Dear Editor,

There is a fifth obvious conclusion in Dr. Zalmay K. Khalilzad's book "From Containment to Global Leadership? - America & the World After the Cold War" This book was produced for Project Air Force, a division of RAND, a federally funded research and development center.

There is not one mention of where the United States would acquire the right to "shape the world" in this post Cold War era. Now how did a man like Khalilzad get to be the director of the Strategy, Doctrine, and Force Structure Program of RAND's Project AIR FORCE, and director of the Greater Middle East Studies Center and not mention the problem of deriving authority to shape the post Cold War world? He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago and has held senior-level positions in both the Department of Defense and Department of State. Dr. Khalilzad's blueprint for the "Grand Strategy" of "Global Leadership" using force if necessary to "shape the Post Cold War world" is an undeniably barbaric work.. It presumes that there is no need nor necessity for the U.S. to establish a right over those whom we decide to attack, manipulate or interfere with. As we will see in a moment, this document is a declaration of war upon the world.

Our founding fathers resisted men like Dr. Khalilzad, who see no need to possess a right or authority to invade other sovereign nations or their rights. Dr. Khalilzad thinks nothing of using force to take what we need from other nations like Afghanistan, Iraq, N. Korea, or Russia for that matter:

"A Global rival could emerge if a hostile power or coalition gained hegemony over a critical region. Therefore, it is a vital U.S. interest to preclude such a development--i.e., to be willing to use force if necessary for the purpose. A region can be defined as critical if it contains sufficient economic, technical, and human resources so that a hostile power that gained control over it could pose a global challenge. Two regions now meet this criterion: East Asia and Europe. The Persian Gulf is very important for a different reason--its oil resources are vital for the world economy."(25)

What the brilliant Dr. Khalilzad proposes in his "Grand Strategy" is the granting of a legitimate right to other nations to defend themselves from our stated design of world "hegemony" and declaration of war against those sovereign nations who possess a means of defense and resources of value to us and our allies. And where did Dr. Khalilzad get this plan? Are we far away from his plan? He got it from Vice President Dick Cheney:

"With the disintergration of the Soviet Union, Secretary Dick Cheney's Defense Department put forward a new defense strategy--the "regional Defense Strategy"--which emphasized keeping any hostile power from dominating a region critical to U.S. interests, strengthening and extending the alliances among democratic and like-minded powers, and helping reduce the likelihood of conflict by reducing the sources of instability. There was an intense but brief debate when the two versions of the document were leaked."(10)

So, how would the stated plans of Dr. Khalilzad and Vice President Cheney be viewed by our founders? We turn to John Locke for the answer for they all knew his words by heart:

"The State of War is a State of Enmity and Destruction; And therefore declaring by Word or Action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate setled Design, upon another Mans Life, put him in a State of War with him against whom he has declared such an Intention, and so has exposed his Life to the others Power to be taken away by him, or any one that joyns with him in his Defence, and espouses his Quarrel: it being reasonable and just I should have Right to destroy that which threatens me with Destruction. For by the Fundamental Law of Nature, Man being to be preserved, as much as possible, when all cannot be preserv'd, the saftety of the Innocent is to be preferred: And one may destroy a Man who makes War upon him, or has discovered an Enmity to his being, for the same Reason, that he may kill a Wolf or a Lyon; because such Men are not under the ties of the Common Law of Reason, have no other rule, but that of Force and Violence, and so may be treated as beasts of Prey, those dangerous and noxious Creatures, that will be sure to destroy him, whenever he falls into their Power."1 (Emphasis added)

And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another Man into his Absolute Power, does thereby put himself into a State of War with him; It being to be understood as a Declaration of a Design upon his Life. For I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his Power without my consent, would use me as he pleased, when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it: for no body can desire to have me in his Absolute Power, unless it be to compel me by force to that, which is against the Right of my Freedom, i.e. make me a Slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my Preservation: and reason bids me look on him, as an Enemy to my Preservation, so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a State of War with me. He that in the State of Nature, would take away the Freedom, that belongs to any one in that State, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that Freedom being the Foundation of all the rest: As he that in the State of Society, would take away the Freedom belonging to those of that Society or Common-wealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a State of War."(279) (Emphasis added)

It is clear that Dr. Khalilzad has no other rule, but that of Force and Violence in order to maintain the superiority of the United States over the rest of the world. It does further appear that in this plan we have declared war upon many sovereign nations in 1995. This policy is now being played out in the events of the day. We can further see that we are now exposed to the just defense of the rest of the world to prevent us from implementing such a barbaric design.


Ronald F. Avery

1. John Locke, John Locke - Two Treatises of Government ed., Peter Laslett (Cambridge University Press, 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA) 278