Part One

excerpted from the book

Full Spectrum Dominance

Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order

by F. William Engdahl

Third Millennium Press, 2009, paperback

For those segments of the US establishment whose power had grown exponentially through the expansion of the post World War II national security state, the end of the Cold War meant the loss of their reason for existing.

What few were aware of, largely because their irresponsible national media refused to tell them, was that since the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, the Pentagon had been pursuing, step-by-careful-step, a military strategy for domination of the entire planet, a goal no earlier great power had ever achieved, though many had tried. It was called by the Pentagon, 'Full Spectrum Dominance' and as its name implied, its agenda was to control everything everywhere including the high seas air, space and even outer space and cyberspace.

George F. Kennan, US State Department Policy Memorandum, February 1948

We have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ..I this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which Will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.

America's leading post-war planners had been involved in the 19391 War & Peace Studies Project of the New York Council on Foreign Relations. Their strategy had been to create a kind of informal empire, one in which America would emerge as the unchallenged hegemonic power in a new world order to be administered through the newly-created United Nations Organization.

The architects of the post-war US-dominated global order explicitly chose not to call it an 'empire.' Instead, the United States would project its imperial power under the guise of colonial 'liberation,' support for 'democracy' and 'free markets.' It was one of the most effective and diabolical propaganda coups of modern times.

The American architects of post-War power - centered in and around the powerful Council on Foreign Relations, the Rockefeller Foundation and, above all, the Rockefeller faction in US politics and economics - had adopted [the British father of geopolitics Sir Halford] Mackinder's geopolitical view as their own. The leading strategists within Rockefeller's faction, including Henry Kissinger and, later, Zbigniew Brzezinski, both men part of the powerful Rockefeller faction in US politics, were trained in Mackinder geopolitics.

In 1945, President Harry S. Truman ordered General Eisenhower and his Joint Chiefs to prepare a secret plan for a surprise nuclear attack on some 20 cities of the Soviet Union.

In the year 2000, a strange new political phenomenon emerged' Belgrade, the capital of Serbia in the former Yugoslavia... On the surface, it seemed to be a spontaneous and genuine political 'movement.' In reality, it was the product of techniques that had been under study and development in the US for decades.

... In Belgrade several specific organizations were key players: the National Endowment for Democracy and two of its offshoots, the International Republican Institute, tied to the Republican party, and the National Democratic Institute, tied to the Democrats. While claiming to be private Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), they were, in fact, financed by the US Congress and State Department. Armed with millions in US taxpayer dollars, they were moved into place to create a synthetic movement for 'non-violent change.

Washington Post writer Michael Dobbs

The United States government had 'bought' the removal of [Serbian President] Milosevic for $41 million. The operation was run out of the offices of US Ambassador [Richard] Miles with specially trained agents coordinating networks of naïve students who were convinced they were fighting for a better world, the 'American way of life.'

and the Washington Post reported that

U.S.-funded consultants played a crucial role behind the scenes in virtually every facet of the anti-Milosevic drive [Yugoslavia 1999].

Through slick Madison Avenue marketing techniques and careful study of genuine protest movements, the US Government had perfected techniques for 'democratically' getting rid of any opponent, while convincing the world they were brought down by spontaneous outbursts for freedom.

The Serbian Otpor! revolution had been founded, guided and financed covertly by the US Government via select NGOs.

Beginning in the 1950s, with covert funding from Nelson Rockefeller's Department of Health Education and Welfare, the CIA engaged in a program given the code name "MK-ULTRA." Alleged to be necessary in response to claims of 'brainwashing' of American soldiers by North Korea, the CIA began experiments in "mind control." The allegations of North Korean brainwashing were fabricated, as later research revealed, in order to justify this program after the fact. At the time, there was no evidence of such brainwashing, nor has there been any since.

The CIA's program involved administering LSD and other drugs to American subjects without their knowledge or against their will, causing several to commit suicide.

