The West should understand that the 1 billion Moslems will not be impressed by a West that is perceived as preaching to them the values of consumerism, the merits of amorality, and the blessings of atheism. To many Moslems, the West’s (and especially America’s) message is repulsive. Moreover, the attempt to portray “fundamentalist” Islam as the new central threat to the West—the alleged successor in that role to communism—is grossly oversimplified. Politically, not all of Islam—in fact, relatively little—is militantly fundamentalist; and there is precious little unity in the political world of Islam. That philosophically much of Islam rejects the Western definition of modernity is another matter, but that is not a sufficient basis for perceiving a politically very diversified Moslem world—which ranges from black West Africa, through Arab North Africa and the Middle East, Iran and Pakistan, Central and South Asia, all the way to Malaysia and Indonesia—as almost ready to embark (armed with nuclear weapons) on a holy war against the West. For America to act on that assumption would be to run the risk of engaging in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Conflicts between the clusters and within them are also likely. But the former most probably will assume a predominantly economic character. Thus Europe—if it unites and especially if it were to become more protectionist—could become the economic antagonist of the United States, much the way some Americans have come to perceive Japan as America’s economic adversary. The Europeans, in addition to their possible collision on global economic matters with the United States, have already become increasingly hostile to Japan’s trade practices, and a conflict between the European and the Asian clusters could also ensue. Last but certainly not least, frictions between America and Japan could also intensify, generating a tendency within these two clusters toward a fortress-like mentality, emulating what many expect the Europeans in any case to pursue. The result would be global economic fragmentation.
===Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the 21st Century (Zbigniew Brzezinski) (CFR, leading Trilateral Committee founding light, protege of the Rockefeller’s and leading light for the “Establishment” all true..but brilliant and always insightful all the same)
The war machine needs to be fed, it is hungry. We will feed it, we always do.
These boots are made for walking, and that’s just what they’ll do. One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you.” Nancy Sinatra’s 1966 hit song, “These Boots Are Made for Walking,” became wildly popular with GIs during the Vietnam War, where the lyrics took on a more bellicose meaning.
In discussions of America’s current conflict with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)—which, like the Vietnam conflict, Washington does not consider an official war—a phrase heard frequently is “boots on the ground.” It is a direct challenge to those who believe wars can be won by airpower alone. Critics of the current air campaign in Iraq and Syria argue that boots on the ground—the physical presence of soldiers on the battlefield—is a prerequisite to military success. But how many?