"But I also made it clear to (Vladimir Putin) that it's important to think beyond the old days of when we had the concept that if we blew each other up, the world would be safe."

George Bush - Washington DC May 1, 2001

For years Socialist Appeal and the International Marxist Tendency have been arguing that the world is an increasingly unstable place, where war threatens on many fronts and revolution and counter-revolution hang in the air. The bourgeois and the Labour right wing basically argue that it’s all down to evil people and that nice President Bush and the generals keep us all safe by attacking terrr’sts and keeping the world safe for freedom and ‘mockracy.

Even if you swallowed any of that nonsense, it’s hard to believe that your suspension of disbelief would stretch far enough to encompass the latest pearl of wisdom emanating from a group of Western military strategists.

“The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the ‘imminent’ spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new NATO by five of the west’s most senior military officers and strategists”.

The Guardian 22nd January 2008.

An indispensable instrument

As `part of a grand strategy to unite NATO and the Americans with the European union, these five ‘former army chiefs’ insist that ‘first strike’ nuclear weapons, are still an “indispensable instrument” while there is “simply no prospect of a nuclear free world”.

As we’ve argued for decades you can’t dis-invent nuclear weapons and as the war in Iraq has clearly shown, war is rooted in the whole nature of imperialism. The search for new markets and raw materials propels imperialism in the direct of world domination. So, on the basis of capitalism they may well be quite right in saying that nuclear weapons aren’t likely to just disappear.

After all, what better to threaten the ex colonial countries with than a first strike nuclear strategy? During the post war economic boom the American bourgeois preferred to use the dollar as its first strike weapon, but as we have explained the decline of US capitalism makes this untenable as does the huge global instability. Certainly the Americans have discovered that occupying Iraq is an untenable strategy. Evidence has existed since 2004 that the US military had no plan for a post invasion Iraq". Though according to Naomi Klein (see review of The shock doctrine in Socialist Appeal 159 ) no plan was precisely the plan.

Are we exaggerating? Has this debate taken place in some retirement home, where superannuated military types can play soldiers and swap their stories of derring-do?

Unfortunately not, in fact this “manifesto” has been written following discussion with current military commanders, bureaucrats and policy makers. However, they have in most cases been unwilling or unable to speak for themselves. Which as the next paragraph illustrates is hardly surprising.

“The risk of further [nuclear] proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible,” the authors argued in the 150-page blueprint for urgent reform of western military strategy and structures. “The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.”

The Guardian 22/1/2008

Far from a bunch of crusty old colonels the authors are no less than the former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff; General John Shalikashvili, former number one General; General Klaus Naumann, who was also ex chairman of Nato’s military committee, a former Dutch Chief of Staff Henk van den Breemen, Admiral Jacques Lanxade; former French Chief of Staff and former Field Marshal Lord Inge, ex chief of the British General Staff and the Defence Staff.

The west in their view hasn’t adapted to the post 9/11 world and accordingly is in danger, who from? The list is quite long and very informative.

•  Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.

• The ‘dark side’ of globalisation – international terrorism, organised crime and Weapons of Mass Destruction.

• Climate change and mass migrations stemming from it.

• The weakening of the nation state, NATO, the UN and the EU.

• Majority voting in NATO and the end of national vetoes.

• National caveats in NATO operations, such as Afghanistan.

• The use of force without UN Security Council authorisation, where immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings.

Unpicking the language, it’s clear that what they are mostly afraid of are the masses in the ex colonial countries and no doubt in the west. Not only that but the ‘weakening of the nation state’ reflects clearly the analysis that the Marxists have made about the crisis of the nation state against a background of world economy and world politics.

The institutions of the nation states; the UN, NATO and the EU are also held up as weak forces. Which when America’s attitude towards them is considered in the recent past would reinforce.

The ‘national caveats’ relating to NATO operations, reflects the contradictions that exist in the war in Afghanistan and the frustration that imperialists clearly feel. The report states that the group are very concerned about the current situation in Helmand province in Afghanistan.

The Guardian continues:

“Naumann conceded that the plan's retention of the nuclear first strike option was "controversial" even among the five authors. Inge argued that "to tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence".

Reserving the right to initiate nuclear attack was a central element of the west's cold war strategy in defeating the Soviet Union. Critics argue that what was a productive instrument to face down a nuclear superpower is no longer appropriate.

Robert Cooper, an influential shaper of European foreign and security policy in Brussels, said he was ‘puzzled’.

"Maybe we are going to use nuclear weapons before anyone else, but I'd be wary of saying it out loud."

A “manifesto” for the New World Order

This “manifesto” will get a hearing at NATO and among the imperialist powers. In a sense it’s nothing new, because as explained above during the cold war the Western powers took more or less a similar line against the Russians. But in a world with one “hyper-power” the situation is utterly different.

A western policy of asymmetrical nuclear war is a different issue altogether. The main thrust is ostensibly to fight the terrr’ists and uphold ‘mockracy. But this is a recipe to bully Iran, bully Pakistan, India, and whoever else they choose. American policy over centuries in relation to Latin America makes it not inconceivable that “secret CIA dossiers” might suddenly emerge listing Venezuela and Bolivia as potential rogue states.

At the time of the collapse of Stalinism the Marxist Tendency argued that a bourgeois Russia would become an imperialist force that would not be anywhere as stable as the Stalinist Bureaucracy. The Stalinists used the threat of the west to hold down the working class and the peasantry. But an imperialist capitalist Russia would be a different beast entirely. The forces that drive the capitalist market lead to conflict and war, as Lenin explained decades ago. Likewise the bourgeois have an eye on the development of India and particularly China, who will have imperialist aspirations of their own.

Napoleon famously said that you could do a lot of things with bayonets, but you can’t sit on them. The cold war strategy of the post war period involved rather a lot of sitting on nuclear weapons, because the alternative was to destroy the working class, the people who lay the golden eggs that the capitalist need for their profits and possibly to make the earth uninhabitable.

Dr Strangelove

Despite the image of these five Generals sitting on their nuclear bombs like modern day Dr Strangelove’s the outlook is not one of nuclear war.

The basis of another world war would have to be laid in the defeat of the working class internationally and the coming to power of a whole series of military police dictatorships in the west. There is a long way to go before this would become the most likely perspective. The workers would have many opportunities to take power. But given the huge instability on a world scale isolated incidents and accidents can take place. The world is a lot more dangerous than it was during the cold war.

In the meantime the world crisis of capitalism and imperialism affects all classes and influences their outlook. Capitalism is in a blind alley which is reflected in the utterances of these Generals. The only guarantee of peace and security for the world working class lies in the Socialist Transformation of Society and the building of a World Socialist Federation.