The MK-ULTRA operation was secretly co-funded by the Rockefeller Foundation," as well as by funds specifically earmarked for MK-ULTRA front projects by Nelson Rockefeller - then President Eisenhower's Under Secretary for Health, Education and Welfare, and later his Special Assistant on Cold War Strategy and Psychological Warfare. In addition to attempts at 'mind control' with drugs, MK-ULTRA involved research on methods of effective propaganda, brainwashing, public relations, advertising, hypnosis, and other forms of suggestion.

Following World War I, the British Military had created the Tavistock Institute to serve as its psychological warfare arm. The Institute received its name from the Duke of Bedford, Marquis of Tavistock, who donated a building to the Institute in 1921 to study the effect of shell-shock on British soldiers who had survived World War I. Its purpose was not to help the traumatized soldiers, however, but instead to establish the 'breaking point' of men under stress. The program was under the direction of the British Army Bureau of Psychological Warfare. For a time Sigmund Freud worked with Tavistock on psychoanalytical methods applied to individuals and large groups.

After World War II, the Rockefeller Foundation moved in to finance the Tavistock Institute and, in effect, to co-opt its programs for the United States and its emerging psychological warfare activities. The Rockefeller Foundation provided an infusion of funds for the financially strapped Tavistock, newly reorganized as the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations. Its Rockefeller agenda was to undertake "under conditions of peace, the kind of social psychiatry that had developed in the Army under conditions of war.

Tavistock immediately began work in the United States sending its leading researcher, the German-born psychologist, Kurt Lewin, to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1945 to establish the Research Center for Group Dynamics. Lewin was interested in the scientific study of the processes that influence individuals in group situations, and is widely credited as the founder of 'social psychology.' After Lewin's death, the Center moved to the University of Michigan in 1948 where it became the Institute for Social Research.

Tavistock's work over the next two decades was to co-opt legitimate psychological insights into social groups and social dynamics in order to refine techniques for social manipulation.

The US success in removing the tenacious Slobodan Milosevic as Serbia's President in 2000 proved to the US State Department and intelligence community that their new model for covert regime change via non-violent coup d'etats worked. It seemed to be the perfect model for eliminating regimes opposed to US policy. It did not matter if a regime had been popular or democratically elected. Any regime was vulnerable to the Pentagon's new methods of warfare - the 'swarming' and 'color revolution' techniques of RAND.

Within months of his success in overseeing the creation of the Serb Otpor! Revolution, US Chief of Mission to Belgrade, Ambassador Richard Miles, was sent to his next assignment, the tiny Republic of Georgia ml the Caucasus mountains of Central Asia.

The National Endowment for Democracy ... seemed to be present in every major US coup or regime change operation since the 1980s. Also prominent in Georgia ... was the Open Society Foundation run by American billionaire, George Soros, and the Washington-based Freedom House which had been set up in the 1940s as a NATO propaganda organization and in 2001 was headed by former CIA chief, James Woolsey.

The US State Department had often used NGOs in its coup machinery over the years: in the overthrow of President Fernando Marcos of the Philippines in 1986, or in the Tiananmen Square destabilization in 1989, and Vaclav Havel's 'velvet revolution' in Czechoslovakia in 1989.

... [Gene] Sharp's Albert Einstein Institution apparently played a key role in training and educating youth movements across former Warsaw pact countries and also in Asia. According to researcher Jonathan Mowat, Sharp's organization was funded in part by the Soros foundations and the US Government's National Endowment for Democracy, among others.

The transformation of Ukraine from independent former Russian republic to pro-NATO US satellite was accomplished by the so-called range Revolution' in 2004

... The man Washington decided to back in its orchestrated regime change in Ukraine was Viktor Yushchenko, a fifty-year old former Governor of Ukraine's Central Bank. Yushchenko's wife, Kateryna, an American citizen born in Chicago, had been an official in both the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, and in the US State Department. She had come to Ukraine as a representative of the US-Ukraine Foundation whose Board of Directors included Grover Norquist, one of the most influential conservative Republicans in Washington. Norquist had been called "the managing director of the hard-core right" backing the George W. Bush Presidency."

