> The Guardian
> --Future wars will be fought over the issue of survival rather than
> religion, ideology or national honour.
> --By 2007 violent storms smash coastal barriers rendering large parts of
> the Netherlands inhabitable. Cities like The Hague are abandoned. In
> California the delta island levees in the Sacramento river area are
> breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from north to
> south.
> --Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change with an
> average annual temperature drop of 6F. Climate in Britain becomes colder
> and drier as weather patterns begin to resemble Siberia.
> --Deaths from war and famine run into the millions until the planet's
> population is reduced by such an extent the Earth can cope.
> --Riots and internal conflict tear apart India, South Africa and Indonesia.
> --Access to water becomes a major battleground. The Nile, Danube and Amazon
> are all mentioned as being high risk.
> --A 'significant drop' in the planet's ability to sustain its present
> population will become apparent over the next 20 years.
> --Rich areas like the US and Europe would become 'virtual fortresses' to
> prevent millions of migrants from entering after being forced from land
> drowned by sea-level rise or no longer able to grow crops. Waves of
> boatpeople pose significant problems.
> --Nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. Japan, South Korea, and Germany
> develop nuclear-weapons capabilities, as do Iran, Egypt and North Korea.
> Israel, China, India and Pakistan also are poised to use the bomb.
> --By 2010 the US and Europe will experience a third more days with peak
> temperatures above 90F. Climate becomes an 'economic nuisance' as storms,
> droughts and hot spells create havoc for farmers.
> --More than 400m people in subtropical regions at grave risk.
> --Europe will face huge internal struggles as it copes with massive numbers
> of migrants washing up on its shores. Immigrants from Scandinavia seek
> warmer climes to the south. Southern Europe is beleaguered by refugees from
> hard-hit countries in Africa.
> --Mega-droughts affect the world's major breadbaskets, including America's
> Midwest, where strong winds bring soil loss.
> --China's huge population and food demand make it particularly vulnerable.
> Bangladesh becomes nearly uninhabitable because of a rising sea level,
> which contaminates the inland water supplies.
> Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited

The need for a global carbon and heat sequestration project 05.Nov.2008 21:55

Jonah Samala samala.jsamala.jonah@gmail.com

Coming from a non industrialised nation and one that still preseves most of its rain forests, I'd rather say that emphasing on investing in rain forest countries alone isn't going to save the world.

In order to reduce the drastic impact of global warming and climate change, there must be a global sequestration project. This can only be ahcieved if the GLOBAL BALANCE RESTORATION APPROACH theory is becomes more practical in nature. This document, is currently in the hands of the sole author, a 23 year old female student from the University of Papua New Guinea.

She has submitted a copy to one of the Asian Embassies within the country for further technological research in their country. Due to this, we are finding possible means of transfering this idea to the global community, and relevant organsations. Please help us out!!!

The project will also adress Food Security problems, water problems and energy crisis problems

National Research Institute-Papua New Guinea