As the American author and writer Stephen Kinzer wrote, the Nazification of the American state occurred soon after World War II, when the American state was confronted with a complex and difficult choice. The choice for the American state soon after World War II was to either eliminate or imprison the Nazi experts and scientists who had surrendered to America after their defeat, or to employ them and use them for their knowledge and expertise which only they had at the time. What many folks may know or not know is that the Nazi state wielded an array of knowledge and technology which the Americans simply did not have during World War II. Hence, virtually all of the propagandistic and technological advancements of the American state since World War II have to be credited either partially or wholly to the Nazi experts and scientists who agreed to cooperate with the American state soon after World War II.
Hence, the contemporary American state has Nazi foundations and underpinnings which many of us either overlook or are simply unaware of. In turn, these Nazi foundations and underpinnings can explain American foreign policy to a certain extent. As mentioned before, the nominal head of the American state is the CIA director. The current CIA director, Bill Burns, argued that today’s CIA has “four priority areas” which in turn define the CIA in what is now a postmodern age: China, technology, people, and partnerships. As Burns argued:
“This is a pretty consequential moment – with the U.S. no longer the only big kid on the geopolitical block, but still with a stronger hand to play than any of our rivals. CIA has to help make the transition to a new era, and that means strengthening our capabilities in each of the four priority areas I highlighted in my confirmation hearing (China, technology, people, and partnerships).
What was then the ‘Soviet threat’ after World War II is now the ‘China threat’ in this day and age. Central to the U.S.-China dynamic and relationship is the “Security Dilemma” which I have mentioned a number of times before. Because China will soon surpass the United States as the world’s largest economy, it follows that China has also grown in military might as well, even though as Noam Chomsky noted, China’s current military budget is only about 20 or 30 percent of what America spent only in places like Afghanistan and Iraq over the last couple of decades.
Thus, the emerging “Security Dilemma” between China and the United States stems from the fact that while China contends that its military growth is for defensive purposes, the United States perceives China’s military growth as a direct threat. In turn, while America contends that its military presence in East Asia is aimed at self-defense and the defense of its allies, China perceives the American military presence in East Asia as a direct threat. Who is right and who is wrong?
However, Washington’s current perceptions of China might end up amounting to the mere residue of a ‘Cold War Mentality’ with Nazi foundations and underpinnings which was tailored towards the former Soviet Union in the 20th century. As Burns himself wrote in his memoir:
“Of course we ought to ensure that our military’s big stick is more imposing than anyone else’s, that our tool of last resort is potent and durable. But big sticks will only take us so far, and we need urgently to renovate diplomacy as our tool of first resort. Its importance in a post-primacy world is only growing, and we isolate only ourselves, not our rivals, by its deeply misguided assembly. Calculated neglect has already done permanent damage, and the sooner we reverse course, the better.”
What matters now is whether American government and American society choose to heed and apply the advice and the direction of their nominal head of state, or instead incline and gravitate towards defiance, insubordination, repression, and sabotage.
Adam A. Azim 