The central focus of Yushchenko's slick campaign for President was to advocate membership for Ukraine in NATO and the European Union. His campaign used huge quantities of orange colored banners, flags, posters, balloons and other props, leading the media inevitably to dub it the 'Orange Revolution.' Washington funded 'pro-democracy' youth groups that played a particularly significant role organizing huge street demonstrations that helped him win the re-run of a disputed election.

... The same US Government-backed NGOs that had been in Georgia also produced the results in Ukraine: the George Soros Open Society Institute; Freedom House; and the National Endowment for Democracy, along with its two subsidiaries, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute.

The location of the various Color Revolutions was aimed directly at encircling Russia and cutting off, at any time, her export pipelines. With more than sixty percent of Russia's dollar export earnings coming from its oil and gas exports, such an encirclement would amount to an economic chokehold on Russia by US-led NATO.

[An] NGO that invariably turned up in each of Color Revolution regime changes was Freedom House. Along with the Open Society Institutes of George Soros, the US-funded NED and others, the curiously named Freedom House turned up everywhere.

Freedom House was an organization with a noble-sounding name and a long history. It had been created in the late 1940s as a US lobby to organize public opinion in favor of establishing NATO. The chairman of Freedom House at the time of the Georgia and Ukraine Color Revolutions was James Woolsey, former CIA director and a neo-conservative who proclaimed to the world that September 11, 2001 was the start of "World War W." Woolsey defined the Cold War as World War III.

Other trustees and financial backers of Freedom House included Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, foreign policy advisors to Presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama. Freedom House also listed among its financial contributors the US State Department, USAID, US Information Agency, Soros Open Society Foundations, and the ubiquitous National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

The NED along with Freedom House, had been at the center of all the major 'color revolutions' in Eurasia since 2000. created during the Reagan Administration to function as a de facto CIA, privatized so as to allow more freedom of action.


Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing the NED [National Endowment for Democracy] - in an interview in 1991

A lot of what [NED does] today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.


The majority of the historic figures linked to clandestine CIA actions have at some time been members of the Board of Directors or the Administrative Council of the NED, including Otto Reich, John Negroponte, Henry Cisneros and Elliot Abrams.

In 2004, the NED [National Endowment for Democracy] was involved in a US-sponsored coup attempt against Venezuela's new democratically-elected President, Hugo Chavez. After Hugo Chavez had easily won a referendum in August 2004 on his presidency, accusations emerged about the NED's role in supporting anti-Chavez groups. A key figure in the attempted coup had been Bush's Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere, Cuban-born Otto Juan Reich. ReIch ... was also a board member of the controversial Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, better known as the School of the Americas, where the Pentagon trained most of the Latin American death squads.

A close look at the map of Eurasia began to suggest what was at stake for Washington in Eurasia. The goal was not only the strategic encirclement of Russia through a series of NATO bases ranging from Camp Bond Steel in Kosovo, to Poland, to the Czech Republic, and possibly Georgia, and possibly Ukraine. All of this had the overarching goal of enabling NATO to control energy routes and networks between Russia and the EU.

a Foreign Affairs article by Zbigniew Brzezinski in September 1997 revealed the true Washington geopolitical strategy towards Eurasia:

Eurasia accounts for 75 percent of the world's population, 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy resources. Collectively, Eurasia's potential power overshadows even America's.

Since the Bush-Cheney Administration took office in January 2001, controlling the major oil and natural gas fields of the world had been the primary, though undeclared, priority of US foreign policy. The battle was for the highest stakes. Washington's power elites were determined to deconstruct Russia as a functioning power in their pursuit of global domination, their New World Order. It became increasingly clear that not only the invasion of Iraq, but also the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan, had nothing to do with 'democracy,' and everything to do with pipeline control across Central Asia and the militarization of the Middle East .

