Long-term Pentagon Plan for Central Asia

Pentagon activity in Central Asia begun well before the War on Terror. “General Anthony Zinni says mid- and late 1990s.....

“US policy makers and officials have suggested different avenues of rationalization for the current and future presence.

• protecting energy resources and pipelines;
• deterring the resurrection of Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia;
• preventing Russian and/or Chinese hegemony;
• facilitating democratization and market reforms; and
• using Central Asia as a re-supply depot for possible action in Afghanistan, as preferred rationale for US presence. Moreover,
• Central Asia was mentioned as a launching pad in the future operations against Iraq and Iran"
  

Pentagon agenda is a long-term strategy of step-wise occupation and militarization of the entire region.

The instability and anti-Americanism created by US occupation and bombings of innocent civilians across Pakistan and Afghanistan also serves to supply a perfect pretext to expand the US militarization of all Central Asia

turmoil and instability US create is used to justify the military “peace keeping, what today are termed PKOs or Peace Keeping Operations, whether by

• NATO directly as in Afghanistan or in Kosovo, or by the

• UN in oil-rich Haiti since 2004, or oil-rich Darfur in Sudan since 2007, or the mineral-rich Democratic Republic of the Congo since 1999.

In April 2009 Petraeus says the US maintains a strong interest in long-term relationships with the Central Asian. “Central Asia constitutes a pivotal location on the Eurasian continent between Russia, China, and South Asia."

It is a major transit route for regional commerce and it supplies supporting Coalition efforts in Afghanistan"

Central Asia today is at the heart of global strategy for full spectrum dominance.

George H.W. Bush referred to it as the ‘The New World Order.’

Petraeus adopted the term used by Britain’s Sir Halford Mackinder, the father of Geopolitics, when he described Central Asia as a ‘pivot’ for US interests

Washington’s interest in Kyrgyzstan is comprehensible only when we consider it in the context of this Great Game – the Pentagon’s Eurasian geopolitical strategy to militarize the Pivot Area, or Heartland, as Mackinder later named it.