After 1999, the United States, which already maintains between 600 and 800 military bases around the world, built even more bases ranging geographically from Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, to Sao Tome/Principe off the coast of West Africa. It attempted 'regime change' of the democratically elected President of oil-rich Venezuela, while shamelessly proclaiming itself the champion of democracy. And the US put massive pressure on a nervous Germany and France to bring the tiny but strategic \ Republic of Georgia into NATO to secure oil flows from Baku to the Mediterranean.

The Bush-Cheney Presidency had, from the outset, been based on a c1 consensus among various factions of the US power establishment. That consensus was that US foreign policy should aim to secure what the Pentagon termed 'Full Spectrum Dominance.'

The strategists of Full Spectrum Dominance envisioned control of pretty much the entire universe, including outer and inner-space, from the galaxy to the mind. The control of energy, particularly global oil and gas resources, by the Big Four Anglo-American private oil giants ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell-was the cornerstone of their global strategy.

The Bush Administration implemented the consensus of the US establishment that the US required a drastic change in its foreign policy to an extremely aggressive grab for global oil resources -- in order for the US to continue to control world economic growth and to prevent the emergence of rival economic groups, especially China.

It was clear in Washington policy circles that in order to control those global oil and gas flows, the United States needed to project its military power far more aggressively, to achieve a total military supremacy, which was what Full Spectrum Dominance was actually about.

[Vice President Dick Cheney in a speech to the London Institute of Petroleum]. The problem as Cheney saw it, was that the vast untapped oil reserves of the Middle East were largely under local government control and not in private hands. The military occupation of Iraq was the first major step in this US strategy to move oil into select private hands, Anglo-American Big oil hands.

However, while ultimate US military control over the vast oil resources of the Persian Gulf, was necessary to the Pentagon's agenda of Full Spectrum Dominance (unchallenged domination of the entire planet), it was not at all sufficient. So long as Russia remained a free agent and not yet under the thumb of US military domination, US control of Eurasia would remain impossible. Ultimate dismemberment or deconstruction of Russia's remaining nuclear arsenal and control of Russia's vast oil and gas resources remained the strategic priority of Washington.

The NATO encirclement of Russia, the Color Revolutions across Eurasia, and the war in Iraq, were all aspects of one and the same American geopolitical strategy: a grand strategy to de-construct Russia once and for all as a potential rival to a sole US Superpower hegemony.

British Royal Geographer, Sir Halford Mackinder [believed] the prime objective of both British and later, of United States, foreign policy and military policy was to prevent a unity, whether natural or un-natural, between the two great powers of the Eurasian landmass-Russia and China.

Postwar [WWII] American policy makers were drawn from a relatively small number of privileged families. Most of them were part of the influential circle around the Rockefeller family, especially John D. III and his banker brother, David Rockefeller. It was this particular group that determined postwar US-China policy.

Their goal was always to maintain a strategy of tension across Asia, and particularly in Eurasia. For example, the US would threaten Japan with the loss of US military protection if it did not follow US policy wishes, and it would seduce China by outsourcing US manufacture to China, while actually providing failing American manufacturers with huge profits.

Regardless of the tactics used, the end goal of US China Policy was the maintenance of control over China as the potential economic colossus of Asia-over its energy development, its food security, its economic development, its defense policy.., its very future.

... Washington policy, while still based on advancing US military hegemony, increasingly shifted to masquerading behind the issues of human rights and 'democracy' as weapons of psychological and economic warfare in its ongoing attempt to contain and control China and its foreign policy.

The creation of AFRICOM was Washington's response to its increasing loss of control over Africa's raw materials. China, not terrorism, was the unspoken reason for the new US military concern over Africa.

The Pentagon document - 2008 Army Modernization Strategy - stated that the objective of US Army strategy was to span and dominate the entire universe, not just the globe. It called for "an expeditionary, campaign-quality Army capable of dominating across the full spectrum of conflict, at any time, in any environment and against any adversary-for extended periods of time." The document went on, "the Army must concentrate its equipping and modernization efforts on two mutually supporting ends-restoring balance and achieving full-spectrum Dominance."

... [2008 Army Modernization Strategy] envisioned that the United States, for at least the next "thirty to forty years," would be engaged in continuous wars to control raw materials.

During the Cold War, US control of Africa and its vast mineral wealth had relied on assassination and civil wars which it covertly fuelled, or the cooperation of brutal former colonial powers such as Britain, France, Portugal or Belgium.

US policy towards China's economic emergence across Asia, Africa and beyond, incorporated unexpected weapons of war-'Human Rights' and 'Democracy.' Atypical as weapons of warfare, 'Democracy' and 'Human Rights' were a 21st Century version of the 1840 Opium Wars- tactics aimed at forcing China to open itself up to full US Superpower domination.

Both the NED [National Endowment for Democracy] and IRI [International Republican Institute] were the US State Department's primary vehicles to promote pro-US regime changes around the world.

The main US targets in the new 'Opium War' against China, euphemistically termed 'promotion of democracy,' were China's vital sources of raw materials. Specifically, the US targeted Myanmar, Sudan, and China itself - through the Dalai Lama organizations in Tibet and the Falun Gong 'religious' sect inside China. To accomplish their goal, the US clandestine intelligence services turned to an arsenal of NGOs they had carefully built up, using the battle cry of 'human rights violations' and weakening of 'democracy.'

This approach was part of a highly effective method of 'soft warfare' developed since the 1980's by US intelligence agencies to disarm and destabilize regimes it deemed 'uncooperative.' Countries to be targeted were singled out and repeatedly charged - typically in a massive international media assault led by CNN and BBC - as violators of 'human rights. The definition of human rights, of course, was contrived by the accusing country, the United States, which itself remained immune to similar charges. It was a controlled game in which US agencies, from the State Department to the intelligence community, worked behind the façade of a handful of extremely influential, allegedly 'neutral' and nonpartisan' NGOs.

In the 1980s, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, US intelligence agencies and the State Department spent billions of dollars to create an elaborate and sophisticated global network of NGOs and ostensibly philanthropic organizations. NGOs and 'foundations' would serve US strategy as a flank in its effort to bring the entire planet under its Full Spectrum Dominance. One Australian researcher of the process, Michael Barker, called it "the Project for a New American Humanitarianism, a human rights offensive."

The project had evolved by the dawn of the new Century into one of the most effective weapons to extend the influence of American global dominance. It had also managed to avoid major media scrutiny in the Western press. Barker described the concerted US deployment of various 'human rights and pro-'democracy' front organizations it funded, from the National Endowment for Democracy to Human Rights Watch and the Open Society Institutes.

The loose collection f concerned activists that coalesce within the Project for a New American Humanitarianism help sustain imperialism by both providing it with 'moral cover' and sanctioning the abandonment of the rule of law in the purported interest of human rights."

That was the weapon unleashed by Washington to force regime change in Myanmar, in a destabilization modeled on the color revolutions that Washington had used to bring corrupt, Washington-friendly despots to power in Georgia and Ukraine in 2004.

It was to become known as the 'Saffron Revolution' in Myanmar, in reference to the saffron robes of the protesting Buddhist monks. In Tibet, it was called the 'Crimson Revolution.' In Sudan it was called simply 'genocide.' In each case, the power of the Pentagon and US intelligence services, in coordination with the State Department and select NonGovernment Organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy, were involved in the 'weaponizing' of human rights to extend the control of US interests and prevent the rise of 'emerging near-peers,' specifically China and Russia.

Full Spectrum Dominance

Home Page